THE CONTEXT: The debate about how much time judges put in on the Bench has been rekindled by a casual remark from a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, who said that judges work only for a few hours a day, take long vacations, and need to modernize. Whether judges sit for 200 days or 365 is a red herring. It spins court timings and vacations to mean, “This is why there are arrears.” It creates the impression that if judges stayed longer on their benches instead of swanning off on holiday, arrears would magically disappear, and all would be well.
ISSUES:
- Shortage of Judges: The sanctioned strength of judges is not met across various courts. High court vacancies average 30% and can reach nearly 50%, while subordinate court vacancies average 22%. The Law Commission recommended 50 judges per 10 lakh population in 1987, but India now has only about 15 judges per 10 lakh population.
- Excessive Government Litigation: Government litigation accounts for roughly 50% of the court load. The government has initiated projects like the LIMBS project to manage litigation better, but the impact remains unclear.
- Inadequate Infrastructure: Courtrooms are in short supply, and many existing ones are sub-optimal. Nationally, support staff shortages average 26%. The lack of adequate infrastructure contributes to delays, as even a single missing court clerk or typist can cause significant delays.
- Quality Deficits: Issues with the quality of judges and lawyers, including uneven language and legal knowledge acumen, lead to procedural delays and an increase in appeals. The permissive culture within the legal fraternity allows for unjustified applications, endless adjournments, and unmeritorious appeals.
- Technological Adoption: The judiciary’s technology adoption is slow and uneven, hampered by erratic electricity, uneven bandwidth, and user resistance. Initiatives like the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) aim to improve transparency and efficiency but face implementation challenges.
- Complexity and Volume of Cases: The types and complexity of cases each judge must deal with and the stratagems used by lawyers to prolong trials contribute to delays. The rising tide of litigation is often cited as a reason for delays, with over 50 million cases pending across all courts in India.
- Administrative and Procedural Bottlenecks: Judges are trained to be adjudicators, not administrators. The lack of permanent administrative secretariats in courts adds to inefficiencies. Procedural bottlenecks, such as the need for better court management and eliminating outdated laws and procedures, are significant contributors to delays.
- Resource Allocation: Spending on justice delivery is low, with overall per capita spending on the judiciary at less than Rs 150. Resource-strapped governments do not prioritize ramping up efficiencies in justice delivery, leading to subsistence-level budgeting that is penny-wise but pound-foolish.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Increase the Number of Judges: The 120th Law Commission Report (1987) recommended increasing the judge-to-population ratio to 50 judges per million people. India has only about 15 judges per million people, significantly lower than other countries like China, which has 159 judges per million people. Many European countries maintain a higher judge-to-population ratio, ensuring the judiciary can handle the caseload efficiently.
- Reduce Government Litigation: The National Litigation Policy (2010) and the 230th Law Commission Report (2009) emphasized the need for the government to reduce its litigation footprint. The government is the largest litigant in the system, accounting for nearly 50% of the court load. In countries like the UK, the government has implemented policies to settle disputes out of court and avoid unnecessary litigation, thereby reducing the burden on the judiciary.
- Implement Administrative Reforms: Establishing a permanent administrative secretariat headed by a qualified court manager can help streamline court operations. This approach has been successful in various jurisdictions abroad where court management is a specialized career option. The US and several European countries have adopted court management systems that include professional court managers to handle administrative tasks, allowing judges to focus on adjudication.
- Enhance Use of Technology: The e-Courts project, as part of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, aims to digitize case records, enable online filing, and use video conferencing for hearings. This can significantly reduce delays and improve efficiency. Estonia is a leading example of a country that has successfully implemented e-justice systems, resulting in faster case processing and greater transparency.
- Promote Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Encouraging ADR mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats can help resolve disputes outside the formal court system, reducing the caseload on courts. Countries like Singapore and the Netherlands have robust ADR systems that handle a significant portion of disputes, thereby alleviating the burden on the judiciary.
THE CONCLUSION:
The rising tide of litigation is often cited as another reason for inescapable delay. In a rule-of-law country, it is everyone’s right to have their day in court. Across the world, as incomes and ownership rise and commerce and industry grow, recourse to formal systems of adjudication increases and must be welcomed because it signals trust in a robust conflict resolution system. This is inevitable and foreseeable, and it could be manageable with prudent planning—not finger-pointing.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment. 2023
Q.2 Discuss the desirability of more excellent representation for women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusiveness.2021
Q.3 Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgment on the ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ concerning appointing judges of higher judiciary in India. 2017
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 Discuss the factors contributing to the backlog of cases in the Indian judiciary and suggest comprehensive measures to address this issue.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word