Pendency of cases in India

Why in News?

• The Chief Justice of India (CJI) recently stated that pendency is a perennial drawback that affects the court’s role as the timely protector of citizens’ rights and remarked that increasing the number of judges may not demolish this problem.
• The purpose of this article is to investigate innovative instruments, resources and approaches that are feasible, cost-effective, and generate results in order to address the problem of backlog cases.

 

Statistics related to court pendency

• The Parliamentary figures reveal that at over 47 million, India has the largest number of pending court cases in the world.
  • As per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), 57,987 cases in Supreme Court (SC) and 49 lakh cases are pending in High Courts
  • Also 2.4cr cases are pending cases in India’s district courts, out of which 23 lakh (9.58%) have been pending for over 10 years, and 39 lakh (16.44%) have been pending for between 5 and 10 years.
• In the SC (as on December 13, 2022) -
  • 498 Constitution Bench cases are pending.
  • PILs, Special leave petitions (SLPs) and writ petitions amount to 2,870; 4,331 and 2,209, respectively, of the court’s pendency.
  • Also, there are 487 pending election matters in the top court.
• A Law Commission report in 2009 had quoted that it would require 464 years to clear the arrears with the present strength of judges. A 2018 paper by NITI Aayog said it would take more than 324 years to clear the backlog.

Image Caption: Pendency in Court

What are the reasons for high court pendency?

• Government, the biggest litigant: The Centre and state governments are party to 46% of the pending cases in judiciary.
• Volume of appeals from lower courts: Almost 40% of the working days of SC judges are consumed in determining admission of SLPs and as much as 90% of those SLPs are rejected, leading to mammoth time wastage of SC.
• Judge strength: As of 2021, India had 21.03 judges per million people compared to the UK with 51 and the US with 107 judges per million, leading to poor case disposal.
• Administrative burden: The Indian judges spend majority time in scheduling hearings, deciding admission and reviewing docket/listing completion unlike in developed countries where administrative tasks of courts are supported by an external agency.
  • Thus, minimum time is spared to perform the core task of handling cases and delivering judgments.
• Poor afresh talent: As large numbers of experienced judges retiring from the High Courts, finding good talent for making new appointments is becoming difficult.

 

What measures are needed to handle court pendency?

• Bring back retired judges: In India the High court judges retire at 62 and Supreme Court judges retire at 65 in contrast with UK or Canada where judges are allowed to continue in service until they are 75. In USA, judges of the Supreme and subordinate courts hold office for life.
  • Hence, India should emulate the same and retain its retired senior judges.
• Easy work hours for retired judges: The working hours and schedules can be flexibly designed for retired judges to operate, enabling the current judges to take up important cases in adequate Bench strength and composition.
• Advocates acting as judges: A scheme can also be devised by which experienced High Court senior advocates sit as judges once a week to hear matters. Many would sign up for the novel and contributing experience, and many would do an excellent job.
• Employing hybrid methods for justice delivery: As retired judges start practicing, need may arise for more brick-and-mortar structures, office infrastructure, staff etc. However, costs can be cut upon by cultivating an online justice system.
  • For instance, COVID-19 shutdown witnessed harnessing online facilities and judges and lawyers welcomed its ease and flexibility.
• Examine performance conduct: The productivity of judges should be reviewed periodically to have oversight upon absenteeism of judges, cases solved, etc. E.g., CJI Ranjan Gogoi had proposed a “no leave formula” for judges during working days of the court.
• Employing mediation: Mediation is far superior to litigation in wide range of cases ranging from personal and matrimonial to civil and commercial and property disputes.
  • If well planned and executed, it can lift half the load of India’s cases off courts’ shoulders.
  • Also, owing to present success rate of over 50% of mediation centres coupled with lower costs and appeals compared to litigation, it is essential to use mediation as a central peg of reform.
• Strengthening manpower: To encourage mediation further, sensible policies need to be devised to make mediation a professionally attractive career option for willing advocates.
  • An Indian Mediation Service can be created on the lines of the judicial service and incentives and disincentives must be devised for existing and prospective litigants to try this consensual method in good faith.
• Weeding out state litigation: A negative list need to be devised which identifies instances in which government and its agencies are barred from going to court would be helpful to avoid futile litigation.
• Penalizing adjournments: A norm needs to be formed that once a date is fixed no adjournment should be possible unless the side that requests it is willing to pay the other side's legal costs along with a substantial penalty.
• Best management practices: The system of long vacations for courts should be shed off for optimum justice delivery. g., Former CJI Lodha has recommended that instead of all the judges going on vacation all at one time, individual judges should take their leave at different times through the year.
  • It will ensure that the courts are constantly open and there are always benches present to hear cases.

 

What steps have been taken to reduce pendency?

• Policy formulation: Adoption of “National Litigation Policy 2010” to transform government into an Efficient and Responsible litigant. All states formulated state litigation policies after National Litigation Policy 2010.
• Legal Information Management and Briefing System (LIMBS): It was created in 2015 with the objective of tracking cases to which the government is a party.
• Concept of Plea Bargaining: It was inserted as a new chapter in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
  • Plea Bargaining means a pre-negotiation between the accused and the prosecution where the accused pleads guilty in exchange for certain concession by the prosecution.
  • Its main objective is to reduce the time in criminal trail and give the accused a lesser punishment and helps in fast disposal of cases.
• Alternate dispute resolution (ADR): The Legal Services Authorities undertake pre-litigation mediation so that the inflow of cases into courts can be regulated. E.g., Lok Adalat for settling civil and family matter, Gram Nyayalayas, etc.

 

Conclusion

• Conventional reform prescribes more judges, more courts, more staff and more infrastructure. However, all these need resources of either money or manpower, both of which we lack.
• As a result, the aforementioned innovative reforms provide a remarkably distinct method that gathers and best utilizes available resources, both technological and personal, and can have a significant influence.

 

---

Q1) What is National Judicial Data Grid?

National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) is a database of orders, judgments and case details of 18,735 District & Subordinate Courts and High Courts created as an online platform under the eCourts Project.

 

Q2) What is Alternate dispute resolution (ADR)?

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) refers to the different ways people can resolve disputes without a trial. Common ADR processes include mediation, arbitration, and neutral evaluation.

 

---

Source: India’s crushing court backlogs, out-of-the box reform