Administration of Justice

Each litigant ought to be provided a fair chance of hearing to present and plead his case and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the merits of the case.

When the foundation of an administrative order disappears, the superstructure built upon it cannot survive.

Every litigant deserves a fair chance of being heard and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the facts of the case.

It is imperative that Constitutional courts of the country continue to institutionalize this practice, especially in matters of significant public consequence or global relevance

The amicus curiae serve as a vital bridge between law and justice, local realities and global perspectives, the bench and the academy

Embracing this inclusive model of judicial deliberation enhances not only the legitimacy and quality of judgments, but also affirms the judiciary's commitment to learning, openness, and Constitutional dialogue.

However, in the administration of justice, it is crucial to recognize that not all mistakes warrant strict punitive measures

To give life to the principle that wrong must not go unpunished, and that right must not go un enforced, a degree of leniency must be accorded to errors that do not stem from contumacy or intentional misconduct

By adopting a more forgiving approach towards certain minor mistakes, the judiciary can prevent the rigid application of rules from hindering the broader mission of justice delivery

This perspective is vital because the judiciary is respected not because it has the technical ability to legitimize unfairness, instead, its respect is rooted in its fundamental role as an arbiter of fairness, capable of identifying and rectifying injustices

The expectation that the judiciary must act to eliminate any form of injustice serves as a cornerstone of trust in the legal system

It is this ability to prioritize substantial justice over mere technical compliance that fortifies the integrity and efficacy of our legal processes.

Whether a person's status as an absconder in a criminal case can operate as a bar to the pursuit of civil or service-law remedies

Legality

The right of access to justice cannot be curtailed merely because a person stands accused, or has absconded, in another domain of law.

When the foundation of an administrative order disappears, the superstructure built upon it cannot survive.

Each litigant ought to be provided a fair chance of hearing to present and plead his case and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the merits of the case.

Whether a person's status as an absconder in a criminal case can operate as a bar to the pursuit of civil or service-law remedies

Legality

The right of access to justice cannot be curtailed merely because a person stands accused, or has absconded, in another domain of law.

Every litigant deserves a fair chance of being heard and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the facts of the case.

Relief may only granted on the basis of existing rights and actual infringement thereof, not of imaginary and hypothetical causes

Courts must be cautious in entertaining claims which are premature, uncertain or not ripe for adjudication

No suit can be instituted for future cause of action that may or may not arise.

Question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact, cannot be effectively decided without recording of evidence.

When a thing is required to be done in a particular manner that must be done in that manner and not otherwise.

When a thing is required to be done in a particular manner prescribed by law, it must be done in that manner alone and not otherwise.

Any exercise of power beyond the statutory framework is antithetical to the rule of law and undermines the integrity of the judicial process

When a court steps outside its jurisdiction or renders a decision in contradiction to established legal principles, such a decision is void ab initio and nullity in the eyes of law.

Historically, 'natural justice' has been used in a way which implies the existence of moral principles of self-evident and unarguable truth

Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules

Being means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules

But two fundamental maxims of natural justice are pre-eminently necessary to ensure that the law is applied impartially, objectively and fairly

Described in the form of Latin tags these twin principles are, (i) audi alteram partem and (ii) nemo judex in re sua.

The process must uphold the principles of natural justice and fair trial, ensuring that no party suffers prejudice during adjudication.

When law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner.

When the record of the Trial court is attached with the appeal then there is no need to summon the record of the Trial court and the same is to be considered.

If the prescribed procedure was not followed, it would be presumed that the same had not been done in accordance with law.

A litigant cannot be non-suited by allowing laches to be stumbling block in the way of dispensation of justice since rule of laches is applied in accordance with facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be made rule of universal application.

When law requires a thing to be done in a manner, the same must be done accordingly and if the prescribed procedure is not followed, it would be presumed that the same has not been done in accordance with law.

Courts, as are pository of justice and in exercise of judicial power of the State, are obligated to dispense and administer justice and in the performance of this sacrosanct obligation, can neither cause nor become instrumental to perpetuate the injustice

Any act of Court perpetuating injustice would amount to undermining the sacrosanct existence of the Courts of law.

Where the law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that way and not otherwise.

