Trial courts must weed out frivolous criminal cases which are making our system an object of ridicule: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Frivolous criminal cases are making India's justice system an object of ridicule before the liberal democratic world, Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said on Thursday.

Trial courts must launch a special drive to weed them out, he added.

He was speaking on the topic 'ethics in criminal litigation and the duties of the defence and the prosecution' at 4th Discourse organised by the Centre for Discourses on Criminal and Constitutional Jurisprudence at the India International Centre in New Delhi.

The judge said that criminal cases were being registered just for consuming food, reciting poems, for participating in demonstrations, raising slogans, for commenting on social media, performing as a stand-up comedian and for so many other frivolous grounds including titles and contents of books and movies.

"The accusations are ridiculous and often borders on an affront to one's intelligence. Nonetheless, registration of such criminal cases continues unabated; not only that, in some cases chargesheets are also filed leading to trial," he said.

Justice Bhuyan further focussed on pendency figures. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, as on September 17, a total of 4.27 crore criminal cases are pending across all courts in India.

Of these, 4.07 crore or 95.31 percent are before the trial courts, 19.84 lakh or 4.64 percent before the High Courts and 22,143 before the Supreme Court.

"When you have so many cases clogging the court system with the system unable to cope with it, almost bursting at the seams, super-imposition of such frivolous cases has only added to the unworkable burden on the trial courts," he said.

Therefore, he suggested that a special drive should be launched by the trial courts to weed out frivolous criminal cases.

"As I have said, these are only adding to the unworkability of the system with outcomes almost a foregone conclusion and making our system an object of ridicule before the liberal democratic world. The sooner we do it, the better it is for all of us," the judge said.

On the State's familiar complaint about accused persons not cooperating with investigators, he was blunt.

"So I find it quite amusing when State counsel tells the court that the petitioner had appeared before the investigating officer but he is not 'cooperating'," he said.

On the quality of lawyers appointed in capital and life imprisonment cases, and the legal aid defence counsel system, the judge declined to comment.

"I would refrain from saying more on this, given that there is some controversy surrounding it," he said.

He said lawyers should not place the outcome above the process.

"A prosecutor who hides evidence to secure a conviction and a defence lawyer who tampers with a witness to secure an acquittal commit the same wrong: placing outcome above the process," he said.