<p>It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has been unable to consider and adjudicate a large number of important cases which are awaiting its attention for months and even years. Many of these are cases that have a bearing on fundamental rights, involve important constitutional issues or have other consequences. The matter has been brought to the court’s attention and figured in public debates. A group of eminent citizens recently wrote an open letter to Chief Justice of India N V Ramana drawing his attention to the pending status of a number of important cases and requesting him to list them for early hearing. The letter noted that early disposal of these cases would “restore the faith that we as citizens repose in the judiciary and the Supreme Court.” The court’s failure in this respect has been glaring and inexplicable. </p>.<p>Some of the cases that call for the court’s attention are those concerning the scrapping of Article 370 and petitions challenging the sedition law, the UAPA, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the electoral bonds scheme. There are other cases, too. Some of these have been pending for more than two years and it is difficult to imagine what justification can be adduced for the court not taking them up. The shortage of judges, which is usually cited as the reason for judicial delays, should be no reason now because the Supreme Court has a near-full complement of judges after the recent addition of nine judges. In any case, a shortage of judges should not be a ground for not taking up cases of serious import when the court has the time to take up the bail petition of a journalist or to go into complaints about the breach of the Prime Minister’s security. These are also important cases and the court took the right decisions about them. But some cases of equal and even bigger import have so far been ignored by the court. </p>.<p>The constraints imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic cannot also be a reason for not taking up these cases. Some of them involve constitutional issues and are better suited for virtual hearings as elaborate witness examinations are not needed. Some of the cases that are waiting to be heard are those in which government policies are controversially involved. The court’s failure to adjudicate them may lead to irreversible consequences. The court’s decisions may become useless or infructuous if they are delayed, and the wrong and unjust actions, which were challenged, would prevail. Delays often disadvantage one of the parties to a case, and it is usually the one who goes to court with a grievance. The court must ensure that no one gets an unfair benefit from its delays. Justice delayed would truly become justice denied. </p>
<p>It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court has been unable to consider and adjudicate a large number of important cases which are awaiting its attention for months and even years. Many of these are cases that have a bearing on fundamental rights, involve important constitutional issues or have other consequences. The matter has been brought to the court’s attention and figured in public debates. A group of eminent citizens recently wrote an open letter to Chief Justice of India N V Ramana drawing his attention to the pending status of a number of important cases and requesting him to list them for early hearing. The letter noted that early disposal of these cases would “restore the faith that we as citizens repose in the judiciary and the Supreme Court.” The court’s failure in this respect has been glaring and inexplicable. </p>.<p>Some of the cases that call for the court’s attention are those concerning the scrapping of Article 370 and petitions challenging the sedition law, the UAPA, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the electoral bonds scheme. There are other cases, too. Some of these have been pending for more than two years and it is difficult to imagine what justification can be adduced for the court not taking them up. The shortage of judges, which is usually cited as the reason for judicial delays, should be no reason now because the Supreme Court has a near-full complement of judges after the recent addition of nine judges. In any case, a shortage of judges should not be a ground for not taking up cases of serious import when the court has the time to take up the bail petition of a journalist or to go into complaints about the breach of the Prime Minister’s security. These are also important cases and the court took the right decisions about them. But some cases of equal and even bigger import have so far been ignored by the court. </p>.<p>The constraints imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic cannot also be a reason for not taking up these cases. Some of them involve constitutional issues and are better suited for virtual hearings as elaborate witness examinations are not needed. Some of the cases that are waiting to be heard are those in which government policies are controversially involved. The court’s failure to adjudicate them may lead to irreversible consequences. The court’s decisions may become useless or infructuous if they are delayed, and the wrong and unjust actions, which were challenged, would prevail. Delays often disadvantage one of the parties to a case, and it is usually the one who goes to court with a grievance. The court must ensure that no one gets an unfair benefit from its delays. Justice delayed would truly become justice denied. </p>
