Parliamentary Q&A on pending court cases and judicial reforms
/ 4
Parliamentary Q&A on pending court cases and judicial reforms
Fast tracking our courts
Fast track courts are often seen as an alternative to the justice system in India. Following the gang rape case of a 23 year-old girl last year, many called on the need for fast track courts in resolving cases of sexual assault against women. But this debate often misses the larger question of why our legal system fails to guarantee the speedy delivery of justice in the first place.
Almost every High court today faces a huge pendency of cases. Over 43 lakh cases were pending for disposal across high courts, at the end of 2011. The average rate of disposal in High Courts between 2009 and 2011 was a little under 17 lakh cases per year, which is less than half of the total backlog. Moreover, the number of new cases filed in the courts each year is actually equal to and sometimes more than the number of cases disposed, which naturally sets a vicious cycle in motion. While this is one of the primary reasons as to why the problem of pendency persists, according to the response to a Parliamentary Question, this explanation fails to account for the gaps in the policies that actually address judicial reforms.
The Government has undertaken several pendency reduction drives in the past. The pendency drive between July and December of 2011 reduced pendency by about 6 lakhs. Over one-sixth of these cases pertained to senior citizens, persons with disabilities, minors, and marginalized sections of society. A similar drive was to be undertaken during the same period in 2012 as well. Though a 6-lakh reduction is significant, it still remains a small proportion of the total pendency that continues to persist year in and year out. Several other issues also continue to plague our justice system.
Understaffed courts – vacant posts across high courts
For one, a huge number of vacancies continue to exist across courts. A total of 276 positions remain vacant across high courts in the country, barely at 70 per cent of the total sanctioned strength of judges, according to the Department of Justice. In the Allahabad High court, which has the highest number of vacancies, almost half the positions remain vacant. The Allahabad High Court has also continued to have the highest pendency across high courts, with over 10 lakh cases pending at the end of 2011. Similarly, the High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta, which follow Allahabad in having the next highest number of pending cases, also have a high number of vacant posts. The long-drawn process of filling up of vacancies has adversely impacted the pendency of cases, and the delivery of justice, according to a report by the Planning Commission. The fact remains that even pendency drives and other measures taken for the speedy disposal of cases are ultimately in vain, if courts continue to remain understaffed.
Among the recommendations that committees and expert groups have provided to reduce pendency, are steps that can address the issue of vacancies across courts. These include appointing ad-hoc judges among retired judges, raising the retirement age of high court judges from 62 to 65, and setting up an All India Judicial Service Commission to look into regulating appointment of judicial officers. Some of these steps were also reiterated in the landmark Justice Verma Commission report of 2013, which contains a short section on legal reforms, indicating that these some of these steps are perhaps still pending today.
Infrastructural reforms – more working hours & more courts
The idea of establishing evening shift and holiday courts has also been on the judicial reform agenda. The 13th Finance Commission had allocated Rs. 5000 crore for States during 2010-2015 to increase the number of court working hours, using the existing infrastructure and hold morning and evening shifts of courts. [Press Info Bureau] However, as of March 2012, only 1024 morning, evening and special magistrate courts had been set up across the country in 11 states, according to the reply to a previous Parliamentary Question. None of these were set up in the State of Uttar Pradesh, which accounts for over one-fifth of the country’s total high court pendency.
Decentralization of courts, the move to create additional court benches, is another pending legal reform. The Law Commission supported the creation of additional high court benches in its 230th Report on Reforms in the Judiciary. However, this issue actually dates back to 1985, when the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission was set up to look at the question of “having benches of the High Courts at places away from their principal seats.” This was one of the instances in which not only was the idea of having benches of high courts at places away from their principle cities supported, but a set of criteria was also laid down to be considered when establishing a new high court bench in a city.
The Jaswant Singh Commission supported the establishment of a permanent bench of the Allahabad High Court at Agra, of the Kerala High Court at Thiruvanthapuram, West Bengal at Jalpaiguri, and Karnataka at Gulbarga & Dharwad. Out of these, the Karnataka high court bench has circuit benches at Gulbarga and Dharwad today. Demands also exist for a bench of the Rajasthan for a High Court in Bikaner, and of Orissa at Sambalpur.
While in 2009, the Government had stated that requests had been received from Uttar Pradesh and Kerala for High Court Benches in Agra. However, no such proposal exists today. Several of the Jaswant Singh report’s criteria however still stand true, including the ‘grave difficulties faced by the litigant public, in journeying to the principal seat of the High Court from their homes.’ Litigants from Western Uttar Pradesh have to travel over 600 kilometers to Allahabad in order to file appeals.
Setting up a Bench of a High court away from it’s principal set is considered by the Central Government only in terms of a complete proposal from the State, under the State Reorganisation Act, 1956. Further, this requires consent of the Chief Justice of the High Court and the Governor of the State.
A clear vision for judicial reforms – the way forward
Setting up additional benches of high courts can ensure that cases are heard at a faster rate, reduce the costs that litigants face, and in the long run encourage the growth of legal talent in a region as well. Having a clear policy framework for the decentralization of courts today, as well as the infrastructural reforms and filling up vacant posts is necessary to ensure that our legal system can guarantee speedy justice to the people.
The National Mission for Delivery of Justice and Legal Reform, one of the most contemporary and comprehensive policy documents on judicial reforms, mentions the need for most of the concerns highlighted above. However, it does not set out a time-bound plan for the implementation of these reforms.
You can read the replies to Parliamentary Questions raised on the pendency of court cases and judicial reforms here and here.
[Pendency of court cases is the last of a four-part blog series on “Parliamentary Questions and Answers,” which highlights information from Parliamentary Questions asked by M.P. Jayant Chaudhary in 2012-2013, written by Saanya Gulati].
Saanya Gulati worked as a LAMP Fellow at PRS Legislative Research
