Kartik Jain, LLB, Jindal Global Law School
ABSTRACT
As of January of the current year, the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court of India amounted to more than 60,000+ matters still pending adjudication[1]. Despite the magnitude of the number, the backlog of pending cases significantly increases and goes up into the millions upon examination of pending cases in the High Courts around the country and especially, the subordinate courts[2]. Such a massive backlog of pending cases has significantly dwindled the importance a judiciary should hold in society but moreover, has contributed to the denial of justice to the citizens of India. The Law Commission of India, in its 245th Report, published in July 2014, has sought to examine and answer the reason behind the backlog of cases of this magnitude while claiming the lack of judicial manpower to be the leading cause. This paper seeks to examine the magnitude of the backlog of cases present in all levels of the Indian judiciary, ranging from the Subordinate Courts, the High Courts and the specialist Tribunals to the Supreme Court. By doing so, this paper seeks to answer why such a backlog exists at all through a careful analysis of the 245th Law Commission Report and what must be done in the future to ensure the fundamental right of a fair and speedy trial is realized and put in practice in the country.
Introduction
With the significant increase in the rate of literacy in the country along with more and more people realizing the rights entrusted upon them by the Constitution, the last decade has been witness to a momentous growth in the number of judicial matters filed before all three levels of the judiciary in India i.e., the Subordinate Courts, the High Courts and the Supreme Court[3]. It is estimated under the National Court Management System that the number of matters filed before various courts around the country would continue to rise at an exponential rate over the next decade, primarily due to the rapidly rising population of India and the rise in business activity and an incline towards ease of doing business[4]. The backlog of pending matters at all levels of the judiciary has increased by as much as 25 percent between 2005 and 2021 with an astonishing number of pending cases in 2021 exceeding 35 million[5]. Yet, despite the momentous rise in caseload on the judiciary, the capacity of courts to dispose of pending matters has declined ominously[6].
Fundamental Right of Fair and Speedy Trial – Article 21
A writ of Habeous Corpus was filed in the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar[7], seeking the release of undertrial prisons languishing in prison while their matters were presented in courts for years at a time. While representing various sections of society including children who await the adjudication of their matter for years in prison, the petitioners claimed that a significant number of cases pending before the judicial hierarchy is of a non-serious nature, further claiming that such offences oftentimes only warrant punishment in prison for only a few weeks/months whereas the time spent in prison awaiting the adjudicating of their matter has expanded into several years[8]. The Supreme Court held that the right to a fair and speedy trial would come under the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India[9]. While reiterating the need to significantly reduce the time between the arrest of an individual to the actual judicial proceedings, the court held that the right of an individual to a fair and speedy trial would come under the ambit of “life” and “liberty” under Article 21[10] and therefore, any judicial procedure which denies an individual of this right would not fulfil the test of reasonableness and fairness established in the case of Maneka Gandhi[11]. Furthermore, in State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji[12], the Supreme Court iterated that factors such as the intentionality of the delay of the trial and overburdening of the court must be taken into account to determine the denial of the right to a fair and speedy trial for an individual[13]. Yet, despite the strong emphases towards the importance of the right and the case law suggestive of the importance of the principle, backlog of pending cases has only increased the denial of a fair and speedy trial without any recourse or alternative method of adjudication[14].
Subordinate Courts
Subordinate courts in the Indian judicial ladder possess the largest number of pending cases amongst all courts in the country[15]. Oftentimes as the first position for judicial intervention, the subordinate judiciary is under a significant amount of pressure due to the rising number of pending matters without any increase in the judicial capacity to accommodate the rise. At present, more than 25 million cases are pending throughout the subordinate courts in the country while more than 20 percent of the judicial seats allocated towards the functioning of the subordinate court system remain vacant[16]. At a rate of growth of more than 7 percent, the subordinate judiciary is estimated to witness a steady flow of new matters in the following years, yet without sufficient infrastructure to accommodate such caseload, the backlog is bound to rise[17].
