On 7th May,2020 around 2:30 am, styrene vapours leaked from a polymer plant in Vishakhapatnam’s RR Venkatapuram Village, spreading as wild fire on several villages in a 5 km radius.  The incident at LG Polymers unit which produces plastic for industrial use claimed life of 11 people leaving 25 in a critical condition and 100’s displaced from their native houses. Styrene is a chemical used in plastic and rubber manufacturing which is highly toxic to the brain and lungs. It is a derivative of benzene and is the basic raw material used in manufacturing of polystyrene. It has also been defined under Rule 2(e) read with Entry 583 of Schedule I to the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemical Rules, 1989 as a hazardous chemical. These rules also provide for taking on site and off site emergency measures in order to ensure prevention of such damages. The permissible exposure level(PEL) of this compound as mandated by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration is 100 ppm i.e. parts per million for an adult worker for eight hours and the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health level is 700 ppm.1 In the current incident this level was severely exceeded. The National Green Tribual took Suo Moto cognizance in the case and penalised LG Polymers with an interim penalty of Rs. 50 Crores. NGT setup a 5 member bench in order to investigate the incident further which has to submit the report of the incident by 18th may, 2020.  NGT also observed in the order that this incident attracted the principle of ‘strict liability’ which was evolved in the case of Rylands vs Fletcher,(1868). This principle states that any person who indulges in the non- natural use of land and stores hazardous substances at his premises will be held strictly liable if such substances cause any damage. This principle was overturned by the Supreme court of India in the case of MC Mehta vs UOI,1987 whereby the concept of no – fault liability was evolved. It is also known as the principle of ‘Absolute Liability’.  This principle reiterates that any enterprise which is engaged in hazardous substances which poses threat to the people working in the factory or residing in the surroundings owes an Absolute and non- delegable duty to ensure that no such harm is caused to anyone. It provides for no exception even if due diligence was observed.  On the other hand strict liability provides of various exceptions like act of god, Plaintiff’s own Fault, Act of third party or where the hazardous activity has been carried out by plaintiff’s consent.   [As reported by Hindustan Times, New Delhi ( Friday, May 8,2020)]

So, the committee setup by the tribunal will look into the sequence of events the resulted into this incident and thereafter will provide compensation to the victims accordingly. The victims are also entitled to compensation under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 apart from the compensation that may be awarded by the court. This act came into force after the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and it requires all enterprises to have a control over handling of hazardous substances and subscribe a policy cover to any person to whom any injury or damage is caused. 

RAM DEV INTERNATIONAL FRAUD On 1st May 2020 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case under sections 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 and 406 of the IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against three directors of a private company Ram Dev International and others linked with the matter for a fraud of Rs. 173.11 crore and cheating the State Bank of India (Karnal) by way of unauthorised removal of plant and machinery from the factory premises which were hypothecated to the bank. It is also alleged that the directors showed disbursement of loan from the bank as capital infusion via circular movement of fund transfers. Apart from this other banks namely Corporation Bank, Central Bank of India, IDBI, and Union Bank of India also alleged a fraud of Rs 411 crore. It has also been alleged that some public servants and members of the bank were involved in the commission of the offence and trading with offices in Saudi Arabia and Dubai. The agency will start summoning the accused and in case they do not join the investigation legal action can be taken against them under code of criminal procedure and issue Non-Bailable warrants. In case the accused still not appear the court under section 82 Crpc can declare the person as proclaimed offender by publishing a notice in the newspaper. The court can also direct attachment of the property of such persons (both movable and immovable).

Legal provisions attracted in this case:

Section 420 IPC:  Cheating and dishonest delivery of property, punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.

Section 468 IPC:  Forgery for the Purpose of cheating, punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine. 

Section 471 IPC: Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged , shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged it.

Section 406 IPC: Commission of criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of prevention of corruption act: Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. If he by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; abuses his position as public servant or obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.

-DEEKSHA CHUGH

The previous blog highlighted the problems associated with our Indian Judiciary.This blog deals with the steps that can be taken to solve them.

Indian judicial system faces weaknesses and defects which need to be reformed in order to ensure social welfare along with the economic welfare. It will further help in a better and efficient dispute resolution system. Following steps can be taken:

As we saw in the detailed analysis that the problem lies at the grass root level where the people face difficulty even in case hearings. Right from the lower court to high courts there is a short fall of judges. An ALL INDIA RECRUITMENT EXAM can help in resolving the issue of appointment of judges.As this will bring about uniformity in appointments. The creation of the all india recruitment exam will help the lower judicial services , as based on the assumption that the current federal structure, that vests the recruitment and appointment for the lower judiciary in the hands of State Governors, High Courts and State Public Service Commissions, is broken and inefficient.

