GS Paper 2
Syllabus: Indian Judiciary
Context: Blaming court vacations for pending cases overlooks deeper issues plaguing India’s judiciary, including unfilled vacancies and lack of infrastructure. The problem extends beyond judges’ schedules and requires comprehensive solutions.
Status:
As of September 2023, the Supreme Court of India has 80,344 pending cases, with 78% being civil matters and 22% criminal. In 2023, the court disposed of 36,164 out of 37,777 cases filed. Over 4,000 pending cases are more than a decade old.
Causes for huge pendency of cases:
| Causes for huge pendency of cases | Details |
| Shifting role of SC | Shifting the role of the Supreme Court from adjudicating cases of constitutional significance into a regular court of appeals or cases of violation of fundamental rights. |
| Shortage of judges | Around 25% of posts are lying empty in the subordinate courts, which leads to a poor Judges to Population Ratio. Earlier, the Law Commission had recommended 50 judges per million population. |
| Low budgetary allocation leads to poor infrastructure | The infrastructure status of lower courts is dismal due to which they fail to deliver quality judgements. |
| The burden of government cases | Centre and the States were responsible for over 46% of the pending cases in Indian courts. |
| Special leave petition | Frivolous PILs and government policies which are challenged by the people take up most of the judiciary’s time. |
| Lack of court management systems | Only a few courts have court managers who help improve court operations and optimize case movement and judicial time. |
Consequences of pendency:
- Denial of ‘timely justice’ amounts to a denial of ‘justice’ itself: Timely disposal of cases is essential to maintain the rule of law and provide access to justice.
- A weak judiciary has a negative effect on social development, which leads to:
- lower per capita income;
- higher poverty rates;
- poorer public infrastructure; and
- higher crime rates.
- Affects human rights: Overcrowding of the prisons results in “violation of human rights”.
Way forward:
- Split the Supreme Court into Two Divisions: The 10th Law Commission proposed to divide the Supreme Court into a Constitutional Division and a Legal Division, focusing on specific areas of law to streamline cases.
- Establish a National Court of Appeal for SLPs: SC had previously suggested the creation of a specialized court to handle special leave petitions, allowing the Supreme Court to focus on constitutional and public law issues.
- Establish Regional Benches of Supreme Court: Recommendation (229th Law Commission Report, 2009) to set up regional benches in Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai to hear non-constitutional cases and reduce the backlog.
- Increase the number of Work Days: Proposals to extend the working days of the Supreme Court and reduce vacation periods to address the backlog of cases.
- The 2009 Law Commission, in its 230th report,suggested that court vacations be cut down by 10-15 days at all levels of the judiciary to help cut the backlog of cases.
- Establish a Final Court of Appeal and a Permanent Constitution Bench: Suggestions to separate the Supreme Court’s functions into a Final Court of Appeal and a dedicated Constitution Bench for better efficiency and consistency.
- Establish a Dedicated Authority for Infrastructure: Proposal (by Former CJI NV Ramanna) to create a National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India (NJIAI) to improve judicial infrastructure across the country.
- Alternate dispute resolution (ADR):
- Lok Adalat should be organized regularly for settling civil and family matters.
- Gram Nyayalayas will help in decreasing the workload of the judicial institution.
- Village Legal Care & Support Centre can also be established by the High Courts to work at the grassroots level.
Conclusion
The fundamental requirement of a good judicial administration is accessibility, affordability and speedy justice, which will not be realized until the justice delivery system is made within the reach of the individual in a time-bound manner and within a reasonable cost.
Insta Links
Mains Links:
Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on the ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (USPC 2017)
Prelims Links:
With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements: (USPC 2021)
- Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.
- A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither I nor 2
Ans: (c)
Source: IE
