1

CONTROL OF COURT ROOM BY A JUDGE AND MAGISTRATE

Subject: Court Management

Submitted to: Prof. Jagbir Dahiya Ms. Bharti Yadav Submitted by: Gaurav Govinda (2008-21) Gauri Sachdeva (2008-22) B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

National Law University, Delhi

CHAPTER- I INTRODUCTION A judge is the person in charge of the Court. Barring any unforeseen event, the proceeding before a Judge has to be controlled by him. Therefore the judge has not only a role to play in the Courtroom during the proceeding but also post proceeding which mostly deals with the administrative role of the Judge. During the commencing hour of the Court it is the duty of the judge to check the proper decorum, and the proceeding of the Court room as he is the presiding officer of the Court. As per the justice delivery system he performs a judicial role which is also dependent on the administrative role of the judge. It is for the judge to decide, for example, how many cases should be scheduled for hearing on any given day, how much time has to be granted for completing the procedural formalities such as completion of pleadings, how many adjournments if any, should be granted in a case and how much time has to be allotted for the hearing of a case. Systematic and proper management of time in respect of each case will go a long way in reducing the delays. Judicial management to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on the court or the litigants and to expedite the case, keep costs reasonable, and promote effective decision making by the court, the parties and the counsel. Depending upon the complexity of a case, the judge decides what tasks to delegate to a subordinate judicial officer. 1.1 Research Methodology:

The traditional doctrinal nature of research has been employed by the researcher by referring to various text books and articles available on the online data bases. The researcher has consulted books from the library of National Law School University, Delhi. Various enlightening articles from eminent law journals have also been used. All books and articles were used to get as indepth an analysis as possible in this project. 1.2 Research Questions: 1. Whether the Role of the Judge is only restricted to the Judicial sphere? 2. Does the Control of the Judge also operate outside the Court room? 3. Whether other stakeholders have any role to play in assisting the Judge in his functioning?

1.3

Research Hypothesis:

1.4

Scheme of Chapterization:

The traditional adversary relationship is suffused and intermixed with negotiating and mediating processes at every point. So, how does a judge or juror know whether a witness is providing an honest version of events and is not engaging in perjury and lying through his/her teeth? This issue is not trivial; in an adversarial system, most trials feature contradictory testimony by witnesses. Further, in many cases, there is little or no evidence other than conicting stories told by the complainant and defendant, and decision-making is guided almost entirely by credibility assessments. For example, the judge in the Air India mass murder case (R. v. Malik & Bagri, 2005) concluded that the case essentially reduced to a credibility contest: the determination of guilt devolves to the weighing of the credibility of a number of witnesses who testied in these proceedings. Treat all parties with respect Start Court timely Take lunch timely Adjourn Court timely Manage expectations Review your Cases Be familiar with the Laws, Regulations Speaking Order Disciplinary measures If a situation arises and gets to verbal altercation then separate parties

CHAPTER II ROLE OF JUDGE IN THE COURTROOM PROCEEDING The judge is the dominant figure in organizing and guiding the case in the courtroom, and he draws for support not only the parties and their counsel, but on a wide range of outsiders, masters, experts, and oversight personnel. Most important, the trial judge has increasingly become the creator and manager of complex forms of ongoing relief, which have widespread effects on persons not before the court and require the judge's continuing involvement in administration and implementation. Therefore the role of Judge in controlling the courtroom does play an important place which cannot be neglected. Being Adversarial system, the courts, it seems, continue to rely primarily on the litigants to produce and develop factual materials, but a number of factors make it impossible to leave the organization of the trial exclusively in their hands. With the diffusion of the party structure, fact issues are no longer sharply drawn in a confrontation between two adversaries, one asserting the affirmative and the other the negative. The litigation is often extraordinarily complex and extended in time, with a continuous and intricate interplay between factual and legal elements. The scope of the fact investigation and the sheer volume of factual material that can be exhumed by the discovery process pose enormous problems of organization and assimilation. All these factors thrust the trial judge into an active role in shaping, organizing and facilitating the litigation.1 This also brings out the fact that the judge has to evaluate the evidences produced and the arguments, witnesses presented by the parties in support of each case. Therefore, the judge requires not to be passive, his function limited to analysis and statement of governing legal rules has been broadened; he is active, with responsibility not only for credible fact evaluation but for organizing and shaping the litigation to ensure a just and viable outcome. The extended impact of the judgment demands a more visibly reliable and credible procedure for establishing and evaluating the fact elements in the litigation, and one that more explicitly recognizes the complex and continuous interplay between fact evaluation and legal consequence. The major response to the new requirements has been to place the responsibility for fact finding

MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION (I973).

increasingly on the trial judge. The whole trial procedure also requires the judge to monitor the whole case from the initiation till the execution of the decree. Therefore the Judicial Management as a term used to describe all aspects of judicial involvement in the administrative and management of courts and the cases before them includes procedural activism by judges in trial stage. Case management in courts is often, but not always, performed by judges. When it is performed by judges it is referred to as Judicial case management. As in the adversarial system of court in the tradition practice the judge has to give ruling which is argued and guided by the lawyer. But the objective of new case management includes early disposal of disputes, reduction of trial time etc, which leaves a burden in that hands of Judge as well. Therefore the control of judge in a courtroom extends to matters being dealt in the courtroom as well as the case which also forms a part of administration of the court. There are various obligations and powers which have been given to the trial court judges. Henceforth this can be divided in further two categories administrative and judicial.

