|
Delivery of
justice is an inviolable constitutional entitlement of every
citizen. The founding fathers of our constitution accorded high
priority to delivery of justice, be it social, economic or
political. India prides over its glorious judicial system and
cherishes independence of its judicial institutions.
The Indian
judicial system comprising the Supreme Court, 21 High Courts and a
large number of subordinate courts enjoys vast powers catering to
the judicial needs of more than one billion people. The courts are
the custodian of the laws and protector of people’s rights and an
insurance against arbitrary exercise of power. The common man has
faith in the Indian Judiciary is demonstrated by the large number of
cases it is handling each year. During the last quarter of 2007,
over 3.5 million cases were filed in subordinate courts across the
country, out of which about 3.3 million were tried.
With people
turning to judiciary in quest of justice, the courts have got
overburdened with both civil and criminal cases awaiting
disposal.
The
pendency has been on increase which is
becoming a cause of concern and the common man, expecting
expeditious and inexpensive justice, asking why mills of justice are
grinding so slow. According to the Chief Justice of India Justice
Shri K.G.
Balakrishanan ‘the growing population, increasing awareness
of rights and abiding confidence of the people in the judiciary saw
a litigation boom which our judicial set up was not sufficiently
equipped to handle.”
According to
legal experts, there are a number of reasons afflicting the Indian
judicial system. Underfunding of
judiciary, neglect in improving judicial infrastructure over the
past decades, inordinate delays in filling up vacancies of judges
and very low population-to-judge ratio
are some of the major factors that require immediate attention to
improve the performance of judiciary.
During the
Ninth and Tenth Plan only 0.071percent and 0.078% of the total plan
outlays respectively were allocated for the judiciary. It has been
observed that such meager allocations are too inadequate to meet the
requirements of the judiciary. It is said that India spends just
0.2 percent of the gross national product on judiciary. According to
the First National Judicial Pay Commission, every State has been
providing less than 1% of the budget for subordinate judiciary
except Delhi which has provided 1.03%.
Another
important issue pressing hard is the enhancement of the strength of
judges to speed up disposal of arrears in courts. The sanctioned
strength of judges of the High Courts was 725 and working strength
was 597 as on March 1, 2007 leaving 128 vacancies. Similarly, with
11,767 working strength of Subordinate Judges there were 2710
vacancies. It is observed that 25 percent of the judge positions
remain vacant due to procedural delays.
Based on the
disposal of cases in 2006, average disposal per judge comes to 2374
cases in High Courts and 1346 cases in Subordinate Courts. Applying
this average the country will require 1539 High Court Judges and
18,479 Subordinate Judges to clear the backlog in one year. The
requirement would come down to 770 more High Court Judges and 9,239
more subordinate court judges if the mind-boggling arrears alone
have to be cleared in the next two years. According to the 120th Law
Commission Report, India’s population-to-judge ratio is one of the
lowest in the world with only 10 judges for every million of its
population as compared to about 150 judges for the same number in
the United States and Britain.
Delay in
delivery of justice would not only undermine public confidence in
the system but would also impact the efficient functioning of the
system. Failure to provide expeditious justice due to long delays
defeats the very purpose of just and fair trial especially in
criminal cases. It cuts on both sides, on the one side, unnecessary
suffering for an accused getting acquitted after a long trial and on
the other side, guilty person going scot
free due to loss or distortion of evidence as the trail prolongs too
long. Therefore, it becomes imperative that the faith deposed by
the common man in the judiciary be maintained no matter whatever the
cost.
Responding to
the gravity of situation the government has employed urgent measures
to revitalize the judicial system so that millions of its citizens
will receive timely justice. The government has accorded high
priority to judicial and legal reforms. It has amended the
procedural laws to improve criminal justice system as major portion
of backlog pertains to criminal cases. The Criminal Procedure Code
has been amended to deal with the problem of witnesses turning
hostile.
But the most
far reaching step to improve judicial functioning is the
implementation of a perspective plan for modernizing and expanding
judicial infrastructure in all earnestness with funds from the
government. New court buildings and essential residential
accommodation for judges is being constructed. While the Supreme
court and the High Courts are already
enjoying the fruits of computerization, around 15,000 district and
subordinate courts are being computerized at a cost of about Rs.450
crore. The scheme provides for granting
laptops to all judicial officers with broadband connectivity that
would enable them easy access to judgements
from the archives. The E-enabling will help the courts to function
more efficiently and speed up the disposal of cases. It would also
network these courts with the higher courts and thus facilitate
greater accountability.
Meanwhile,
the disposal of cases can be increased by greater use of the
existing infrastructure with courts having more than one shift.
Gujarat has already shown the way where evening courts are
functioning with appreciable results.
Fast Track
Courts (FTC) recommended by 11th Finance
Commission have proved effective in addressing
pendency. Keeping this in mind the government has extended
the term of 1,562 FT courts operating at sessions level
up to 31st March 2010 providing central support to the
states. These courts have been doing a commendable job disposing
around 11 lakh cases till April 2007.
Addressing
the issue of pendency automatically
shifts focus to the issue of judge strength and filling up of
vacancies particularly in subordinate judiciary which needs urgent
attention of the state governments and the High courts. The country
has to develop a near zero vacancy culture.
The central
government has proposed to set up more that five thousand Gram
Nyayalayas at intermediate
panchayat levels. ‘’These courts would
provide justice in relatively ordinary civil and criminal cases to
the rural population. The procedure to be followed by these courts
has also been kept simple and flexible so that these cases can be
heard and disposed of within 90 days’ period,’’
Shri H.R. Bhardwaj, Law and
Justice Minister told Parliament.
Resorting to
Alternate Dispute Redressal (ADR)
mechanism such as arbitration, negotiations, conciliation and
mediation can help in reducing pendency
of cases. In many countries such as the United States resolving
disputes through ADR mechanism has been highly successful. There is
already Arbitration Conciliation Act 1996 containing the detailed
scheme of conciliation. The Code of Civil Procedure has also been
amended with a view to grow alternate system into the mainstream of
justice. However, the problem lies in not having many trained
mediators and conciliators. We need to train in conciliation and
mediation not only judicial officers but also the lawyers.
Moreover, people are to be made aware on a mass scale about the
availability of ADR.
At present
the institution of cases in courts far exceeds their disposal.
Litigation is bound to increase in future as more and more sections
of society become aware about their legal rights. This is bound to
aggravate further the situation created by
pendency and backlog.
The
government needs to tackle the current manpower shortfall,
inadequate infrastructure, mainstreaming alternate dispute
redressal and training on war footing.
(PIB Features) |
