Indian Judiciary and its functioning

GS: 2

Polity

Indian Judiciary and its functioning

In News:

Recently, the  Union Cabinet  approved increasing strength of Supreme Court judges from 31 to 34, including the Chief Justice of India.

Strength of judges over a period of time:

• The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 originally provided for a maximum of 10 judges (excluding the CJI). This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 in 1977.
• The working strength of the Supreme court was, however, restricted to 15 judges by the Cabinet (excluding the chief Justice of India) till the end of 1979. But the restriction was withdrawn at the request of the Chief Justice of India.
• In 1986, the strength of the top court was increased to 25, excluding the CJI.
• The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2009 further augmented the strength of the court from 25 to 30.

Statistics : Pendency of cases in Indian judiciary As of April 2018, there are over three crore cases pending across the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the subordinate courts (including district courts). Subordinate Courts: over 86% pendency of cases High Courts: 13.8% pendency before the 24 HCs. Supreme Courts: 0.2% of cases Between 2006 and 2018 (up to April), there has been an 8.6% rise in the pendency of cases across all courts. Pendency before Supreme Court increased by 36%, High Courts by 17%, and subordinate courts by 7%. State-wise: Between 2006-2018: Decrease in pendency was the highest in Madras High Court at 29%, followed by Allahabad High Court at 27% .   Pendency doubled in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Between 2006 and 2016, pendency of civil cases in Karnataka High Court witnessed a threefold increase from 78,837 cases to 2,53,613 cases.  In the same time period, in Andhra Pradesh, the number of criminal cases witnessed a threefold increase from 13,367 cases to 41,906 cases. Increase in the pendency of cases for long periods over the years has resulted in an increase in the number of undertrials prisoners. The highest number of undertrials were in UP (22.3%) followed by Bihar (8.3%). The highest proportion of undertrials (where the number of accused were at least over 1000) were in J&K (85%) followed by Bihar (82%).

 

Why there is pendency of cases in Indian courts?

• Increase in workload: In many States, the fast-track courts designated to handle rape cases are also handling other criminal cases leading to delay in verdicts. Recently, the Supreme Court noted that trial had been completed in only 4% of the 24,000 cases of sexual offences that were filed from January to June

• Not enough judges: The lack of judges and the increasing number of cases, has burdened the courts and has delayed the settlement of cases.
• Inefficient resources: Indian judiciary has insufficient resources. Both Center and States are not interested in increasing spending with respect to the judiciary. Modernization and computerization have not reached all courts.
• Low judicial quality in lower courts: The Indian Judicial system has failed to attract the best brains and the talented students. As the quality of judges in lower courts is not always up to the mark, appeals are filed against the decisions in higher courts, which again increase the number of cases.
• Lack of court management systems- Courts have created dedicated posts for court managers to help improve court operations, optimise case movement and judicial time. However only few courts have filled up such posts so far.
• Increasing Literacy- With people becoming more aware of their rights and the obligations of the State towards them, they approach the courts more frequently in case of any violation.

 

 

 

Government initiatives:

1. Recently, the Home Ministry launched an analytics tool — Investigation Tracking System for Sexual Offences (ITSSO) to monitor and track time-bound investigation. It is part of the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and System (CCTNS) that connects over 15,000 police stations across the country.
2. Lok Adalats: Lok Adalats were setup across the country in an attempt to clear up the backlog of cases. Lok Adalats encourage parties to settle cases outside the formal court system. In the last 2 decades, crores of cases have been settled through these courts.
3. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India. The Commission was established by amending the Constitution of India through the ninety-ninth constitution amendment with the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 
4. Collegium System:The Collegium is comprises of the Chief Justice of India along with four other senior judges. This system is in practice since October 28, 1998.  Collegium system is used for appointments and transfers of judges in High courts and Supreme Courts. The recommendations of the Collegium are binding on the Central Government; if the Collegium sends the names of the judges/lawyers to the government for the second time.

