MOUNTING BACKLOG OF COURT CASES

It is universally accepted that dispensation of justice in a speedy, economical and efficacious manner is one of the primary functions of the sovereign. Unfortunately, the Indian state has not been able to discharge this crucial sovereign function despite repeated declarations of intent and commitment. The courts and other tribunals of adjudication are confronted with a mounting backlog of cases, which clogs the system of adjudication, demoralises the protagonists and prolongs the time taken to settle a dispute. The disposal of cases is unable to keep pace with the institution and the problem gets aggravated with the passage of time. At the last count, the Supreme Court had 46,926 pending cases (December 2007). This marks a progressive deterioration from the year 1998, when the pendency had been brought down to 19,806 cases from the peak figure of 104,936 in 1991 as a result of summary disposal of infructuous cases, clubbing of similar cases and better docket management enabled by information technology. Meanwhile, between 1993 and June 2007, the number of pending cases in the High Courts has risen from 2.65 million to 3.71 million. In parallel, the pendency in district and subordinate courts has gone up from 20.41 million in 2000 to 25.07 million in June 2007.

The cost of justice delayed is staggering. Apart from causing enormous suffering to the hapless litigants, it imposes a severe strain on the polity and slows down economic growth. As is to be expected, the poor are the worst sufferers in this situation; the well to do have the wherewithal to circumvent and overcome the obstacles in their way.

The factors contributing to this sorry state of affairs have been identified and analysed at length and in depth. From time to time, various expert committees and commissions have made their recommendations, which have been accepted in principle, but not implemented with any degree of effectiveness. The Supreme Court has also issued specific directions in the matter. Some of these concern the discipline to be observed by its subordinate formations for expediting the disposal of cases, but these directions have largely been ignored. 

The others entail interventions of the executive and have financial implications. One would have expected that in the Constitutional scheme of things, the execution of binding directions of the Supreme Court should have been the first charge on the resources of the state, but that does not seem to be the case, notwithstanding the phenomenal buoyancy in tax revenues in recent years. The implementation of the directions in the Judges’ Association cases has been uneven and tardy. Obviously, what is lacking is the collective will of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary to address the problem.

The strategy for addressing the problem of backlog of cases has to be a multi-pronged one and comprise long term, medium term and short term measures, so that there is a continuous stream of dividends to sustain the motivation of the stakeholders. These measures would fall under three broad heads:

• Demand management (rationalization of statutory and administrative laws, withdrawal of the state from inessential functions, code of conduct for litigation involving the state, promotion of mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution , curbs on multiple appeals and reviews, emphasis on substantive, rather than procedural justice, disincentives for frivolous and vexatious litigation, etc.);
• Supply management (alignment of the judge : population ratio with international norms, provision of adequate infrastructure of court rooms and support staff, reduction of holidays and extension of working hours for the courts, introduction of two shifts for a more intensive utilization of the infrastructure, etc.);
• Productivity enhancement (revamp of the systems of legal education and self-governance of the legal profession, review of the compensation and working conditions for the judiciary, training and continuing education of judges and their support staff, introduction of productivity linked incentives and disincentives, adoption of information and communication technologies for management of the courts and of their external interface, reform of the agencies for investigation and prosecution of criminal cases, etc.).

The organs of the state need to do all this and much more so that we may enjoy speedy and affordable substantive justice, which is our birthright. The civil society has to be exigent in this regard; it should not settle for half measures and token gestures. The demand for judicial reforms has to be raised from every platform and the issue kept in public focus. To begin with, COMMON CAUSE intends to join hands with like-minded organizations and individuals and agitate the issue in the Supreme Court, in the hope that the action this time will lead to tangible results.

- Kamal Kant Jaswal