High Courts and Tribunals
While the most substantial number of pending cases around the country lay with the subordinate courts, the 25 High Courts in India have also witnessed a substantial rise in pending matters accumulating to a total backlog of more than 4 million cases awaiting adjudication in 2020[18]. Moreover, due to the rise of appellate adjudication, the various High Courts around the country have witnessed a rise in pendency of suits at a rate of more than 12 percent over 2 years, suggestive of a significantly higher increment rate of pending trials at this level of the judiciary in the years to come[19]. On the other hand, Tribunals do not represent a difference in situations. In 2017, it was found that the backlog of pending matters before five various tribunals around the country amounted to more than 3 lakh matters[20]. Therefore, despite a lack of data on the total backlog of Tribunal matters, it is estimated that such adjudication will grow at a rate of 5 percent over the following years, entailing the significant lack of infrastructure to accommodate this demand[21].
Supreme Court
Much like their High Court counterparts, the Supreme Court has, similarly, also witnessed a continuous and steady rise in the number of pending matters. At present, the Supreme Court has a backlog of pending matters awaiting adjudication at an upwards trend of more than 60,000[22], a number estimated to grow exponentially during the following upcoming years due to the shift from physical to a completely online environment caused by the Covid-19 pandemic[23]. A significant rise in cases has been witnessed during the period of lockdown during 2020 itself, showcasing the willingness of the educated Indian to seek legal recourse despite the shift in circumstances due to Covid-19[24]. With an estimated rate of growth of more than 4 percent during the last year itself, the Supreme Court and its backlog of matters awaiting adjudication, much like its counterparts, will only grow in the following years[25].
245th Law Commission Report
Upon the direction of the Supreme Court in Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors[26], the Law Commission of India explored the concept of appointment of judges to reduce the backlog of delayed cases, the speedy adjudication of such trials and the reduction of costs to promote judicial intervention[27]. Despite the lack of data required from various subordinate and High Courts in the country, the report used the limited available data to compute and suggest the number of additional judges required to dispose of with the current pendency of matters awaiting timely adjudication while also ensuring that such a massive backlog does not occur again in the future.
Recommendations of the Law Commission
In determining the method for computation of the required number of additional judges desired, the Law Commission examined the available data using several computational techniques to settle for the judge population ration method as the desired method for the computation required. The report entails that the massive backlog of delayed matters is primarily due to the lack of a sufficient number of judges required for the proper functioning of the Indian judicial system, entailing that the current judge-population ratio of 10.5 judges per million Indians was significantly diluted and insufficient[28]. Moreover, like foreign countries and strong judicial systems such as those of the United States and Canada who possess a judge-population ratio of 110 and 70 judges per million population respectively, the report suggests it be imperative to increase the current ratio significantly to 50 judges per million Indians to sufficiently dispose of the delayed matters and prevent such a backlog of delayed matters from occurring again in the future. As per the Commission, such an increase in the bench strength of the judiciary needs to occur in the next three years to sufficiently satisfy the demand of judicial adjudication and prevent future delays[29]. Claiming the lack of a scientific method for evaluation of such a backlog in all levels of the Indian judicial hierarchy, the Law Commission believed that a significant drive for data collection needs to occur to fully realize the incalculability of the issue and therefore, address it[30].
Furthermore, while addressing the massive backlog of delayed matters pending before the subordinate judiciary, the commission believed that to fully satisfy the requirements and demands of the lower judiciary, the appointment of additional judges would not be enough and therefore, suggested that the current retirement age of the judges of the lower judiciary should be increased[31]. The Commission further stated that there is a massive lack of sufficient infrastructure for the staff of the lower judiciary, therefore, stating that to fix the system, infrastructure must be built upon for the courts to function systemically and efficiently[32].
Next, the Law Commission believed that since traffic and police challan matters account for almost 40 percent of the delayed matters pending before the subordinate judiciary, specialized courts must be introduced to reduce the burden on the regular lower courts[33]. Such specialized courts would facilitate and divert a significant number of delayed matters away from the regular courts and eventually create a considerably more efficient judicial system. Furthermore, periodic assessments of the subordinate judiciary by the High Courts are crucial for the efficient functioning of the system, therefore, the Commission suggested periodic assessments based on the current state of affairs at that point of time such as the number of disposals, pendency and vacancies present[34].
Lastly, the Commission entailed that an overall reform of the entire judicial system is imminent and would need to be implemented for the future sanctity of the institution. While keeping the fundamental right of a fair and speedy trial in mind, the Commission thought that periodic assessments of delays and adjustments based on such delays regarding the bench strength would significantly ensure the system works efficiently[35]. Moreover, judicial support for alternative methods of dispute resolution, such as arbitration and conciliation, would considerably reduce the stress upon the judiciary and allow for an efficiently functioning judicial system[36]. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Imtiyaz Ahmad[37], the Commission stated the need for the creation of additional courts to ensure judicial standards and ensure a timely and fair method of judicial adjudication[38].