Committees on judicial reforms:

1. Malimath Committee:

• The committee was constituted by the Home Ministry.
• It was headed by Justice V.S. Malimath, former Chief Justice of the Karnataka and Kerala High Courts.
• The committee recommended admissibility of confessions made before a police officer as evidence in a court of law.
• The Committee also suggested constituting a National Judicial Commission and amending Article 124 to make impeachment of judges less difficult.
• It includes controversial recommendations such as making confessions to a senior police officer admissible as evidence, and diluting the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction.
• It also contains valuable suggestions to revamp the administration of criminal law, covering the entire gamut of the justice system from investigation to sentencing, from matters of policy to the nuances of criminal procedure and the law of evidence.

1. The Law Commission of India in its 230th report has also offered a long list of measures to deal with the pendency of cases. These include providing strict guidelines for the grant of adjournments, curtailing vacation time in the higher judiciary, reducing the time for oral arguments unless the case involves a complicated question of law, and framing clear and decisive judgments to avoid further litigation. 

Way ahead:

• Optimal judge strength to handle the cases pending in the system.

• It may be worthwhile considering the 229th Report of the Law Commission, suggesting a new system under which there will be one Constitution Bench in Delhi, and four ‘Cassation Benches’ for different regions of the country.  These will be final appellate courts for routine litigation. This arrangement may also increase access to justice to those living in far-flung areas of the country .
•  Improving infrastructure for quality justice- The Parliamentary Standing Committee which presented its report on Infrastructure Development and Strengthening of Subordinate Courts, suggested that States should provide suitable land for construction of court buildings etc. It should undertake vertical construction in light of shortage of land. Timeline set out for computerisation of all the courts, as a necessary step towards setting up of e- courts.
• Addressing the Issue of Vacancies- Ensure the appointments of the judges be done in an efficient way by arriving at an optimal judge strength to handle the cases pending in the system. The 120th Law Commission of India report for the first time, suggested a judge strength fixation formula.

1. Supreme Court and High Courts should appoint efficient and experienced judges as Ad-hoc judges in accordance with the Constitution.
2. All India Judicial Service, which would benefit the subordinate judiciary by increasing quality of judges and help reduce the pendency.

• Having a definite time frame to dispose the cases by setting annual targets and action plans for the subordinate judiciary and the High Courts. The judicial officers could be issued a strict code of conduct, to ensure that the duties are adequately performed by the officials.
• Strict regulation of adjournments and imposition of exemplary costs for seeking it on flimsy grounds especially at the trial stage and not permitting dilution of time frames specified in Civil Procedure Code.
• Better Court Management System & Reliable Data Collection: For this categorization of cases on the basis of urgency and priority along with bunching of cases should be done.
• Electronic filing of cases: e-Courts are a welcome step in this direction, as they give case status and case history of all the pending cases across High courts and Subordinate courts bringing ease of access to information.
• Revamping of National Judicial Data Grid by introducing a new type of search known as elastic search, which is closer to the artificial intelligence.
• Alternate dispute resolution (ADR)- As stated in the Conference on National Initiative to Reduce Pendency and Delay in Judicial System- Legal Services Authorities should undertake pre-litigation mediation so that the inflow of cases into courts can be regulated.
• Zero Pendency Courts Project: Prompted by the urgent need to ensure timely justice, the Delhi High Court started the pilot project from January 2017 in certain subordinate courts in Delhi. It is one of its kind in India aimed to study the life cycles of cases to come up with optimal timelines for cases. The primary goal of the project was to study the flow of cases in the absence of backlog.

 

Conclusion:

The fundamental requirement of a good judicial administration is accessibility, affordability and speedy justice, which will not be realized until and unless the justice delivery system is made within the reach of the individual in a time bound manner and within a reasonable cost.  The government decision to increase the strength of judges is a good move in this direction. However, another set of measures that would save the court’s time, including a reasonable restraint on the duration of oral arguments and a disciplined adherence to a schedule of hearings may be needed. 

 

Source)

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/bigger-and-better/article28815646.ece