The burden of pendency

About 5.05 crore—or, to put it numerically to emphasise the magnitude, 5,05,00,000—are the number of cases pending in various courts nationwide. According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), these include 80,501 in the Supreme Court (with 25,267 less than a year old), 60,72,106 in various High Courts (25.98 lakh pending for over 5 years), and a staggering 4,44,10,610 cases in the district and taluk courts—the primary courts where the litigation journey begins. Over 2.75 crore cases (62 per cent) are over one year old, with 51.08 lakh cases exceeding 5 years. There are also cases of 30-years vintage. This makes for dismal reading.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court has warned that “if every case is tried till the end, if every first appeal has to be heard by the courts, if every matter transcends itself into coming to the Supreme Court, 200 years or 500 years will also not see the end of litigation.” This may have been a rhetorical observation, but it highlights the sheer burden of the problem. Another fallout of the delay in the cases being decided is the large number of prisoners awaiting trial; the prisons are overcrowded and understaffed. Although Indian jails have a capacity of about 4.25 lakh, they currently hold over 5.54 lakh people.

Against this backdrop, the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Law and Justice on Judicial Process and Their Reforms lacks major recommendations to address this core problem.

The report suggests creating Regional Benches of the Supreme Court, noting that the apex court is too Delhi-centric, to decentralise the system and reduce barriers for litigants. The Committee has suggested the creation of at least four-five such benches suitably empowered to handle appellate matters while constitutional matters could be dealt with in Delhi.

It has been suggested that the retirement age of judges needs to be increased from the current age of 65 and 62 for the Supreme Court and High Court, respectively. The report also highlighted that the practice of the court going on vacation leads to the entire higher judiciary shutting down for several months a year. Currently, the Supreme Court takes a total of 11 weeks of vacation in a year, split between summer, winter, and festivals. The report has noted the absence of diversity in the higher judiciary and recommended that representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, women, and minorities needs to be increased.

The recommendations will be examined by the government and may or may not be accepted. Even assuming all the recommendations are accepted, it is doubtful that they will have any significant impact on pendency.

The government,despite asserting that case disposal is within the judiciary’s domain, can take several steps to address the issue. Urgent filling of vacancies in various courts and tribunals created specifically to reduce the burden on the higher judiciary, increasing the number of judges and courts, and utilising technology for improved justice delivery are some actionable measures. What is also in the government’s domain, as the biggest litigant (it is estimated to be above 40 per cent), is to check its tendency to litigate. The functioning of Lok Adalat’s and Fast Track courts needs to be reviewed and established in the states where they are absent. There is also a need to leverage better information and communication technology for improved justice delivery.

Courts must do some soul-searching. Courts, especially the district courts, the session courts, and the other lower courts, should be sensitised about the critical role they play and the need for speedier disposal. The Bar Council should actively self-regulate itself. Members should be similarly sensitised to work closely in tandem with the courts to ensure swift disposal of cases.

There is a National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms set up in 2011 with the twin objectives of increasing access by reducing delays and arrears in the system and enhancing accountability through structural changes and setting performance standards. It needs to be reactivated to come up with concrete measures.

Alternate dispute resolution measures need to be encouraged and strengthened. The Mediation Bill was passed in the last session of Parliament. The bill requires people to mandatorily explore mediation before approaching any court or tribunal. This should take care, hopefully, of the future. It is the burden of the past under which the judicial system is creaking.

Justice delayed or justice denied is a trite truism. And the last thing we as a nation would want is to deny justice, more so since it will impact our avowed goal of Sabka Vikas.

(The writer is the former chairman of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs)