IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

This article is based on hard practical realities being prevailed in the courts of Justice in the interest of Justice. The age of case is longer than that of period of generation in our country due to the ' in the interest of Justice ' system.

Unfortunately there is no provision in the Law to restrain or curtail the custom of adjournment ' in the interest of Justice'. In civil litigation, Litigation is given as a gift to the second or third generation in heritage due to the system.

Whether the interest of Justice is really fulfilled by the term ' in the interest of Justice'  or whose interest is satisfied  for obtaining Justice after the span of two decades or longer than that period. Sometimes the case is older than the period of practice of advocate who handles it and the same scenario is with bench as well. As a lawyer I have observed the pitiable plight of the litigants who come to the Courts with the hope that Justice will be given to them but at the end of the day, month, year or years, they obtain a 'date ' in the interest of Justice but not Justice. The litigants are already sufferer before knocking down the doors of the Court, they become more sufferer after entering into the court. They are mentally, physically, socially and financially ruined in the interest of Justice.

The litigants, sometimes, compel themselves to settle their cases, though their cases are genuine, they think that though their cases are genuine, though they are right, cases are unnecessarily dragged or prolonged more and more years, it is better to settle the cases with the other side, how much he is at the fault is irrespective. Kasab case, expenses behind that case is the best example of" in the  interest of Justice" .

Sometimes, an unborn child is gifted litigation when it is in the womb of its mother, before it comes to this beautiful world. In such a case who is responsible ? the society, people, system, custom of ' in the interest of Justice'. 
The system or custom-  in the interest of Justice , is the mother of Lok Adalat, Arbitration, conciliation and such other settlement mode in the law. If the Justice is made within stipulated time, no such mode of settlement is required.
The accused in criminal case and the defendant in civil case enjoy this system and the genuine complainant or the plaintiff is crushed with no fault of him. For the complainant or plaintiff as the case may be, court is a temple, Justice is 'Aaradhya Dev', but the irony is that that God ( Aaradhya Dev) is always pleased with the accused or defendant by giving 'prasad' i.e. adjournment. In the name of Justice the poor devotee i.e. complainant or the plaintiff is reciting all types of prayers to please that God who is known as Justice but in vein. When the Justice is not pleased within time, his prayer becomes futile and after his death, his legal heirs have to stand in a queue for the same Justice. The question arises in my mind is that whether it is the fruit of karma of that person who had been standing in a queue for justice for two to three decades or it it the fruit of ' in the interest of Justice'.
A society has three main poles. (1) education (2) medical and (3) judicial system. When either of these three poles become cripple, the social balance of the society will not be at its axis and it will be trembling and thereafter tumbling. We have watched and heard from Hindi movies, that Goddess of Justice has tied a black ribbon before her eyes so that nothing wrong can be done and she is not influenced by anyone, however, she is listening the cries of litigants or she is deaf is a question of fact or she may be listening only one voice i.e. voice of adjournment.  in the interest of justice as if a toy,having key which starts playing or reciting something until its capacity, and recites the jingle Bell jingle bell i.e. adjournment .... adjournment...in the name and interest of Justice... adjournment... This Goddess of Justice does not listen the cries of litigants, the voices, pain and agony of the litigants or she listens them provided that they have genuine evidence for their cries, pain and agony.  The generation is changed till the time when the stage of evidence comes in the cases. The poor next generation,due to the lack of complete knowledge of the case, becomes cripple in the court of Justice and most of the time lose the case. In this situation, the advocate of the defendant feels pride and says his client, " see, I have defeated them and won the case". - but after the span of twenty years or more than that, and of course, that victory is not due to the hard work of that lawyer but misfortune of the plaintiff or it is due to the lack of personal knowledge of the next generation which has been gifted litigation in heritage.

Sometimes the advocate passes away, though he is advocate,  he is mortal. The newly appointed advocate knows nothing about the case in detail. It may be due to short time or due to the lack of knowledge of next generation , so again the custom of adjournment is commenced and continued in that case. Is the element of interest of justice not vapoured  or justice not faded away from the case  after certain long period due to ' in the interest of Justice system?
If the case is completed and is kept for order or judgment, the Judge who is competent to adjudicate the case, has not given verdict for few months or sometimes for a year and the dilemma of system is that one fine morning, the litigants come to know that judge is transferred to another place. Again in the interest of Justice , rehearing of the entire case has to be made before new judge and the case is pending in the department until the appointment of new judge.  The cases are in the storage of department of courts for years and years thereafter  one fine morning the case is allotted/ cases are allotted to new judge who tries to be strict saying that, " why the matter is pending since long, I would dismiss it unless it is processed". At that time it seems that  that judge is alien with the system being prevailed in the courts.

