Indian judicial system struggling with pending cases

Reference:

At present, there are 82,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court of India, more than 62 lakh cases in the High Courts and about 5 crore cases in the lower courts. Out of these, about 50 lakh cases are pending for more than 10 years.

Reasons for the increasing number of pending cases

Excessive population:

Being a country with a huge population and the approach of resolving every dispute through the court increases the burden of cases on Indian courts.

Low judge-population ratio

India has the lowest number of judges in proportion to the population. Here, only 21 judges are available for every million citizens. In the 120th report of the Law Commission of India, 50 judges per million population were recommended.

Adversarial System:

The Indian judicial system is dependent on the adversarial system where several interim applications and appeals are made during the passing of the order in almost every case. This includes appeals, review petitions and reconsideration petitions etc. in the High Court and ultimately in the Supreme Court against the decision of the subordinate courts.

Lack of infrastructure and capacity:

The Indian judicial system is facing a lack of infrastructure, capacity, finance and human resources. In such a situation, maintaining the judiciary in functional mode is a challenge. In this context, various Chief Justices of India have emphasized on the Indian Judicial Service Examination System.

Basis of evaluation of subordinate judges:

• The judges of the subordinate court are evaluated by the High Courts on the basis of the number of cases disposed by them. In such a situation, subordinate judges give preference to such cases which are comparatively less complex in nature.
  • In such a situation, a long period is spent in disposing of cases of complex nature. 
• Demand for adjournment by lawyers:

Adjournment is also sought by lawyers from the judge on the basis of absence of witnesses on time or difficulty in reaching the court by the plaintiff. In such a situation, the duration and number of pending cases increases.

Solutions to reduce the number of pending cases

• Emphasis on data governance
• Classification of pending cases through data governance will avoid duplication and lead to quick disposal of cases.
• Appointment of ad hoc judges
• Appointing retired judges in ad hoc capacity can help in improving the situation of pending cases to some extent.
• Provision of compensatory or punitive costs
• Compensatory or punitive costs can be used to prevent unnecessary litigation in small cases (such as landlord-tenant disputes and cheque bouncing) for broader perspective solutions.

Emphasis on mediation:

• Mediation is mainly accepted as an adjunct to the court where disputes are resolved under the leadership of lawyers and guidance of judges while maintaining the confidentiality of the parties.
• The decision taken through mediation is not imposed on any party but it presents an option of practical, fair and mutually acceptable solution.
• It mainly includes civil and commercial, personal and property and matrimonial and business disputes.
• At present, it has to adopt completely professional methods so that the burden of pending cases on the court can be reduced while maximizing its benefits and reach.
• In such a situation, pending cases in the Indian judicial system provide an opportunity for mediation.
  • At present, there is a need for a system that ensures the availability of the parties to the case to choose a trained and experienced mediator and pay a reasonable fee for the service.
  • The cost of resolving disputes through mediation is extremely low compared to the judicial process.
• The outcome of mediation is better than that of litigation. Its pragmatic solutions are accepted by both the parties, which often leads to restoration of relations.

Implementation of the recommendations of Justice M. Jagannath Rao Committee

• The Justice M. Jagannath Rao Committee proposed a 'Judicial Impact Assessment' of every law.
• This committee suggested that every bill should estimate the cost of additional cases arising from the new bill.
  • The number of likely civil and criminal cases arising from the new bill, the number of courts, judges and staff required and the infrastructure should be mentioned.
• The High Court and the concerned State Government should cooperate to start the process of filling the proposed vacancy in the district judiciary six months in advance.
• No additional charge should be given to any judge so that he can concentrate on the cases in his court.

 Way Forward:

• A holistic approach is needed to address court scheduling issues that goes beyond rules and deadlines and focuses on incentivizing all stakeholders.
• Judges should be evaluated not only on the number of cases they dispose of but also on their ability to manage and resolve more complex cases within the stipulated timeframes.
• Case management systems need to be improved to prioritize complex cases that require substantial judicial intervention.
• Better scheduling information is needed to reduce uncertainty among lawyers regarding cases and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
  • Courts should implement predictive scheduling systems that penalize delays while rewarding lawyers for adhering to the schedule.
• Technological solutions can monitor timelines as well as provide real-time updates on case management.
  • Courts can adopt a data-driven approach to identify and address timeliness bottlenecks, thereby improving overall judicial efficiency.