CHAPTER III ROLE OF JUDGE IN CONTROLLING THE AFFAIRS OF THE COURT ON JUDICIAL SIDE As soon as the case is filed in the court, it is assigned to a judge who assumes immediate control over the case and becomes an active participants along with the advocates, parties and Court officers involved with the case. The judicial proceeding of a case is subsumed by the judge in a courtroom starts when the case comes for hearing. As both the parties having councils for respective parties put forth their cases the judge is the one who decides the matter. Both parties present the facts which are related to the case. Generally the practice which is adopted by the court is that certain fact which is alleged by one party and denied by the other party comes out as a matter of dispute. The court after done away with filing of plaint and written statement frames the issue. Therefore the role of the judge becomes important. In civil cases the framing of issues takes place as per CPC, 1908 while in criminal cases the accused is before the allegation is charged against him he is asked by the magistrate if he pleads guilty to the charges. If yes then the judge punishes him accordingly as per the IPC and if he pleads no then the judge proceeds further with the case for hearing in which case the opposite side is always state being represented by Public Prosecutor (PP). The framing of issues forms the important part of any dispute because it decides the real question of dispute. Therefore the role of judge is very crucial in it. The judge while framing the issue takes into consideration the allegations and thereafter applies the law is such claim is supported by any legal basis. In cases such allegations could be proved by the factual analysis. Therefore the role of judge becomes crucial at the later stages as well. In the area of filing there is a gross misuse of section 9 of CPC. Even if the civil suits are expressly barred under the statutes like SARFAESI Act and others but suits are still filed. Once the framing of issue has been done the Judge decides when the parties shall be given time for the hearing. The Judge considering the pendent cases and the nature of case along with the other consideration comes to that conclusion. It is also decided by the judge, if he considers so, as to fix the date according to the advocates convenience due to which party becomes present at the schedule date thereby saving the time and disposal of cases timely.

Once the cases have been adjourned by the Judge the next thing in line comes to be evidences given by the parties. Judge plays in important role when discarding or accepting the evidence comes in, especially the witness examination. In a general practice false witnesses are presented before the court in order to prove the case. Here the judges have to make the decision based on his reason either through countering questions which would repudiate the evidence. In addition to that which kind of questions which shall be allowed to be asked in cross examination. There should not be any question which goes against the provision of law. There shall not be any kind of pressure given by the opposite council due to which witness change his stand. This is only regulated by the Judge therefore it is very important as the witnesses form a crucial role in deciding any case. In criminal cases the burden of such cross examination is higher because the wrong person shall not be punished for the crime which he has not committed. The judges also make sure that whatever the witness or the accused say, understand the nature or the consequences of such. Therefore the judge also adopts the proceeding or questions to be asked in the local language or the language which is understood by the witness/accused.

----------------------------------------The judge keeps track of case by adhering to the schedules and sees that there is due service of process to the defendants and that he written statements are filed by the defendants. No unreasonable time should be allowed to be wasted for service of the process and filing of the written statement. The judge ensures that the procedures for case management and ADRs are properly explained by the Advocates to their clients and due certification about the same is given by the Advocates. He also receives verification from the parties that they have understood the said procedures properly. In addition, he verifies that the printed materials explaining the case management and ADR have been delivered to the plaintiff at the time of the filing of the suit and to the defendant at the time of service of the process.

Based on the nature of dispute, the evidence to be examined and the time to be taken for the completion of suit, the suits can be channeled in different tracks. Suits in track 1 may comprise of family matters, divorce, child custody, adoption maintenance etc. Track 2 may consist of money sutis, based on negotiable instruments and suits which are based primarily on documents. Track 3 shall include suits concerning partition and like property disputes, trade marks, copyright and other Intellecutal property matters. Track 4 shall include rent, lease, eviction matters etc. all effort shall be taken to complete the suit in Track 1 within a period of 6 months, Track 2 within 9 months, Track 3 within 1 year and Track 4 within one and half years. The Judges of the court nominated for the purpose shall at intervals of every month monitor the stage of each case allocated to the different tracks and take appropriate decisions with a view to ensure that the cases are disposed of within the period fixed for each track. The judge may also shift a case from one track to another depending upon the complexity and other circumstances of the case. He shall take into account the available technological advancement into mind which would make him ascertain the position and stage of every case in every track from the computer screen. The judge shall keep control of flow of every case, either from the register or from the computer. The judge can ask the bailiff whether the process is served or why it is not served. Such serving officers will be answerable to judge. Once the pleading has been served the judge will read it to understand the real issue involved. The Judge would ensure that the plaintiff and his Advocate file the case management statement within two months from the filing of the written statement. This will be after copies are served to the defendants and their advocates. After the two months period, the judge shall continue to direct the plaintiffs Advocate by special or general notice to prepare and file the case management statement within the time schedule. No extension for filing the case management statement shall be given except in special circumstances. Adjournment shall not be given by a Judge as a matter of normal course for small things.

