By Bivek Chaudhary: The rule of law is not merely a theoretical concept etched in legal textbooks; it is the very heartbeat of a functional democracy. As Lord Hewart famously asserted, “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.” This timeless principle extends beyond the courtroom, emphasizing that justice should not be confined within the walls of judicial chambers. It must resonate through transparent processes, where timely publication of judgments plays a special role. When courts deliver verdicts without promptly publishing their full texts, it creates a vacuum that breeds speculation, legal ambiguity, and erodes public trust. The essence of justice lies not only in fair adjudication but also in ensuring that legal reasoning is accessible to the public.
Timely publication of judgments fosters accountability, allowing citizens, legal professionals, and scholars to scrutinize, understand, and critique judicial reasoning. As Justice Louis Brandeis rightly noted, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Transparency in the judiciary acts as that sunlight, illuminating the path of legal clarity and integrity.
The delay in judgment publication undermines the very fabric of the rule of law. It hampers the development of jurisprudence, leaving lower courts, legal practitioners, and litigants in a state of uncertainty. Legal precedents, which are the bedrock of a consistent and predictable legal system, cannot be effectively established if decisions are withheld for extended periods. This delay not only stifles legal discourse but also diminishes public confidence in the judiciary’s commitment to transparency and accountability. Moreover, the absence of a standardized timeline for judgment publication highlights a systemic gap.
Courts must recognize that their responsibility extends beyond the pronouncement of verdicts. The timely dissemination of detailed reasoning is integral to the democratic process, reinforcing the principle that no institution, including the judiciary, is above the need for public accountability. As Chief Justice of the US, John Roberts, stated, “The rule of law is the law of rules,” emphasizing that legal certainty arises from consistent and transparent application of laws.
In a society governed by the rule of law, justice delayed is not just justice denied to the parties involved but also to the broader public who rely on the judiciary to uphold legal principles transparently. The call for timely publication of judgments is not a mere administrative demand; it is a constitutional necessity rooted in the principles of fairness, accountability, and the public’s right to know.
The timely publication of judgments also serves as a tool for legal education. Law students, academicians, and aspiring legal professionals rely heavily on judicial decisions to understand the evolution of legal principles. Each judgment contributes to the legal fabric of the nation, offering insights into how laws are interpreted and applied. When these judgments are delayed, it not only affects current legal practices but also hampers future generations’ understanding of the law.
Furthermore, delayed publication can have serious practical implications. Consider a scenario where a lower court must rely on a higher court’s precedent to decide a case, but the relevant judgment remains unpublished. This gap can lead to inconsistent rulings, legal uncertainty, and even miscarriages of justice. For businesses, unclear legal precedents can affect investment decisions, contract enforcement, and overall economic stability, emphasizing that timely judgment publication is not just a legal issue but also an economic one.
Internationally, many judicial systems have recognized the critical importance of timely judgment publication. For example, the European Court of Human Rights mandates prompt publication of its decisions, reinforcing the idea that justice must be both done and demonstrably seen to be done. Similarly, in countries like India, the Supreme Court has embraced live-streaming of hearings to promote transparency, setting a precedent for other nations to follow. Nepal, too, can draw lessons from such practices, ensuring that its judiciary remains not just a dispenser of justice but also a beacon of transparency and accountability.
The digital era offers unprecedented opportunities to address this issue. E-judgment portals, online legal databases, and official court websites can facilitate real-time publication of judgments. Courts can adopt technological solutions to automate the publication process, minimizing delays while ensuring accuracy. The judiciary’s adaptation to such innovations reflects its commitment to transparency and the evolving needs of a democratic society.
However, technology alone cannot solve the problem. There must be a cultural shift within the judiciary that values and prioritizes timely judgment publication. Judicial officers, court staff, and administrative bodies must recognize that every delay undermines public confidence in the legal system. Training programs, procedural reforms, and clear guidelines on publication timelines can create a robust framework that upholds the principles of the rule of law.
Critics might argue that judges face heavy caseloads, and delays are inevitable. While judicial workload is a valid concern, it cannot justify systemic delays in judgment publication. Courts must balance efficiency with transparency, recognizing that timely publication is not an added burden but an integral part of judicial responsibility. As Justice Bhagwati once observed, “The judiciary cannot live in ivory towers. It must be part of the social milieu.” This connection with society demands openness, clarity, and timeliness.
It is a fundamental right of the petitioner to receive the full text of a judgment in a timely manner, as enshrined under Article 20 and 27 of the Constitution of Nepal, 2072. However, delays in providing the judgment seem to undermine this right, raising concerns about the court’s role in upholding fundamental rights. Such delays give the impression that judgments are prioritized based on media influence, with cases heavily covered by the media receiving quicker attention. This practice should not be the norm. Courts and judges should be committed to delivering judgments swiftly and equitably, without the influence of external factors, ensuring that all petitioners receive their due rights on time.
In conclusion, the rule of law thrives on the principles of transparency, accountability, and timely access to justice. The timely publication of judgments is not a procedural afterthought; it is a cornerstone of democratic governance. It ensures that justice is not hidden behind closed doors but is accessible to all, reinforcing the public’s faith in the legal system. As we strive to build a just and equitable society, let us remember that the strength of our democracy lies not just in the verdicts we deliver but in the clarity with which we share them. The rule of law demands nothing less.
Chaudhary is pursuing BA, LLB at Nepal Law Campus, Kathmandu.
Comment