About a decade ago, when I had just graduated from college, I would have dismissed the idea of joining the judiciary. Barring the Civil Services, I did not consider any other possible career path. Law firms seemed too back-breaking, and litigation was too clumsy for my liking. Teaching was an option, but it offered a slow career path and did not provide the convenience of choosing my location. Civil Services was always the preferred choice, but it had the slimmest of chances of working out. And it did not.

The judiciary was not something I disliked, but I felt too incapable of pursuing it. For one, it appeared to be a never-ending pit that would offer more than I could handle. Even if I could, justice delivery seemed like an exhausting desk job. Despite these feelings, life led me down a path that eventually ended in the judiciary. And now, when I look back, it feels as though my perspective was too naïve. What had seemed like mountains turned out to be molehills, with far greater challenges waiting ahead.

Subordinate judges in India work under an illusion of justice. It is a façade created by all the actors, as actual justice delivery is often predetermined by considerations that have already taken place. The free will of a judge is deep, but not wide. That is to say, it is easier for the accused to influence witnesses and turn them hostile than for the victim to assert their case. For judges, it is merely a matter to be shrugged off. What can really be done when witnesses have turned hostile and feigned ignorance of everything that happened? Despite this, we record the testimony of the Investigating Officer, collect the requisite units allotted for that matter by showing it as a ‘contested’ case, and celebrate the disposal. Where did the justice go? Error 404.

The world uses the phrase ‘devil’s advocate’ as an idiom. I see it as a fact in my court. The lawyers, and their ways of working, resemble feudal lords. Trial court litigation is rarely about the merits of the matter; it revolves around procedural gamesmanship. A lawyer who can successfully use procedure to their advantage, either to delay or expedite a matter, wins the battle. A judge may lay down several directions for a speedy trial, but the lawyers are immune to them. What is to be done when the plaintiff is not producing any evidence? Dismiss the suit for default, sure. Does the lawyer flinch? No, they file a restoration petition. What should happen when the defendant’s counsel is not ready to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness despite several adjournments? Treat the cross-examination as nil. Does it move the case forward? No, they file a recall petition, which takes longer to dispose of than the cross-examination itself would have.

Barring an ad-interim injunction through out-of-order petitions, I have yet to see a lawyer show any urgency in any matter. Worse, I have seen lawyers become uncomfortable when a case is being disposed of, even when they are on the winning side. Such disposal is the loss of a cash cow they can no longer milk. Each adjournment guarantees a fee, and the moment such adjournments stop, so does the flow of money. The culture of a lump-sum fee for handling the entire matter until disposal has not spread outside some urban areas such as Delhi.

What makes all this worse is lawyers playing an active role in attempting settlements. While it is admirable if done with the right intentions, it has become all too common for lawyers to aim for their slice of the cake in such settlements. Rather than merely being advocates, they become shareholders and carve out their own stake. For the parties, it appears that they have avoided the long and arduous battle in the courts, but rarely do they realise that they got short-changed. The battle would have been long because the lawyers make it so, and it has been cut short because the lawyers intended it to be so.

Judges, however, are expected to be blind to what happens outside the court. The records show the truth, but such truth is not to be uttered. All we must focus on is obtaining a fixed number of units each month, calculated based on the disposals achieved. It does not matter that those units come from ridiculous excise cases where allegations of selling spurious country liquor are defeated by hostile witnesses who pretend to be shocked to find their signature on the Panchnama. Nor does it matter that a judge has handed over an ex-parte decree after allowing publication of summons in some obscure newspaper called ‘Mega Jyothi’ and proclaiming that the defendant’s non-appearance shows their lack of interest in the matter. A unit is shown as a demonstration of our hard work, even when it is neither hard nor work.

The prosecutors, more often than not, are in more haste than the accused to end the trials of the day. All they do is stand in the well and ask “what happened?” to each witness who comes to depose. The day I hear a public prosecutor utter anything other than “on merits,” I will know that the end of the world is near. I am almost certain that prosecutors are not aware that their job is to push a case towards conviction. When a conviction comes, it is not because of them, but in spite of them.

One thing that unites prosecutors, judges, and lawyers is their convenient alibi for non-performance. Inaction is preferred over courageous action. As each cares about maintaining good relations with the other, the litigants are excluded from the process and suffer the most. For litigants, the process itself is a punishment. They understand very little and lose all hope until their matter becomes over ten years old and the Arrears Committee pushes the court to dispose it. And where did the justice go? It has turned hostile.