140 cases pending in lower courts for more than 60 years

140 cases pending in lower courts for more than 60 years

News:

140 cases pending in lower courts for more than 60 years.

Important Facts:

• Official Data shows cases pending for more than 30 years are as high as 66,000 in district and subordinate courts. And those pending for more than five years add up to 60 lakhs.
• As per records, the pendency has increased to an all-time high of 2.9 crore cases, 71% of which are criminal cases where an accused may have been arrested and could be languishing in prison as an under trial.
• Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state, accounts for the highest 26,000 cases pending for over 30 years, or nearly 40% of all such cases, followed by Maharashtra where more than 13,000 cases are pending for such a period.
• About 96% of all such pendency are in six states of UP, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Bihar, Gujarat and Odisha.
• Rate of pendency is more in high courts as compared to lower courts. Pendency in high courts has a ripple effect on the lower courts, as many high court decisions become case law for the lower courts.
• Pendency in high courts could also be attributed to inefficient handling of cases in lower courts which could increase caseload in superior courts through appeals.
• The e-Committee of the Supreme Court had launched the National Judicial Data Grid to provide data on cases pending in the district courts across the country.

Causes of Pendency

• According to the Report of Supreme Court of India titled “Subordinate Judiciary-Access to Justice 2016” ; capacity constraints are the main reasons for high level of pendency. Subordinate judiciary works under a severe shortage of courtrooms, secretarial and support staff and residential accommodation for judges.
• One of the hurdles to efficient policymaking is a lack of comprehensive and accurate data relating to cases from courts across the country
• Some of the commonly debated issues such as obsolete laws, court vacations, clubbing cases together, frivolous litigation, etc. were also identified during the
• course of the study.
• Another contributor was identified as the gaming behavior by parties and their lawyers, whereas some lawyers believe that inefficiency on part of judges is contributing to pendency.

Recommendations

• Court managers need to be equipped with analysis reports, comparative studies and training on effectively using the NJDG database
• At a more advanced level, tools of Big Data and artificial intelligence could be roped in to understand the linkages between different variables and delays
• A greater push for Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism is necessary, not just for reducing the burden on judiciary, but also for providing a quicker access to justice to matters that cannot wait in the queue.
• Morning Courts, Evening Courts and Lok Adalats have been largely effective, and their frequency may be increased. Special efforts are needed for popularizing ADRs.
• Inadequate capacity is not the prime reason for pendency. Therefore, while allocating resources due importance should be given to control other factors such as court management, gaming behavior (including absconding), special courts, etc.

About The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)

• The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) is a part of the on-going e-Courts Integrated Mission Mode Project. NJDG will work as a monitoring tool to identify, manage & reduce pendency of cases
• The NJDG will cover all categories of cases, including those relating to juvenile justice system. The NJDG is being implemented on a pilot basis in the current financial year 2013-14.