THE CONTEXT: Delays in judicial process affect the poor and rural population disproportionately. They suffer recurring injustice silently from seeking legal recourse to fears of prolonged litigation. President, Draupadi Murmu, raised a pressing need to ensure timely justice—a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, as affirmed in the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979).
EVOLUTION OF INDIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM:
- Pre-Independence: Indian judicial system was primarily established to serve British colonial interest. Code of civil procedure, 1908 was established to deal with matters of property, contracts and personal matters. Code of criminal procedure, 1898 was established to deal with matters against individuals and state in criminal courts.
- High Courts Act of 1861: The act established High Courts in Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, marking a significant step in shaping the judiciary.
- Post independence: India inherited framework of integrated judiciary. It is aligned with democratic ethos and principles of constitution. The Indian Constitution (Articles 32, 136, 226) provides for the Supreme Court and High Courts to address constitutional rights and serve as appellate courts. Judicial backlogs call for reforms to align with India’s evolving socio-economic needs.
EMERGENCE OF SPECIALIZED FORUMS AND TRIBUNALS:
- Introduction of the Tribunal System: The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 introduced Part XIV-A, encompassing Articles 323A and 323B, provided for the establishment of administrative and other tribunals.
- Enactment of Special Laws: The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was amended to include Section 138, making the dishonour of cheques a criminal offense with provisions for summary trials. Consumer Protection Act, 1986, prescribe a specific time frame for case resolution (e.g., six months for consumer disputes).
- Public Outcry and Expedited Trials: In cases like Nirbhaya (2012) and the Hyderabad veterinarian rape case (2019), public demand led to “fast-track” adjudication, but systemic change remains elusive.
REASONS FOR JUDICIAL DELAYS:
- Judge-Population Ratio: India has approximately 21 judges per million people, lower than the 50 judges per million recommended by the 120th Law Commission Report (1987). The United States has 107 judges per million, and Canada has 75, highlighting severe shortage in judicial manpower.
- Vacancies in the Judiciary: Against a sanctioned strength of 1,114 judges, only 770 positions are filled as of 2024, resulting in a 30% vacancy rate. Delays in the collegium system’s recommendations, bureaucratic bottlenecks, and prolonged appointment processes contribute to this shortfall.
- Burden of Dual Responsibilities: In lower courts, judges often handle cases from multiple jurisdictions, leading to diluted attention to cases and increased error rates. The workload impacts mental health, impacting judgment quality and contributing to case backlogs as judgments are further contested.
- Lack of Judicial Impact Assessment: New legislations are frequently enacted without conducting a judicial impact assessment—a systematic evaluation of the potential effects on the judiciary’s workload. The failure to implement this leads to courts being overwhelmed by new types of cases without corresponding increases in judicial capacity.
- Witness Protection Issues: Witnesses are crucial for case progression, but logistical issues often delay their attendance. The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, was introduced to address these challenges but requires stricter enforcement.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Implementation of Judicial Impact Assessment: Adopt Justice M. Jagannadha Rao Committee recommendations on judicial impact assessment. Every new bill should include an evaluation of its impact on judicial resources. The legislature can plan for necessary infrastructure and personnel. The Supreme Court, in Salem Advocate Bar Association (II) v. Union of India (2005), endorsed this approach.
- Timely Filling of Judicial Vacancies: The judiciary and the executive should collaborate to expedite judicial appointments. Initiate the recruitment process six months in advance to prevent vacancies. Adhere to the timeline prescribed by the Memorandum of Procedure for judicial appointments is essential.
- Avoiding Additional Charges for Judges: Additional courts should not be assigned to judges, so that they can focus on their caseload effectively. Specialized courts require dedicated judges to maintain the quality and efficiency of justice delivery. Provide adequate administrative support and leveraging technology to enhance judicial productivity.
- Promotion of Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution: Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, encourages alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Expand ADR mechanisms like mediation, arbitration, and conciliation to reduce the burden on courts.
THE CONCLUSION:
The rule of law and citizens’ faith in the justice system can only be upheld by addressing the judicial delays. “Delay in justice is a denial of justice.” It requires the collaborative efforts of the judiciary, legislature, and executive, supported by continuous resource support and policy reforms. Then only it can transform the judicial landscape, ensuring timely and effective justice for all citizens.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. 2017
Q.2 Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary? 2024
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 “The culture of judicial adjournments has been identified as a significant factor contributing to case pendency in India.” Critically examine
SOURCE:
Spread the Word