Should Court Fee be equal for all?
The system of charging a fee for an applicant before approaching the court to seek justice may seem similar to charging a fee to merely enforce what is guaranteed to us in the first place, after all to honor the symbolic representation of Justice is to ensure each and everyone has the freedom to seek justice in the first place, without bars of any kind.
However to compare the levying of a court fee to be a payment to securing justice too would be preposterous and wrong. Linking the judiciary to a judge sitting on piles of money enshrouded by the power of the robe is barbaric for a court fee is an essential prerequisite to the functioning of a court to retain the sanctity of the judicature. Even Lady Justice needs some pillars to stand on, those very pillars being the ones of a collective independent group of representatives that like any basic society require money to function.
The question of imposing a reasonable and equal court fee, however seems to uphold the right to equality and yet it does not, for an essential component of the right to equality is the distinctive principle of treating equals equally and unequals unequally, to paraphrase, the principle of Equity. Each and every individual cannot be reasonably assumed to possess the required funds needed for a court fee and to deny or blatantly ignore the validity of this assumption would be to go against the principle of justice for all, as it is an economic bar to seeking justice. The Executive organ of the government taxes individuals differently and in a proportional manner, why should the judiciary be any different as the aim of organs, the latter levying court fee rather than taxes is the procuring of funds for administrative reasons.
Although it is implausible to decide court fee on a case by case basis, Amount of fee should be determined by an individual’s standing in society, not a rigorous income tax like system but rather a standardized chart encompassing wide ranges to determine the amount to be paid.
A court fee paid out of sheer compulsion to receive justice while the individual is starving and barely making ends meet is no justice at all. It would be a hindrance to anybody seeking justice and would make the judiciary an organ to doubt rather than to trust. It would encourage illegal practices along with increasing out of court private agreements, which are often unfair and dominated by a party. In Contract Law, an agreement entered into under coercion or any form of duress is voidable at the option of the affected party, it would be an affront of the worst kind if the individual had to enter into an agreement solely because of the fact that the authority making his agreement voidable had forced him to enter into it in the first place.
While some may argue a proportional court fee would heavily increase case loads and would discourage other forms of mediation, the sole fact is that one cannot compare sufferings or decide who “deserves justice” and who doesn’t. While malicious prosecutions and trivial cases are a different matter, Justice cannot be called upon to decide if a person drowning in an ocean is more worthy than another drowning in a pool.
In conclusion, it can be reasonably assumed by the judicial world that there are several other costs of going to court which can be exorbitant and to add another dear amount to what is already a long process is wrong. It is a gross violation of the right to be heard granted to everyone if even a single person is left out and has no option of going to court for the judiciary is universally seen as the one ever-present entity of righting a wrong and a bearer of the law. Millions across the world have faith in the judiciary and to see even one person being unable to seek justice would be a failure of the judicial system.