The time taken in courts should be rationed a judge should be given a workload of certain cases per day which have to be fully solved. Through 2006, 15 million cases were initiated in India’s lower courts but in 2017 this figure had increased to more than 20 million cases. Similarly, cases reaching the High Courts too have increased over the last decade. The pendency of cases can only be solved by recruiting more judges.

In the era of modernization the court should not be left behind they should be properly digitized. Technology can speed up the justice process. Time spent traveling to and from the court can be reduced or eliminated, which allows for greater productivity for judges and attorneys. With less time wasted in travel to the courtroom, more cases can be handled and at a faster pace. This will enhance the justice experience for citizens as they will spend less time waiting for the legal process to unfold, decisions upon which often have major impacts on their lives and businesses.Technology will also enable better witness protection services for victims of crimes. For example, those who have been battered or abused or those who have escaped from human trafficking who may be too traumatized or threatened to face the accused in court.It will permit sharing of critical court resources. Courthouses and even courts can share critical foreign language or sign language interpreters. Given the large number of languages spoken in many countries, it’s critical to share these human resources to ensure that the right interpreter, especially a court-certified interpreter, is available when and where needed. E-Courts are being run on a trial basis which will help in filing the documents electronically.

The malice of corruption has deep rooted in the system itself. A proper systems of checks should be evolved to prevent it. The institution of the judiciary needs to be free from the undue influence of other institutions of government and society that might affect how cases are decided. A transparent judicial system guards against corruption by exposing to public scrutiny the operation of the judicial system, including measures to promote independence, integrity, and accountability. Transparency means procedures that require evidence to be presented in public hearings and require Reducing Corruption in the Judiciary .Transparency requires public access to information about judicial selection, assets and income of judges and other senior officials, and workloads, costs, and productivity of the courts so that there can be effective civil society monitoring of judicial performance.

The 11th FINANCE COMMISSION recommended the creation of 1734 fast track courts for cases on sensitive issues like rape,corruption and other high profile cases so that justice is seen to be delivered and people maintain the faith in judiciary.Setting up of special courts like property courts, commercial courts and e-courts for speedy disposal of cases further promoting the concept of Lok Adalat, Court on wheels and Gram panchayat.

The law commission of India in its 230th report suggested some recommendations to improve judiciary in India

The suggestions are quoted below:

‘[1] There must be full utilization of the court working hours. The judges must be punctual and lawyers must not be asking for adjournments, unless it is absolutely necessary. Grant of adjournment must be guided strictly by the provisions of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.

[2] Many cases are filed on similar points and one judgment can decide a large number of cases. Such cases should be clubbed with the help of technology and used to dispose other such cases on a priority basis; this will substantially reduce the arrears. Similarly, old cases, many of which have become infructuous, can be separated and listed for hearing and their disposal normally will not take much time. Same is true for many interlocutory applications filed even after the main cases are disposed of. Such cases can be traced with the help of technology and disposed of very quickly.

[3] Judges must deliver judgments within a reasonable time and in that matter, the guidelines given by the apex court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 must be scrupulously observed, both in civil and criminal cases.

[4] Considering the staggering arrears, vacations in the higher judiciary must be curtailed by at least 10 to 15 days and the court working hours should be extended by at least half-anhour.

[5] Lawyers must curtail prolix and repetitive arguments and should supplement it by written notes. The length of the oral argument in any case should not exceed one hour and thirty minutes, unless the case involves complicated questions of law or interpretation of Constitution.

[6] Judgments must be clear and decisive and free from ambiguity, and should not generate further litigation. We must remember Lord Macaulay’s statement made about 150 years ago. “Our principle is simply this – Uniformity when you can have it, Diversity when you must have it, In all cases, Certainty”

[7] Lawyers must not resort to strike under any circumstances and must follow the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Uppal (Ex-Capt.) v. Union of India reported in (2003) 2 SCC

Its time that the judiciary must take some strong steps to ensure that the system as a whole works expeditiously . As far as reforms are concerned,they cannot be implemented until and unless the existing system is used to the best.Every step has to be in sync with each other to reduce the burden that judiciary faces. Also, there is a need to bring societal and cultural changes in obeying the law,respecting it and working in accordance with it.

– Kriti Sakuja