Mere expediency of a case could not always mean a hasty and hurried decision without application of judicious mind, yet the court where the said decision has been called in question is always competent to see whether the decision issued due to expediency has advanced the cause of justice or has resulted in prejudice to the rights of any party and for that purpose the court has always to keep in mind the two time tested principles that 'Justice delayed is justice denied' and 'Justice hurried is justice buried' and balance has to be kept between these two principles to avoid prejudice to any party

Hasty decisions that cause prejudice to a party are generally deprecated by courts.

The expectation that the judiciary must act to eliminate any form of injustice serves as a cornerstone of trust in the legal system

It is this ability to priorities substantial justice over mere technical compliance that fortifies the integrity and efficacy of our legal processes.

Principally, Courts should avoid pejorative remarks against non-parties and unjust criticism of parties; vilifying them should also be avoided

Judges can criticize relevant matters and witnesses but should avoid criticizing those in official positions without valid justification, that is subject to jurisdiction

Presiding Officer of the Court must give a person the opportunity to explain condemnatory facts before criticizing him/her

This is especially important for public servants, who should be given a chance to defend themselves before being criticized

Criticizing someone without giving them a chance to respond is unfair and may be considered outside the judge's jurisdiction

Judges must be independent and also fair and restrained

They should only criticize people if they have a chance to defend themselves if there is evidence to support the criticism, and if it is necessary for the case

Judicial pronouncements should be sober, moderate and reserved.

When law provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, it shall to be done in that manner, or not done at all.

When law requires a thing to be done in particular manner then, it should be done in that manner and anything done in conflict of the command of law shall be unlawful being prohibited or not permissible.

It is indispensable and imperative sense of the duty of a Court in application of law and its interpreting to essentially delve into and realistically discover the intention of the legislature about the statutes

It is not possible for Trial Court to take departure from the amplitude of evidential rules by importing a particular rule in order to decide the matter summarily.

The Court cannot force or knock out someone's suit having variegated style and nature of lis.

Another important canon of law is that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.

The Court cannot force or knock out someone's suit having variegated style and nature of lis.

When the legislature requires the doing of a thing in a particular manner then it is to be done in that manner and all other manners or modes of doing or performing that thing are barred.

Courts are empowered by the law to adopt this course and dispense an effective decree which settles the rights of the parties forming the part of the same issue in order to avoid multiple legal actions

Courts cannot deny relief just because there is a defect in the prayer and such relief has not been asked for

Courts are not powerless to overlook such defects.

Where the law requires an act to be done in particular manner it has to be done in that manner alone and such dictate of law cannot be compromised by any manner or cannot be ignored or dispensed with.

Courts cannot grant relief in a manner that runs contrary to express statutory provisions.

Contention being that the High Court failed to address the legal points formulated at the time of passing in its admission order

Validity

Once the High Court concluded that the petitioner failed to challenge the appointment notification of respondent, which was the crux of the matter, there was no necessity to delve into other legal points

Courts are not supposed to adjudicate upon ancillary or academic points when the main issue in the case has been conclusively decided

No illegality or infirmity in the High Court's impugned judgment had been noticed

Petitioner failed to point out any substantial question of law warranting the grant of leave to appeal

Petition was dismissed.

Laws and Rules are enacted and formulated as well as promulgated in order to streamline working and functioning of institution(s), Court(s) and forum(s)

If any institution(s) is functioning without formal rule(s) or regulation(s) and any parameters, making its employee(s) answerable and accountable for act(s) or fault, it would cause an anomalous situation and such institution(s) would not remain functional for a long time

Same is the situation in judicial system, if litigants are allowed to proceed with their matters without following rules and regulations, framed and promulgated to lead litigation to ultimate end at the earliest, it would not only increase burden upon Court(s) but also destroy trust of general public upon the judicial system

Litigants cannot be permitted to take the Courts for granted and proceed with the lis as per their whims and wishes as well as cause agony to their rival parties without any progress in the matter(s) brought against them (rival party).

Function of Court is to administer substantial justice between parties after providing ample opportunity for hearing which is a significant component and virtue of a fair trial

Procedure serves as machinery with the object of facilitating and not obstructing administration of justice

Technical objections have to be construed liberally and should not be allowed to defeat substantial justice.

Judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously and transparently, based on established principles and sound reasoning.

