Delhi Week 5 and 6

Having been adequately exposed to social activism, legal education, and training camps, we were pleased to learn that court was back in session after its holidays.
We accompanied the director of HRLN to Supreme Court, and a senior lawyer to High Court. Noting the estimate that the Indian judicial system is backlogged by 52 years, I was shocked at the break neck speed at which the cases where heard.
But first, the setting must be described. After a dubious security search (metal detectors went off when I went through the security gate, presumably because of the bobby pins in my hair) but the security guards just rushed me through. I wasn’t however, allowed to bring in my bottle of water. Once inside the compound, we were faced with a monochromatic sea of men and women, as lawyers are only allowed to wear black and white. Donning the traditional robe common to previous British colonies, the lawyers moved around the lush compound, the women wearing blazers over the traditional salwar kameeze.

Once I was frisked by the female security guard behind a draped enclosure, we went inside the visitors’ gallery. The average length of a case was maybe 2 minutes maximum. While counsel is arguing their case, the room is filled with the other 40-50 lawyers waiting for their case to be head. The courtroom is an endless shuffle of lawyers.

The movement, the whispers, the constant opening of the door provides for the worst acoustics from the visitors’ gallery. I could barely hear the submissions, and only fared a little better with the judge’s response. In addition, the cases moved at a break neck speed.

I was surprised by the tone of some lawyers. In a Canadian court room, the lawyer’s tone of voice, hand gestures, and loud decibel would be considered rude. In fact, it seemed like the lawyers were screaming at the judges, and would interrupt them when the judges tried to speak or asked questions.

We came across a family law case. The facts are as follows: the father, who had gone to jail for domestic abuse, and had failed at various attempts to gain guardianship of his son, was once again petitioning for guardianship through this mother, the child’s grandmother. This was his 17th attempt at gaining custody, and the case had back and forth from Delhi to Lucknow. It was a convoluted case, and obviously fraught with emotions.

Yet the judges simply suggested that the father and mother talk and try to work it out, and were given two weeks to do this. I did not know what to think at this point. On one hand, it seems like a collaborative, mediation based outcome would be best for all parties. On the flipside, it seemed dubious that a mediation lacking a third party intervener would provide a solution after the criminal charge, 17 failed guardianship applications, and the matter reaching the Supreme Court. I couldn’t decide if the judges were dismissive, or recognized that an authoritative decision handed down by the court would have little effect on the situation given the petitioner’s penchant for litigation.

The next day we went to High Court and sat in the court room of what can only be described as the Indian Judge Judy. She was quick, efficient, and had absolutely no tolerance for any late comers, or time-delaying tactics employed by the lawyers. She queried a government lawyer who had not received instructions from her client: ‘why is your client so astute with some matters and lax with others? Do they have selective amnesia?’

Interestingly, she reacted differently to the case presented with HRLN which involved the government’s refusal to rehabilitate slum dwellers who had been kicked off a right of way, to be used for the commonwealth games. Noting that the litigants were homeless while the government and HRLN counsel would together draft a map of the contested property, she gave a follow-up court date of late July, when the court was booking for October.

It was really empowering to see a female judge in action. When we were at the supreme court, we did see many female law students and lawyers, but they all seemed to be under the age of 35. Clearly, the feminization of the law is a new phenomenon in India, but a promising one.

Ps: Speaking of gender……this week, my internet connection was cut off by my provider. Although I signed up for a $20 10gb plan per month, they wanted to charge me $150. After several calls led nowhere, I went to the central office to complain. I explained that I had only used 9gb and thus, should only pay $20. They gave me the run around…told me my internet would be back up in 3 hours. When I went back to the office on Monday to complain once again, they told me that I now owed them $300. Yes, they were trying to charge me for internet usage which occurred DURING THE TIME they had cut off my internet.

The sad thing is that I feel that as a female, I am not being listened to, especially if I ask, and not demand things. I decided to take an authoritative stance with the internet guy. The result? He emailed customer service, asking them to re-instate my internet because the customer was ‘hyper’. In that office, men get ‘upset’, women get ‘hyper’. Sigh.