The judiciary is crippled by a lack of manpower and infrastructural support but it will take time to bring them up to the necessary level. In the meantime, there are other measures that can be taken immediately to lighten the case load and make the system more efficient

In April, while addressing the conference of the Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Court, the Chief Justice of India made an emotional and almost tearful plea for appointment of more judges to resolve millions of pending cases in the courts across the country. This will, he said, do justice not only to the poor litigants but also restore confidence among the foreign investors whom the government is trying to attract.

It is a fact that the number of judges in the country is inadequate to cope with the staggering pendency of cases in different courts. The cancer of pendency and consequent delay in their disposal has crippled and paralysed the criminal justice administration in the country.

According to PRS legislative’s Research’s report, 32 million cases (civil and criminal) are pending in courts and out of them 58,000 cases are pending in the Supreme Courts and 42 lakh in various High Courts and 2.8 crore cases in sessions and subordinate courts. Pendency of cases has increased in last 10 years in the Supreme Court by 148 percent and 53 percent in High Courts.

The fact cannot be gainsaid that increase in the number of cases is not matched by an increase in the number of judges. There are 10-12 judges per million people in the country while in advanced countries there are 50 judges per million. The apex court is itself running short of its required strength by 6 judges and 464 vacancies exist in various High Courts.

However, increase in the number of judges, though urgently necessary, is not the only answer. Some urgent institutional and systemic changes are called for. The critical test to be kept in mind is not the judge-population ratio but the judge-docket ratio.

Docket refers to the list of cases to be tried and is an accurate indication of the work load of a judge. In India, the docket ratio per judge for proper and minor matters is 987 whereas it is 3,235 per judge in the US. The answer perhaps lies in effective court management which, unfortunately, has not been seriously attempted in India.

The Arrear Committee, headed by Justice VS Malimath, in 1990 identified the various causes of accumulation of arrears in the High Courts. According to the Committee, litigation explosion, inadequacy of staff attached to the High Courts, inordinate concentration of work in the hands of few members of the Bar, lack of punctuality among the judges and inadequate supply of the copies of judgements were some of the causes for pendency.

The law Commission as well as the National Police Commission in their reports had suggested various measures that can be applied to reduce the huge backlog of cases in the courts. Some of the immediate steps that can be taken without delay or difficulty are:

First, many petty cases, particularly under the Motor Vehicles Act, form a big bulk of pending cases for want of appearance of the accused persons and witnesses who get dispersed after detection of the offence. There should be ticketing system for on-the-spot disposal of the trafficking offences which will help in a big way reduction of cases pending for trial in the courts.

Second, there should be periodic review at different levels of every police case pending in the court for more than one year from the date of filing of the charge sheet. A decision should be taken whether it will be in public interest to continue with the prosecution of the case may be withdrawn.

For example, in property cases, that involve first offenders or wherein the value of the property is less than Rs500, should be considered for withdrawal, with the consent of the complainants. The law Commission in its 154th Report (1996) endorsed this recommendation and said “the periodic review of the pending cases can be undertaken with a view to striking many of them out from the court's calendar”.

There is often unacceptable and avoidable adjournment of cases both at the stage of trial, appeals and remissions. Though Section 301 CrPC provides for holding of the trial proceedings as expeditiously as possible, it is an open secret that there is enormous delay in the disposal of cases because of frequent adjournments. When the session’s trials begin it must be heard day-to-day till the end. Non-availability of witnesses or counsels should be no ground for adjournments. Indeed, the pursuit of perfection in courts has led to near-collapse of the system.

None can ensure complete justice and the objective of the court should be that the system must work. The law Commission in its 154th Report recommended that every criminal court shall send a return in a prescribed performa to the Chief Justice of the High Court stating the particulars of the cases in which adjournments were granted by them during enquiry or trial of cases with details thereof.

It is a matter of regret that the courts in the country have, by and large remained untouched by the management revolution of the 20th century and information revolution of the present century. Computers have not been used successfully to improve the court management. There should be provision of e-filing in all the courts, starting from the sessions and above. All judgements and records should be uploaded online. Court notices, summons in petty cases, service of documents to be made online wherever possible. These steps will go to reduce delay, corruption and result in eradication of misplacement of files. 

Today, of the three branches of the state, judiciary is still held in respect by the people. But there is gradual erosion of public respect for the judiciary for a variety of reasons. The main danger to the judicial system is from within. Bad appointments and poor supervision are taking their toll. The National Judicial Accountability Commission controversy highlighted the need for transparency in the appointment of judges and rejigging of the collegium system.

A former justice of the Supreme Court Ruma Pal has aptly said that the “process by which a judge is appointed to a High Court or elevated to the Supreme Court is one of the best kept secrets of the country”. The judiciary must also discourage frivolous public interest litigations and seriously reconsider whether it wants to continue with the practice of long court vacations, in the face of criticism from all quarters.

(The writer is former Director General of the National Human Rights Commission and former Director of the National Police Academy)