Supreme Court Justice Sanjiv Khanna said that the pendency rate of criminal and civil cases in Madhya Pradesh stands at 1:4 -- higher than the national rate of 1:3.
He was addressing at the 10th Biennial MP State Judicial Officers' Confrence at Bhopal's Ravindra Bhavan on Saturday. Justice Khanna served as the chief guest of the event.
Justice Khanna further said that district court disposal rate is 10 times more than the High Court. Over 8 percent of pending cases are of bail matter in MP. This is matter of concern. Now judges are getting much better salary and perks. They should also focus on delivery of justice.
Justice Anirudh Bose and GK Maheshwari of Supreme Court and Chief Justice of MP Ravimalimath were also present. They stressed on speedy disposal with quality to make zero pendency by 2047.
Highlighting the shortage of judges, they said, "There is one judge for every 50,000 people in country. There is need of recruitment of judges with quality to reduce pendency."
SC judge Vikram Nath said that conviction rate is less than 1 percent and some cases have been pending for last 30 years in Gujarat and so in Madhya Pradesh. States should withdraw cases when they cannot prosecute, he said.
Earlier, Justice Khanna further said, in the vast realm of our judicial system, the District Judiciary often finds itself overshadowed by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, receiving less limelight and coverage. This is a gravely incorrect perception. It is at the district level that justice is rendered to the masses, with the District Courts serving as the crucial first point of engagement for commoners seeking dispute resolution.
To put things into perspective, let us consider the caseloads. In the calendar year 2023, the High Courts presided over 20,67,000 cases, and the Supreme Court dealt with 52,660 cases. In stark contrast, the District Courts handled a staggering 2,37,00,000 cases – almost ten times more than the High Courts. This underscores the foundational role of the District Courts, in carrying the most significant weight of the entire judicial
institution on their shoulders.
There is also a common misconception that the District Judiciary primarily deals with statutory rights rather than the protection of fundamental rights. This perception is not only incorrect but also potentially damaging to the
cause of justice. Most of the statutes in our country flow either from the fundamental rights or the directive principles of state policy. Statutes often address conflicts in two fundamental rights, prioritising one over the other.
Thus any interpretation or application of a statute entails a determination with respect to the Constitution. In this manner, the District Judiciary is intimately connected with the fundamental rights of citizens - whether through preserving liberty via bail applications or upholding the dignity of both victims and the accused in a trial. Since the District Judiciary handles a far higher caseload than the appellate courts, their acts of application and interpretation of statutes become the linchpin to the protection of fundamental rights.
I've previously discussed the respect and reverence that we, as Judges, command and our corresponding obligation to the public. To ensure justice and fairness, Judges must embody neutrality, imp rtiality, and an unwavering commitment to decide cases based on the law—a cardinal rule and the hallmark of a fair and independent judiciary, he added.