First things, Mr CJ

AN EFFICIENT judiciary is vital to the operation of any democratic society based on the rule of law. That fact is well established and needs no emphasis from us. So when Chief Justice Sat Sharma calls for a sizeable increase in the complement of judges it is a matter, we feel, that should be taken seriously. One can only assume from such a request that the workload of the judiciary has reached a level where cases are piling up to the point where the delay in delivering justice can become a denial of it. Mr Sharma, however, does not make out such a case and, as far as we know, if there is a backlog it may not be critical and, in fact, may well be resolved by improvements in the procedural and operational infrastructure of our courts.

Over recent years, in fact, this newspaper has repeatedly called for an end to the outmoded and time-wasting procedure of judges and magistates recording notes of evidence in their own handwriting. The system of CAT reporting has been working well in murder trials where judges have been relieved of this burden. Why can't this technology be extended to the rest of the Assizes where other criminal cases are tried, in the civil courts and also in the magistrates' courts? It is our view that the first priority in seeking to enhance the productivity of our courts should be to provide the system with adequate infrastructure and our judges with better facilities. The serious problem of delay in appeals from the lower courts reaching the Court of Appeal is due largely to this obsolete practice of magistrates having to write down notes of evidence themselves. Also relieving judges of this chore must surely assist in expediting the operation of our courts.

At present, the Appeal Court has eight sitting judges including the CJ with vacancies for two. But we understand that, inspite of the vacancies, this Court is well abreast of the task and there is no list of appeal matters waiting to be heard. In such pleasant circumstances we cannot see the need for adding two more judges to the Appeal Court. Should not filling the vacancies be more than enough? As far as the High Court is concerned, Mr Sharma wants to augment the complement of judges from 20 to 30 but we are not convinced that he has made out a justifiable case for such an increase. The CJ says: "You must remember, there are now additional cases on the scene. With the kind of workload, the complexity and length of cases, the number of defendants in more than one case, the increase in criminal activity, there is definite need for more judges."

Mr Sharma, however, produces no statistics to support his argument about a bigger workload. We agree that there has been an increase in criminal activity, but to what extent has that translated into such pressure on our courts as to require the employment of ten more judges? And is there really an increase in the complexity and length of cases? What can be causing this? But even if we concede there is need for more judges, where will they be accomodated in a Hall of Justice that is virtually bursting at its seams. Mr Sharma himself has publicly complained about the inadequacy of space and amenities in this building which, he said, does not even have a shower for judges. The expanding operations of the Court Executive Administrator are gobbling up more and more space, encroaching even into the judges' conference room; there are not enough court rooms; the judges' chambers are almost as small as the prison cells they sentence offenders into, parking space is inadequate and the Hall of Justice itself is losing the atmosphere and ambience of hallowed sanctity it should have as the last bastion of our democracy. These are far more critical matters, in our view, than simply increasing the number of judges.