The judge shall ensure the same is adopted for the defendants. The Judge then shall study the respective case management and accordingly look into matters of time management and related aspects.

In criminal cases Judges play a crucial role in the day-to-day implementation of victims rights. Judges, after all, control the courtroom and make rulings that will affect the courts observance of victims rights to be present, notified, and heard. At the same time, judges have an obligation to ensure that the criminal justice process is impartial and fair, and many judges feel constrained about giving what they consider to be special treatment to crime victims. Many judges find it difficult to view victims as having a legitimate role in the justice process because they are not official parties to the criminal proceedings. The judges control of the courtroom and the rules of evidence are designed to avoid surprises, control all participants including witnesses and spectators, and minimize emotional outbursts. Victims expressions of emotional trauma, fear, anger, confusion, and psychological scarring in the courtroom can be an unsettling prospect and a threat to courtroom control. Judges in civil courts, particularly family courts, interact with numerous crime victims and are often the most important arbiters of justice for these victims. Indeed, throughout all judicial systems, judges, court administrators, and court personnel must implement the spirit as well as the letter of laws protecting victims rights that have been enacted on the state and federal levels. Judges must enforce victims rights in the day-to-day operations of the court, particularly by ensuring that victims have an opportunity for input prior to plea proceedings, during the trial, and at sentencing. Inadequate performance of trial lawyers has become a growing concern to the bench, the bar, and the public, this concern is reflected in a variety of ways. While the dimensions of the problem are in dispute, surveys indicate that judges rate the overall performance of around one-tenth of the lawyers appearing before them as less than adequate and prejudicial to their client's cause. Because of the pressures of staggering case loads and limited resources, the criminal justice system frequently produces marginal performances by counsel. Criminal defense work tends not to attract the more competent lawyer and, because of economic considerations, is often

10

performed on an assembly line basis. Economics affect the quality of civil work as well. The cost of litigation has risen beyond the means of most individuals and of businesses of modest size, and lawyers often must choose between pricing their services out of the market and being inadequately prepared. It is also possible that because vast numbers of new lawyers have been admitted to the bar in recent years, more trial work is in the hands of relatively inexperienced counsel. The questions therefore arise whether trial judges can and should monitor the performance of counsel and take action sua sponte. But the judge must wield the correlative power with caution lest its exercise defeat its purpose: fairness in the administration of justice. The trial judge's discretion, consequently, must be guided by awareness that the assertion of judicial power can have serious consequences for the independence of counsel, the integrity of the attorney-client relationship, and the proper functioning of the adversary process.

CHAPTER III ROLE OF JUDGE IN CONTROLLING THE AFFAIRS OF THE COURT ON ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE. There is no proper listing of cases and resultantly courts are often overloaded or at times no work. This shows the lack of management. No preparative work is being done before the matters listed before the Court. Delay in delivery of copies, maintenance of records and handling of papers in criminal cases. Proper check by the judge on responsible authorized undersigned would bring efficiency in the functioning of the court. The court should be viewed as an operating room where surgeon arrives when everything is ready for operation. All the preliminary work must be completed before the case goes to trial. Judge shall not be engaged in work that can be performed by Court staff or by the other officers such as masters or Registrar. The Courts substantive role consists of the Judge involvement not merely limited to procedural matters but refers to his becoming familiar, at an early stage, with the substantive issues in order

11

to make informal rulings on issues, dispositions, and narrowing, and on related matters. judge periodically monitors the progress of the litigation to see that schedules are being followed and to consider necessary modifications in the litigation plan. The judge may call for interim reports between scheduled conferences. But, at the same time, time limits and the controls and requirements are not imposed arbitrarily or without considering the views of counsel, and are subject to revision when warranted by the circumstances.

CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION direct and collateral review of trial lawyers' conduct or malpractice actions - do not adequately ensure that attorneys competently represent their clients' interests. Rather, direct action by the trial judge to assure the competence of trial counsel is both desirable and necessary. Judges also have an affirmative obligation to explain to the public what courts do.One example is Navajo Justice Day,in which the Navajo Tribal Court sponsors an open house for the community and the media to learn about all aspects of the judicial system. Bibliography: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/adr_conf/Justice_Lokur.pdf http://www.hcmadras.tn.nic.in/jacademy/articles/Court%20Management%20by%20Hon'ble %20Justice%20R.Banumathi%20%20.pdf http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-21/hubli/35953058_1_contempt-of-courtcase-civil-judge-high-court http://www.courts.mo.gov/hosted/probono/CourtroomManners.htm http://jeritt.msu.edu/monographs/JERITT%20Monograph%2013.pdf