Judicial Reforms

Judicial reform refers to changes or improvements made to the legal system, including the court system, laws, and procedures. These reforms aim to increase the efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness of the justice system, ensuring that it upholds the rule of law and provides fair and timely justice to all citizens.

Judicial reforms may involve changes to laws and regulations governing the legal system, the structure and organization of the court system, the appointment and training of judges, the procedures and rules of evidence used in trials, and the use of technology to improve court operations.

Need for Reforms

1. Backlog of cases: One of the major issues facing the Indian judiciary is the backlog of cases, with over 30 million pending cases across all courts in the country. This leads to a delay in justice delivery and denies people their right to a timely resolution of their disputes

2. Lack of access to justice: A large section of the population in India, especially the marginalized and vulnerable groups, faces difficulties in accessing justice due to various factors such as distance, cost, and complexity of legal procedures. This leads to a denial of justice and perpetuates social inequality.

3. Quality of judgments: There are concerns about the quality of judgments being delivered by the Indian judiciary, with some judgments being criticized for their lack of reasoning, coherence, and consistency.

4. Infrastructure and technology: The Indian judiciary also faces challenges in terms of infrastructure and technology, with many courts lacking basic facilities and using outdated technology, leading to inefficiencies and delays.

5. Appointment and accountability of judges: There have been concerns about the transparency and accountability of the process of appointment of judges, as well as the performance and conduct of judges themselves.

Aspects of Judicial Reforms

1. Modernization of the legal system: The Indian government has been implementing various technological initiatives to modernize the legal system. This includes digitization of court records, online filing of cases, and e-court services. This has helped to reduce delays and improve access to justice.

2. Increase in the number of judges: There is a severe shortage of judges in India. The government has taken steps to increase the number of judges in the courts by creating new positions and filling vacancies. This is expected to help reduce the backlog of cases pending in the courts.

3. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Alternative Dispute Resolutions were founded in Indian Constitution under Article 14 and Article 21 which mention Equality for law and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. The government has been promoting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration as a means of resolving disputes outside of the court system. This helps to reduce the burden on the courts and provides a quicker and less expensive means of dispute resolution

4. Legal aid: The Indian government has been providing legal aid (Article 30A) to those who cannot afford to hire a lawyer. This helps to ensure that everyone has access to justice, regardless of their financial status.

5. Fast-track special courts: The government has established fast-track courts to deal with cases involving crimes against women and children, as well as other cases that require speedy resolution.

6. Reforms in the criminal justice system: The government has been implementing various reforms in the criminal justice system to ensure that the innocent are not wrongly convicted, and the guilty are not let off. This includes measures such as improving forensic capabilities, ensuring timely investigation and prosecution, and protecting the rights of the accused.

Judicial Appointment

In India, there are two main ways of judicial appointment:

1. Collegium System
   • The Constitution alludes to the procedure of appointment of judges to the SC and HCs in Article 124 and Article 217 respectively. The Collegium System is a system of appointment of judges in the higher judiciary, which includes the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
   • It is a system where the Chief Justice of India and a group of senior-most judges of the Supreme Court recommend the names of judges for appointment to the President of India.
   • This system was introduced by a series of judgments by the Supreme Court in the 1990s and has been in operation since then. (The Three Judges Case: The Three Judges Case refers to a landmark Supreme Court judgment delivered on October 28, 1998, in which the court held that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) has “primacy” in the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary.)
2. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)

• • In 2014, the Parliament of India passed the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act under the 99th Amendment of the Indian Constitution, which sought to replace the Collegium System with a Judicial Appointments Commission.
  • The JAC was a body that consisted of the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, the Union Minister of Law and Justice, and two eminent persons nominated by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India, and the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
  • However, the Supreme Court struck down the Act in 2015, ruling that it was unconstitutional.

Criticism of Collegium System

1. Lack of transparency: The Collegium system operates largely in secrecy, with no public disclosure of the criteria used for the appointment or transfer of judges. This lack of transparency can lead to allegations of favouritism and nepotism. It also is a violation of Article 74 of the Indian Constitution which requires proper scrutiny and accountability.

2. Lack of accountability: Since the appointment of judges is entirely in the hands of the Collegium, there is no external oversight or accountability. This can lead to a situation where judges are appointed based on personal biases or political affiliations.

3. Dilution of executive power:

• The Collegium system has been criticized for diluting the power of the executive branch of the government in the appointment of judges. This can lead to a situation where the judiciary becomes dominant over the other branches of the government.
• The Second Judges’ Case and the Third Judges’ Case are landmark judgments by the Supreme Court of India that strengthened the judiciary’s independence and autonomy in the appointment of judges.
• The Collegium system, established in the Third Judges’ Case, gave senior judges greater control over the appointment process.
• While these decisions were seen as important for the judiciary’s independence, they also raised concerns about the concentration of power in the judiciary and the lack of transparency in the appointment process. Overall, the cases had a significant impact on the separation of powers doctrine in India.

4. Limited diversity: The Collegium system has been criticized for not ensuring adequate representation of marginalized communities, including women, Dalits, and minorities, in the higher judiciary.

5. Uncle Judges Syndrome: This means that senior judges make recommendations for the appointment of other judges. It refers to the alleged tendency of judges to favour their own protégés or relatives for appointments. Critics argue that this undermines the principle of merit-based appointments and creates a culture of nepotism and favouritism.