Such principles require that delinquent should be afforded fair opportunity to converge, explain, and contest claims against him before he is found guilty and condemned

Principles of natural justice and fair-mindedness are grounded in philosophy of affording right of audience before any detrimental action is taken, in tandem with its ensuing constituent that the foundation of any adjudication or order of a quasi-judicial authority, statutory body, or any departmental authority regulated under some law, must be rational and impartial, and decision-maker has an adequate level of decision-making independence

Reasons of decision arrived at should be amply well-defined, just, and understandable

It is incumbent that all judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with judicious and evenhanded approach to ensure justice according to the tenor of law and without any violation of the principles of natural justice.

If the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done accordingly, otherwise it would not be in compliance with the legislative intent.

Every judge must abide by the law and must not fall prey to the process of the Court being misused nor should in any manner become a party.

Where a party, despite acting with reasonable diligence, is misled by the Court or fails to receive timely guidance about jurisdictional matters, the resulting delay or error is not entirely attributable to that party

If there is contributory negligence of the person knocking the door of the court and also by the court, then the person knocking the wrong door cannot be deprived of his/her legal rights available under the law.

Delay in adjudicating cases by the courts at any tier of the justice system corrodes public confidence in the judiciary, undermines the rule of law, and disproportionately harms the weak and vulnerable who cannot afford the cost of prolonged litigation

Delay in adjudication carries severe macroeconomic and societal consequences: it deters investment, renders contracts illusory, and weakens the institutional legitimacy of the judiciary

A justice system's credibility rests not only in the fairness of its decisions but also in the timeliness with which those decisions are rendered.

Excessive use of lawful power is in itself unlawful.

In post-authoritarian regimes, “transitional justice” forms a crucial part of the transition from repressive authoritarianism to constitutional democracy

It involves uncovering the crimes of former authoritarian rulers and holding them accountable for past human rights violations, including unlawful detentions, imprisonments and politically motivated trials

Transitional justice, however, is not about vengeance or retribution but about a principled approach to healing and justice

Courts globally have affirmed that they must address the demands of victims for truth and justice while laying the foundation for societal reconciliation and systemic transformation

This dual focus on accountability and restoration is what sets transitional justice apart from ordinary judicial processes

Transitional justice, therefore, encompasses a set of methods through which states that have experienced fundamental human rights violations seek to distance themselves from that past and move forward in a manner consistent with the need for justice for those who have suffered from these violations

These methods of transitional justice include truth and reconciliation commissions and the criminal prosecution of former authoritarian rulers

Furthermore, holding both executive and judicial institutions accountable for their actions during the period of authoritarian repression, as well as exonerating past victims of state repression and miscarriages of justice, is essential for facilitating the transition of these state institutions toward greater respect for, and promotion of, the rule of law and fundamental human rights

Transitional justice encompasses broader mechanisms, including revisiting flawed judicial decisions made during authoritarian regimes through compromising due process and fair trial requirements

This process helps restore fairness and legitimacy in the legal system

By revisiting and rendering opinions on the fairness and legitimacy of such decisions, the Court delivers justice to affected individuals and sends a powerful message: judicial complicity with authoritarianism will not be shielded from scrutiny

This approach reinforces judicial independence, ensures accountability for regime-orchestrated injustices, and establishes a precedent for discrediting flawed judicial decisions rendered under oppressive regimes

Such actions underscore the judiciary's commitment to constitutional principles, reminding past and future judges of their duties and the need to resist authoritarian pressure

Ultimately, this helps safeguard democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

Quintessence of continuing wrong is an act which triggers a continuing source of injury but the Courts should not be fervent or zealous to hold continuing wrong or default unless the language of statute or its provision clearly expresses such intention of legislature, or the nature of such injury is considered continuing, or it is based on a recurring cause of action.

AI lacks ability to feel emotional tenor, to de-escalate tension between parties, or to recognize the power of silence in a negotiation

AI also cannot build trust across the table through empathy, qualities essential to successful mediation

This is where human mediators continue to hold the advantage

AI may be able to streamline many facets of legal practice, it cannot replicate deeply human process of mediation, where the emphasis is on understanding, negotiating, and resolving conflicts through human interaction

Mediation is emerging as the future power player in dispute resolution.