Who is responsible for such situation.?.- bar, bench, litigants, police, administrative staff of courts or either of them or all of them or none of them or WE,the people of India ?  The preamble of constitution of India begins with " WE the PEOPLE OF INDIA".
To conclude it can be said that the true reasons for non proceedings of  the case are many but the important reason is that the case is put up in the court of Justice to obtain the justice but 'in the interest of Justice' , justice and interest both ought not to be  vanished from the court of Justice as Court of Justice is considered as temple of justice. People have much faith in judiciary.  As an advocate and officer of the court, it is my moral and professional duty to honour the judiciary first and to maintain the decorum of judiciary system first and that's why it's my humble request to all the legal fraternities NOT to take and not to grant unnecessary adjournment 'in the interest of Justice' otherwise the purpose of the term 'in the interest of Justice' becomes infructuous as the 'Bar & Bench'  is the throbbing heart of our Nation.

Note: The purpose of writing this article is NOT to speak anything wrong or to hurt any person of Bar and Bench directly or indirectly. 

Chirag Bhatt
Advocate
9824025041

Whether a decree is followed by decision taken by Charity Commissioner U/S. 50-A of The Gujarat Public Trust Act ,1950 ?

One fine morning, my very good friend Advocate Pratik Chaudhari discussed with me various provisions of The Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 ( herein after referred  as the Act). One interesting point  discussed between us was related to the provisions of section 50-A read with section 72 of the Act. That discussion became the source of inspiration to write this article. Let me discuss it in detail.

The interesting point was that decision taken by the Charity Commissioner under Section 50-A of the Act required a Decree to be drawn. To  elaborate this issue, it is obvious to discuss about the provisions of Section 50, 50-A and 72 of the Act and the definition of Decree provided under section 2(2) of Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC).

Section 50 embodies suit relating to the public Trusts which says that suit is instituted for the various reliefs mentioned in that section. Such as  order of recovery of the possession of suit property, removal  or appointment of any trustee or manager, vesting any property in a trustee, a direction for taking account or making certain inquiries, declaration as to what proportion of the Trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the Trust, a direction authorising the whole or any part of the Trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged, the settlement or alterations in a scheme already settled or granting such other relief as the nature of the case may require.

As per the second proviso of Section 50 of the Act, the Charity Commissioner has two options. (1) he may institute a suit or (2) he may make an application to the Court for a variation or alteration in a scheme already settled.

Perusal of Section 50-A of the Act, it transpires that Charity Commissioner has power to frame a scheme for the management or administration of public Trust. Section 50-A is used for the subjects mentioned in sub section 2(A) of Section 50-A such as the number of the trustees, the mode of appointment of trustees which includes appointment of first trustees, vesting the trust property in the trustees so appointed, mode of filing  vacancy of a trustee, the remuneration of a trustee or manager of the Public Trust or a clarification of the objects of the Public Trust.

Section 50-A (4) of the Act is very much important to answer the question mentioned in the title of this Article. 

Section 50-A (4) says that the scheme framed under sub section (1) or (2) or modified u/s (3) shall have effect as a scheme settled or altered, as the case may be, under a decree of a court under section 50 , subject to the decision of the competent court under section 72.

Now the definition of Decree provided in Section 2(2) of CPC speaks about formal expression an adjudication of a Court which conclusively determines the right of the parties with regards to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit.  It is clear by this definition that Decree is drawn after completion of the suit and not an application.

Section 72  of the Act says to file an application is required to be filed within sixty days before a court to set aside  the decision taken by the  Charity Commissioner and not the suit as mentioned in the definition of Decree.

Considering the above mentioned legal scenerio, my answer of the issue whether a Decree is followed by the  decision of Charity Commissioner under section 50 -A of the Act  is as under:

Section 50 -A (4)  is in connection with section 50  and section 72 of the Act, however, section 72 is only in connection with section 50-A and not with s.50.
Section 72 is applied in respect of the decision taken by Charity Commissioner under Section 50-A and Section 50-A is read with Section 50 for the purpose of a Decree with regards to get the scheme effected. Section 72 says that an aggrieved person may file an application to the Court to set aside the decision taken by Charity Commissioner u/s. 50-A. The scheme framed by Charity Commissioner shall be effective only under a decree of a Court u/s.50 of the Act.
Section 72(4) plays an important role as it says that an appeal shall lie to the High Court against the decision of the Court under sub section (2) as if such decision was a decree from which an appeal ordinary lies. Now the question is why the word 'as if' is mentioned in section 72 (4) by the Legislature or what should be the intention of them to place the word 'as if' in that section. The reasons are as under.
1) S. 50-A does not speak about suit proceedings.
2) It does not speak about Court proceedings.
3) It speaks about power of Charity Commissioner qua framing the schemes.
4) Section 50-A (4) says that a scheme framed  or modified under S.50 (1),(2) and (3) respectively shall have effect as a scheme under a Decree of a court u/s. 50.
5) S.72 says about application and not for suit. 
Hence the term 'as if' is mentioned by the Legislature.

To conclude , I am of the  considered opinion that  a decision of framing the scheme taken by Charity Commissioner is followed by a Decree in accordance with the  reading of Section 50-A (4) with Section 50 and Section 72.  Further, as per Section 76 of the Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under the Trust Act and appeal is against the decision of the Court under section 72(2), however,  the legal  dilemma is that if the decree is not executed for a certain period of time, what would be the legal and factual situation is a question and the purpose of section 50-A becomes vitiated.

Chirag Bhatt
Advocate
9824025041