Judicial Accountability

Judicial accountability refers to the concept that judges should be held accountable for their decisions and actions in a fair, transparent, and impartial manner.

In India, the Constitution provides for the independence of the judiciary and the principle of judicial accountability. However, in recent years, there have been concerns about the lack of accountability of judges, particularly in higher judiciary.

Areas of Conflict

1. Separation of powers: The Constitution provides for a clear separation of powers between the judiciary and the other branches of government. While the judiciary should be accountable, it should not be subjected to political interference or influence. However, conflicts may arise if the executive or legislative branches try to influence judicial appointments or disciplinary proceedings.

2. Judicial independence: The independence of the judiciary is crucial for maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the judicial process. However, complete independence can sometimes lead to a lack of accountability. Therefore, striking a balance between judicial independence and accountability is crucial.

3. Transparency: Transparency is essential for ensuring accountability. However, the judiciary operates in a highly sensitive and complex environment, and complete transparency can sometimes compromise the confidentiality and security of the judicial process. Therefore, balancing the need for transparency with the need for confidentiality is a delicate task.

4. Right to privacy: Judges, like other citizens, have a right to privacy, and their personal lives should not be subjected to undue scrutiny. However, in cases of judicial misconduct, there may be a need to investigate their personal lives to establish the facts. Balancing the right to privacy with the need to investigate can be a challenging task.

5. Judicial hierarchy: The judiciary operates in a hierarchical structure, with senior judges having more power and authority than junior judges. This can sometimes lead to a lack of accountability, with senior judges having the power to influence appointments and disciplinary proceedings. Ensuring accountability in such a structure requires a robust system of checks and balances.

Reforms

1. Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill: The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha to regulate the conduct of judges and to establish a mechanism for investigating complaints of misconduct against them. The bill provides for the establishment of a national judicial oversight committee to investigate complaints of misconduct and to recommend action against erring judges.

2. Disciplinary proceedings: The Supreme Court has laid down the procedure for initiating disciplinary proceedings against judges in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India. The procedure provides for the appointment of a committee to investigate complaints of misconduct and to recommend action against the erring judge. The Supreme Court can also initiate suo moto proceedings against a judge for misconduct.

3. Public scrutiny: Public scrutiny of judicial decisions and actions can act as a check on the judiciary. The media and civil society can play a crucial role in holding judges accountable by reporting on cases of judicial misconduct and highlighting instances of corruption or bias in the judiciary. The live streaming of Supreme Court proceedings is a means of public scrutiny and transparency, allowing citizens to observe the court’s proceedings and decisions in real-time. This can enhance public trust in the judiciary and promote accountability.

4. Judicial education: Judges need to be trained in ethics and the principles of judicial conduct. Regular training and education programs can ensure that judges are aware of their responsibilities and are equipped to discharge them in a fair and impartial manner.

Judicial Pendency

Judicial pendency refers to the backlog of cases that are pending in courts. In India, judicial pendency is a significant issue that affects the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial system. There are several reasons for judicial pendency, including:

1. Lack of judicial infrastructure: One of the main reasons for judicial pendency is the lack of judicial infrastructure, including courts, judges, and support staff. There is a significant shortage of judges and courtrooms, which results in delays in the disposal of cases.

2. Delay in the appointment of judges: There is often a delay in the appointment of judges, which further exacerbates the problem of judicial pendency. The delay in appointment can be attributed to various factors, including bureaucratic red tape, lack of political will, and disputes between the executive and judiciary over the appointment process.

3. Procedural delays: Procedural delays, such as adjournments, continuances, and transfer of cases, can also contribute to judicial pendency. These delays are often caused by the absence of witnesses, lawyers, or judges, and can result in cases dragging on for years.

4. Lack of technology: The lack of technology in the Indian judiciary, such as digitization of records and online filing of cases, can also contribute to judicial pendency. This can result in delays in accessing records and in the processing of cases.

5. Government is the biggest litigant: The government is involved in a large number of legal disputes as a party, either as a plaintiff or a defendant. Thus, the government should invest in modernizing and upgrading the judicial system to reduce delays and backlogs.

Way Forward

1. Increase in the number of judges: The shortage of judges is a significant cause of judicial pendency. Therefore, increasing the number of judges in the courts can help reduce the backlog of cases. The government should fill up the vacancies in the courts and increase the number of judges in proportion to the number of pending cases.

2. Use of technology: The use of technology can help streamline court procedures, reduce paperwork, and increase the efficiency of the judicial system. Digitization of court records, online filing of cases, and virtual hearings can help reduce delays and speed up the disposal of cases.

3. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms: Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, can help reduce the burden on courts and speed up the disposal of cases. Encouraging parties to settle disputes outside of court can help reduce the backlog of cases.

4. Case management: Effective case management can help reduce delays in the disposal of cases. The courts should develop a robust case management system that tracks the progress of cases, identifies cases that require priority attention, and sets realistic deadlines for the disposal of cases.

5. Increase in the number of courts: The number of courts should be increased to ensure that the judicial system can handle the volume of cases. The establishment of additional courts can help reduce the backlog of cases and increase the efficiency of the judicial system.

6. Time-bound disposal of cases: The time-bound disposal of cases can help reduce the backlog of cases. The government should set realistic timelines for the disposal of cases and ensure that the courts adhere to these timelines.