Supreme Court case backlog falls below 60,000: 

Supreme Court case backlog falls below 60,000: 

Context

• The Supreme Court has successfully managed to bring down its case backlog below 60,000 through concerted efforts.

The progress

• Justice Dipak Misra took over as the Chief Justice of India on August 28 and the total pending cases in the apex court then stood at 57,774. In two months, this has been reduced by 2,174 cases.
• Between August 28 and October 27, the number of filed cases stood at 7,021, while 9,195 cases were disposed of.
• On May 1, 2017, the total case backlog in Supreme Court stood at 60,751 out of which 39 are constitution bench matters.

Why is it important?

• Reduction in backlog cases in courts across the country has been a matter of priority for both the government and the apex court.
• Justice delayed is justice denied. Backlog cases needs to be addressed for the welfare of the society.

What are the reasons behind the backlog?

Vacancies of judges

• With about 30 million cases pending in various courts across the country, Indian judiciary is struggling to clear a huge backlog. If on an average three persons are involved in a case, then there are at least 90 million people waiting for justice.
• Bulk of these cases is pending in subordinate courts thronged by poor litigants – who bear the brunt of the snail-paced system.
• Of late, the problem has been compounded by the unprecedented increase in judicial vacancies across the three tiers of Judiciary. Official figures show, the SC is short of five judges, 24 High Courts have 464 vacant judges post and 4,166 at the subordinate courts.

Tiff between Judiciary and Government

• Appointment to the Supreme Court and high courts are done by a collegium of the top court. But judges in the subordinate courts are appointed by the state high court. The stand – off between the government and the Supreme Court collegium over a memorandum of procedure has made things worse for judicial appointments in the higher judiciary.
• The tussle between the government and the Supreme Court has adversely affected the efficiency of the judiciary. The arrears are mounting and new appointments are not being made.

Judge-population ratio

• With a sanctioned strength of 21,000-odd judges, subordinate courts are under tremendous pressure as almost a quarter of the posts remain vacant, thanks to lack of advance planning and a poor recruitment policy.
• The Law Commission and the Supreme Court recommended that India should have 50 judges per one million people, but the ratio continues to be abysmally low at 17 judges per one million people.
• The Department of Justice has said the problem of shortage of judges is being addressed through a two-pronged strategy. Firstly, by filling up the large number of vacancies and secondly, increasing the sanctioned strength of judges.

Increasing literacy

• Albeit at a slow pace, the number of cases being filed every year is increasing. An interesting reason for the same, apart from depleting moral conscience, is increased awareness, with increased

• literacy. Kerala, for example, gets 28 new cases per 1,000 people. It has a literacy rate of over 90%. Jharkhand, which has a literacy rate of around 53%, gets four cases per 1,000.

Lower Courts

• According to the National Judicial Data Grid website as on December 31, 2015, 2.6 crore cases are pending only in lower courts of which 41.38% cases have been pending for less than two years and 10.83% have been pending for over 10 years. This is a resultant of rampant bribes for bail and postponing dates.

Why is it getting worse?

• Although the number of judges increased six-fold in the last three decades, the number of cases too shot up 12-fold, as per the 2012 report of the National Court Management Systems (NCMS).
• Even by conservative estimates, the number of cases reaching courts will touch 15 crore, requiring at least 75,000 judges in the next three decades, the report said.
• With growing literacy and income, more and more people are likely to approach courts, contributing to the burgeoning backlog of cases.

Solutions

• There is a need to have access to high resolution data on judicial processes at both the high court as well as the lower court level. A number of courts do not have data under the “Date filed” column, the most crucial piece for identifying delays.
• Fast track courts have proved their mettle, & their importance cannot be emphasized enough. On the recommendation of the 11th Finance Commission, 1734 Fast Track Courts of Sessions Judges were sanctioned for disposal of old pending cases and the said scheme was to end on 31-3-2005.
• Out of 18,92,583 cases, 10,99,828 have been disposed of by these courts. Keeping in view the performance of Fast Track Courts and contribution made by them towards clearing the backlog, it can be further put to use.
• Mobile courts that help taking justice to the door-step of the rural would significantly help in fighting the backlog.
• The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to provide free and competent legal service to the weaker sections of the society to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. To achieve that objective, Lok Adalats are being held at various places in the country and a large number of cases are being disposed of with lesser costs.
• Mobile Lok Adalats are presently in place in different parts of the State of Bihar and on the lines of steps taken by the High Court of Patna of holding mobile Lok Adalats, the other High Courts need also work on the same lines so that speedy and affordable justice could be made available to the litigants at their doorsteps.
• Ministry of Law & Justice is going to draw a Gram Nyayalayas Bill with an objective to secure justice, both civil and criminal, at the grass-root level to the citizens, which would be the lowest court of subordinate judiciary and shall provide easy access to justice to litigant through friendly procedures, use of local language and mobile courts wherever necessary.
• No judge specific metrics are available. With simple metrics like frequency of case disposal per judge or categorisation of subject matter with respect to judges, a great deal of accountability and trust would be brought into the system.
• New technology should be leveraged, and not just technology for data collection. Artificial Intelligence is fast maturing and with further advances in machine learning, standardised data collection can assist judges in forming judgements. A software developed by Nine Research Institute in China helped 300 judges handle 1,50,000 cases, reducing their workload by a third.
• Significant progress has been made towards computerisation of courts. However, computerisation must include within its ambit the standardisation of data collection across courts and not merely computerisation within silos.
• Video conferencing is statutorily provided but rarely available in practice and infrequently used even if available. Accountability needs to be fixed on individuals causing repeated delays in dispensing justice.
• Case management hearings should be introduced after pleadings have been completed by both parties where timelines are set and the court should impose sanctions against parties that fail to adhere to these timelines.
• Indian judiciary should also consider a consolidated “Adjournment Manual” applicable across all courts which codifies the conditions under which adjournment should be granted in order to reduce arbitrariness.
• Economic uncertainty in decision making is further compounded by periodic encroachment by the judiciary in the domain of the executive. Two recent examples are the high court of Tamil Nadu asking the state government to waive farmers’ loans and the highway liquor ban imposed by the Supreme Court. The short term perspective furthered by these encroachments is severely impacting long term predictability, consistency, and clarity of policies.
• The high pendency in courts can decline only with effective measurement, process overhaul, constant feedback, and by equipping the judiciary with technology and modern tools. This alone can enable the emergence of a new and modern judicial system with the capacity to dispense justice speedily.

Way ahead

• The Law Ministry’s Department of Justice discussed ways by which pendency of cases can be reduced.
• The deliberations revealed that the Centre and the States were responsible for over 46% of the 3 crore plus cases pending before the Courts across the country. While all States have formulated State Litigation Policies, a National Litigation Policy is still underway. This Policy will be aimed at providing mechanisms to ensure reduction in Government litigation, and will lay emphasis on exploring alternative means of dispute resolution.

Suggestions

The Department went on to suggest the following ways to reduce pendency-

• Appointment of a nodal officer in every department at the Joint Secretary Level to coordinate effective resolution of the disputes.
• Nodal Officer to regularly monitor the status of the cases.
• Promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
• Encouragement of mediation as the preferred form of dispute resolution in service related matters.
• Avoiding unnecessary filing of appeals.
• Consideration of an intuitional ADR mechanism for resolution of cases between the government and private bodies.
• Immediate withdrawal of vexatious litigation.