Case Flow Management Rules: Is Justice delivered to the Backlog?

On 05/05/2016, the Gujarat High Court Case Flow Management Rules, 2016 came into force. The objective as gathered from its title, is to evolve a case flow management system. This rules apparently based on the Draft Rules provided by the Law Commission of India in its Consultation paper. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in Salem Bar Association vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court has requested this committee to prepare a case management formula. It is in the light of the said judgment this consultation paper on case management was published. There are many High Courts who have already made the rules for case management.

The rules are in sync with the reality and the expectations of litigants. The only problem which may be arisen is its implementation. Some of the provisions cannot practically be implemented e.g. Rule 13(3), this provision mandates that after the Written Submissions filed by the parties, the matter shall be listed before the Registrar (Judicial), for ascertaining the time likely to be taken for oral hearing. The parties are called upon to indicate the time for the oral hearing. And as per the availability of the said requisite extent of time, the matter shall be listed before the Judge. I have my own doubts regarding its practicality.

The Rules classify three Categories depending on the ‘Urgency’ i.e. Fast Track, Normal Track & Slow Track. Interestingly, the word ‘Urgency’ is nowhere defined in the Rules. It gives complete discretion to the Judge to categorize the matter into any category. This may bring heartburning to various litigants. Though Rule 6 empowers the Judge to shift the case from one track to another, Intra-Court appeals may be filed just to shift the track of the matter!

Rule 8 says that the petitioners/appellants/applicants shall cause to file, separate list, the list of the heirs/Legal Representatives of all petitioners/appellants/applicants. It also mandates to file a declaration to the effect that the address mentioned in the cause – title is correct. I am unable to gather the objective/rationale of this provision.

Rule 9 deals with mode of Advance Service. It says that the respondent must be served the copy of the petition/appeal along with all documents/paperbook prior to 72/48 hours before presenting the petition, in the cases where interim orders are sought against Government or PSUs. So, even if one require to get urgent orders in cases like termination, Tender matter, Demolition; one have to wait till 48/72 hours before presenting the petition!   It also increase the cost of litigation as the entire set of the petition shall be served to all the respondents. So, in cases where there are 25 respondents, you have to have 25 copies with you and it might happen that the matter can be dismissed in limine. There may be some formal parties. Under the new rules they are also required to be served. Ultimately, litigants would suffer.

Only time will tell the real implications of this Rules. Till then let us all self – manage the backlogs!