Implementation
As has been discussed above, despite the recommendations of the Law Commission, a significant backlog of delayed matters is still pending in all courts across the judicial hierarchy with the subordinate judiciary accounting for more than 25 million of these cases[39]. The lack of sufficient judicial officers, judges and courts themselves has further pushed the backlog to an unmountable level while ensuring the breach of the right to a fair and speedy trial for millions of Indians. Henceforth, it is not just imperative to implement and further the process of fair and speedy judicial adjudication as envisioned by the Law Commission, but further steps must also be taken simultaneously to reach the ultimate goal of an efficient judiciary.
As was stated by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association & Ors. V. Union of India[40], to satisfy the demand with the supply, 10 additional judges per million Indians must be appointed to successfully reach a plateau of an efficient judiciary. Yet, such an appointment has completely failed to take place[41]. In fact, as per recent data published by the Law Ministry of India, there exists a massive shortage of judges as a significantly lower number of seats are occupied in relation to the actual number of seats allotted[42]. For instance, as of 2020, more than 5500 seats in the total allocation of judicial seats remained empty in the subordinate judiciary whereas, more than 400 seats remained empty in various High Courts around the country despite the actual number of allotted seats being significantly higher[43]. Furthermore, as stated earlier, the judge-population ratio currently in place in India is significantly lower than most developed countries around the world. Therefore, further steps are warranted to ensure the fundamental right instilled under Article 21 is not violated.
ADR and ODR
Alternative Dispute Resolution is an effective method of adjudication and can significantly reduce the caseload of the judiciary at all levels of the judicial hierarchy[44]. Under the ambit of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 alternative dispute resolution can be an efficient method of reaching conclusions without the help of the traditional judicial machinery due to many reasons such as the significantly lower costs associated with it[45]. Furthermore, due to the current situation around the world due to Covid-19, online dispute resolution has begun to grow in popularity as it not only significantly cuts down the costs incurred by the arbitrating parties due to the ability of digital filing and documentation but also promotes ease of convenience as the hassle of travelling becomes completely redundant[46]. Moreover, online dispute resolution also offers a much more efficient platform for dispute resolution as it allows for parties to contain all documents related to the matter in a single digital platform while allowing the arbitral tribunal to possess all supporting documents in one digital platform for quicker adjudication[47].
Lok Adalats
Judicial support and furthering the growth of Lok Adalats can also significantly further the process of reducing judicial caseload. Lok Adalats, as the name suggests, refers to the court of the people[48]. By reducing the costs of adjudication significantly, Lok Adalats can be an effective means of dispute resolution for millions of Indians who simply cannot afford the costs incurred during the traditional method of judicial intervention[49]. Given statutory rights in 1987, Lok Adalats have helped millions of underprivileged Indians gain access to justice. This is not just due to the lower costs for distressed parties but also because decisions by such courts are binding on all parties, entailing the jurisdiction of such courts to be in harmony with traditional civil courts[50]. Therefore, support from the upper judiciary for the furtherance and enhancement of Lok Adalats can be an effective tool for reducing the caseload at all levels of the judicial hierarchy.
Tribunals
Tribunals can be an effective way for court goers to seek judicial intervention while also significantly reducing the caseload for all levels of the judiciary. A quasi-judicial institution for the settlement of disputes, tribunals perform similar functions with traditional courts such as adjudication on disputes between parties etc.[51]. Manned by judicial officers and experts in various fields, tribunals can be extremely effective for people seeking judicial intervention regarding various specific fields such as land reforms and industry[52]. Yet, the formation of tribunals can also be counter-intuitive if not implemented properly as was witnessed with the dissolution of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 disbanded IPAB and entailed that matters before it should be filed directly with High Courts. This could be due to several reasons such as the fact that most of the matters before IPAB were appealed in High Courts across the country, entailing a significant rise in costs incurred by disputing parties along with an extra hurdle to cross in seeking justice[53].
