Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra 's lecture on 'Timely and Effective Justice' quoted Benjamin Franklin's famous quote - how for want of just a horseshoe nail, a battle could not be fought and a kingdom was lost. Successive CJIs, as captains of judiciary, have attempted to make 'speedy justice' a reality, but it continues to remains in the realm of anticipation.

The usual 'nails' that unhinge speedy dispensation of justice are well known - chronic vacancies in judiciary, lack of infrastructure and massive infusion of litigation into the system every year. In the last two decades, many steps have been discussed in annual conference of chief justices of the HCs and chief ministers to get the nails fixed. Somehow, some nails remain unfixed. Pendency monster refuses to die. Fatigued judges continue to wage a grim battle as vacancy position across the three-tier judiciary hovers over 30%.

Commenting on huge vacancy of judicial officers, next CJI Ranjan Gogoi said the agonisingly slow recruitment process can be speeded up if "you have right persons at right places". He probably wondered if Puducherry had the right man to complete recruitment of trial judges in 99 days, when Delhi took 762 days and J&K 900 days.

Process for appointment of judges to constitutional courts is frustratingly long despite the SC in its judgments stressing repeatedly for initiation of the process three months prior to fill a vacancy that would arise from retirement of a judge.

In this regard, the SC while striking down National Judicial Appointments Commission , had in October 2015 asked the Centre to frame the memorandum of procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges. Nearly three years have passed, and yet six seasoned and experienced brains - CJI with four most senior SC judges and the Union law minister - cannot find a common ground to frame the clauses of the MoP.

Probably the delay in framing of the MoP and appointment of judges forced Justice Kurian Joseph to opine that retirement age of judges of constitutional courts as well as trial court judges be increased uniformly to 70 years. The idea has some merit but not the solution to the bigger issue at hand.

One big unhinged 'nail' that delays timely disposal of cases in the SC is the lack of time frame for disposal of PILs, some pending for more than 30 years. The credit for this goes to the doctrine of continuous mandamus, evolved in Bandhua Mukti Morcha judgment and finetuned in Vineet Narain judgment. Under the doctrine, PILs remain alive in SC for decades generating a lot of heat inside and outside the court. Yet, in most PILs, the problem at ground level remains unresolved.

SC had zealously taken up a PIL filed by M C Mehta for making Ganga free from pollution and delivered its first judgment on January 12, 1988. For decades thereafter, it monitored implementation of Ganga Action Plans. But, today there is hardly any improvement in the water quality of river Ganga.

The NDA government's much hyped claim to make Ganga clean, too, remains more on paper. Should the court have wasted so much of effort and time on this issue, which is squarely the responsibility of the executive? The Ganga cleaning experience is identical to SC's attempt to clean Yamuna river (started in the year 2000 and yielded no tangible results), river interlinking (monitored from 2002 till 2012), conservation of Taj Mahal (from 1996 and still continuing) and sealing and demolition drive against unauthorised/illegal structures (started in 2006 and continuing).

Unhinged 'nail' of continuous mandamus in dealing with PILs appears to have disturbed the mechanics of battle machines, periodically assembled under guidance of successive CJIs to fight the pendency monster. In the process, while the battle remain superficially effective, the apex court continues to send out a signal to the HCs that transgression of the constitutional line dividing judiciary, legislature and executive is not a mistake.

The SC has played a stellar role in ensuring implementation of right to food, right to clean air and ensuring the legitimate dues to the backward classes.

But, the growth of PILs and their frivolity had worried the SC in 2010, when in Balwant Singh Chaufal case it had said, “The misuse of public interest litigation is a serious matter of concern for the judicial process. Both this court and the high courts are flooded with litigation and are burdened by arrears. Frivolous or motivated petitions, ostensibly invoking the public interest detract from the time and attention which courts must devote to genuine causes.”

This was echoed by a three-judge SC bench in its recent judgment on PILs seeking probe into death of judicial officer B H Loya. Writing the judgment, Justice D Y Chandrachud had said, “It has been realized that this (PIL) jurisdiction is capable of being and has been brazenly misused by persons with a personal agenda. At one end of that spectrum are those cases where public interest petitions are motivated by a desire to seek publicity. At the other end of the spectrum are petitions which have been instituted at the behest of business or political rivals to settle scores behind the facade of apublic interest litigation. The true face of the litigant behind the façade is seldom unraveled.”

SC must soon find a way to put the unhinged nail of “PILs” in place, else it may see its battle against pendency fizzle out leaving those standing in the queue for speedy justice look heavenwards instead of My Lords.

