Summary
Arising from prolonged custody while a criminal appeal awaited hearing, this judgment considered systemic measures for speedy justice. The Supreme Court invited examination of structural reforms, timely judicial appointments, central selection and expert assistance consistent with judicial independence. It directed reporting on lawyers’ strikes and their effect on access to justice, with possible later action against responsible office-bearers. The Union was to file an affidavit within three months and the first strike report by 30 June 2018. Bail or the conviction merits were not decided in the appellant’s favour.
Issues
- What systemic measures should be considered to address delayed criminal appeals and access to speedy justice.
- How vacancies, appointments and performance mechanisms could be addressed consistently with judicial independence.
- What reporting and possible enforcement should address lawyers’ strikes.
Held
- Speedy access to justice forms part of Articles 14 and 21. The Court recognised restructuring as primarily a policy matter but called for examination of appropriate alternative fora and decongestion measures. It did not itself establish new appellate courts or transfer pending appeals to them. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 31, 33, 52(i))
- The authorities were asked to consider central selection for courts below the constitutional courts, improvements to existing appointment procedures and expert assistance before and after appointment, without affecting judicial independence or the Chief Justice’s primacy. These were matters for consideration, not a replacement appointment scheme enacted by the judgment. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 52(ii)–(iii))
- Unlawful strikes obstruct access to justice and can attract contempt consequences. The Ministry of Law and Justice was directed to compile quarterly information on strikes, resulting loss and proposed action. Any restraint on appearance or removal of responsible office-bearers was contemplated for later consideration on the particular facts, rather than automatically imposed on named persons by this judgment. (¶¶ 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52(iv))
- The appeal was disposed of on these terms, with a Union affidavit within three months, first quarterly report by 30 June 2018 and listing before an appropriate Bench on 4 July 2018. The earlier notice had expressly declined bail and confined consideration to remedying delay. (¶¶ 4, 5, 53)
Result
Appeal disposed of with systemic-reform observations and reporting directions. Union affidavit due within three months, first strike report by 30 June 2018 and further listing on 4 July 2018; no grant of bail or merits reversal of conviction.