| Introduction: Contextual Introduction Body: What are the reasons for case pendency and suggest judicial reforms? Conclusion: Way forward |
The Indian judiciary faces a dual challenge: ensuring timely justice while maintaining fairness. Over 4 crore cases are pending across courts, prompting calls for faster disposal mechanisms.
Reasons Behind Case Pendency
- Frequent Adjournments: About half of the 90 cases listed daily in district courts reportedly get adjourned, often due to lawyers needing more time for evidence gathering or legal research.
- Structural Inefficiencies: Delays arise at multiple stages, such as charge sheet filing, evidence gathering, and trial. Misplaced case files, misleading roznama entries, and inefficient police procedures exacerbate these delays.
- Socioeconomic Barriers: Undertrials from marginalized backgrounds often lack awareness of free legal aid and face poor-quality representation. This impairs their ability to secure a fair trial.
- Lack of Technological Resources: Many district courts lack video conferencing facilities, impeding the potential benefits of technology for case management.
Balancing Speed and Fairness
- Address Structural Bottlenecks: Identify and resolve delays at critical stages, such as improving evidence collection by police, ensuring accurate roznama, and using technology to track case files.
- Reform Adjournment Practices: Categorize cases prone to frequent adjournments and establish permissible limits for delays, without compromising necessary preparations for sensitive cases.
- Strengthen Legal Aid: Allocate more resources to improve the quality and accessibility of free legal aid, particularly for undertrials from disadvantaged backgrounds.
- Technology with Sensitivity: While video proceedings can save time, they should be used judiciously to avoid compromising the rights of the accused. In-person trials should remain an option for sensitive cases.
- Judicial Accountability without Pressure: Performance metrics for judges should consider both disposal rates and the quality of judgments to ensure fairness is not sacrificed for speed.
Conclusion
The judicial system’s efficiency must align with the principles of equity and due process. Structural reforms addressing systemic delays, combined with equitable technological adoption and stronger legal aid systems, can ensure a balance between speed and fairness.