Conclusion
Despite being one of the most competent judiciaries in the modern world, the lack of sufficient resources and infrastructure suggestively reduces the effectiveness of the Indian judiciary[54]. With the development of society and the increase in the importance given to education, the current and especially the next generation of Indians would entail a momentous increase in the number of matters filed before various courts around the country[55]. Therefore, it becomes crucial to ensure that before the current backlog of delayed matters increases further, the current state of the Indian judiciary is looked upon and attempts are made for increasing efficiency. Furthermore, it becomes imperative to ensure that the fundamental right of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21 is complied with, not just for Indians seeking adjudication but also for the judiciary to preserve the sanctity of the Constitution and the courts. All in all, the process must begin and ideally, it must begin now.
[1] Manisha Kumari, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Status of Indian Judicial System, 2 NyaayShastra Law Review 1, 1-12 (2021). [2] Id. [3] C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure (8th ed. 2020). [4] Id. [5] Rajnish Jindal, Delays and Pendency of Court’s Cases in India – An Analysis, 18 PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 1763, 1763-1774 (2021). [6] Id. [7] Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, A.I.R 1979 S.C. 1369 (India). [8] Id. [9] Id. [10] Mahabir Prashad Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th ed. 2003). [11] Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597 (India). [12] State of Maharashtra vs. Champalal Punjaji Shah, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1675 (India). [13] Id. [14] Manisha Kumari, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Status of Indian Judicial System, 2 NyaayShastra Law Review 1, 1-12 (2021). [15] P.N. Bhagwati & C.J. Dias, The Judiciary in India: A Hunger and Thirst for Justice, 5 NUJS L. Rev. 171, 171-185 (2012). [16] Hiranmaya Nanda & Jayadev Pati, Factors Influencing Increasing Case Backlogs in Indian Judiciary: An Analysis, 12 Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology 61, 61-64 (2018). [17] Id. [18] Id. [19] Id. [20] Manisha Kumari, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Status of Indian Judicial System, 2 NyaayShastra Law Review 1, 1-12 (2021). [21] Id. [22] Rajnish Jindal, Delays and Pendency of Court’s Cases in India – An Analysis, 18 PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 1763, 1763-1774 (2021). [23] Papiya Golder, Future of Virtual Courts in India Post Pandemic: An Analysis, 7 IJRAR-International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews 982, 982-987 (2020). [24] Id. [25] Rajnish Jindal, Delays and Pendency of Court’s Cases in India – An Analysis, 18 PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 1763, 1763-1774 (2021). [26] Imtiyaz Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 642 (India). [27] Id. [28] 245th Report of the Law Commission of India, 2014 (India). [29] Id. [30] Id. [31] Id. [32] Id. [33] Id. [34] 245th Report of the Law Commission of India, 2014 (India). [35] Id. [36] Id. [37] Imtiyaz Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 642 (India). [38] 245th Report of the Law Commission of India, 2014 (India). [39] Rajnish Jindal, Delays and Pendency of Court’s Cases in India – An Analysis, 18 PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 1763, 1763-1774 (2021). [40] All India Judges' Association vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., (1992) 1 S.C.C. 119 (India). [41] Manisha Kumari, Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Status of Indian Judicial System, 2 NyaayShastra Law Review 1, 1-12 (2021). [42] Id. [43] Id. [44] Avtar Singh, Law of Arbitration & Conciliation (11th ed. 2021). [45] Id. [46] Mark L. Shope, The International Arbitral Institution Response to Covid-19 and Opportunities for Online Dispute Resolution, 13 Contemp. Asia Arb. J 67, 67 -81 (2020). [47] Id. [48] Agrawal Krishna, Justice Dispensation Through the Alternative Dispute Resolution System in India, 2 Russian Law Journal 63, 63-74 (2014). [49] Id. [50] G.B. Patil, Lok Adalats in India, 6 NUALS LJ 101, 101-120 (2012). [51] Arun K. Thiruvengadam, The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution 412-431 (1st ed. 2016). [52] Id. [53] M.Z.M. Nomani, Alaa K.K. Alhalboosi & Mohammad Rauf, Legal & Intellectual Property Dimension of Health & Access to Medicines in India, 14 Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology 118, 118-122 (2020). [54] A.S. Anand, Indian Judiciary: Problems and Prospects, 45 Indian Journal of Public Administration 556, 556-561 (1999). [55] Rajnish Jindal, Delays and Pendency of Court’s Cases in India – An Analysis, 18 PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 1763, 1763-1774 (2021).
Comentarios