homeviews NewsZoomed Out | The litigation pendency — here's why urgent solutions are required

Zoomed Out | The litigation pendency — here's why urgent solutions are required

Even as India has a humongous load of pending litigations, the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) Report of Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice on ‘Judicial Process & their Reforms ‘, submitted in the first week of August to the Parliament does not unfortunately address the core issue of pendency.

Profile image

By Najib Shah  Sept 15, 2023 4:41:22 PM IST (Updated)

Listen to the Article(6 Minutes)
5 Min Read
Zoomed Out | The litigation pendency — here's why urgent solutions are required
The huge pendency of cases in various courts in India is a well known fact. As per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) the total pending cases in all the courts is about 5.06 crore. Of this, 80,501 are in the Supreme Court (though 25,267 are being less than a year old), 60,72,106 in the various High Courts (25.98 lakh cases are pending for more than 5 years) and a humongous 4,44,10,610 cases in the district and taluk courts, the primary courts where the litigation journey commences.

Out of this 5.06 crore pending cases, more than 2.75 crore (62 percent) are more than 1 year old with 51.08 lakh cases being more than 5 years. There are also cases pending for more than 30 years. This makes dismal, disheartening reading.
Given this background one was expectantly awaiting the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) Report of Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice on ‘Judicial Process & their Reforms ‘. The Report submitted in the first week of August to the Parliament does not unfortunately address the core issue of pendency.
The PSC Report has recommended the need for creating Regional Benches of the Supreme Court noting that the Apex court is too Delhi centric. This, the Report states, creates hurdles for litigants coming from distant parts of the country.
The Committee noted that Article 139 of the Constitution permitted the creation of benches in ‘such other place or places’ as the Chief Justice of India with the approval of the President. It also suggested the creation of at least four-five such benches with the regional benches to be empowered to handle appellate matters while constitutional matters could be dealt in Delhi.
The Report has noted the absence of diversity in the higher judiciary and recommended that representation of Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes, Other Backward classes, Women and Minorities needs to be increased. It has observed that only 3 percent SC, 1.5 percent ST, 12 percent OBC, 5 percent  minority and 15 percent women have been appointed in high courts since 2018.
It suggested that the collegiums should recommend adequate number of women and candidates from the sections of society which have poor representation in the judiciary.
The Parliamentary Committee report has recommended that the retirement age of judges needs to be increased from the current age of 65 and 62 for the Supreme Court and High Court respectively. The it observes adversely that there is no requirement of judges having to disclose their assets and liabilities which otherwise is mandatory for all constitutional functionaries and government servants.
The Report has observed that the entire court going on vacation at the same time leads to the entire higher judiciary shutting down for several months a year. Calling court vacations as a ‘colonial legacy’ it has suggested a relook. Currently the Supreme Court takes a total of 11 weeks of vacation in a year- seven weeks in summer, one each for Dussehra and Diwali and two at the end of December.
The recommendations will soon be examined by the government and may or may not be accepted. Even assuming all the recommendations are accepted, it is doubtful that the issue of pendency will get addressed.
Unfortunately, the Report makes no mention of the huge vacancies in the courts. While there is a sanctioned strength of 34 judges in the Supreme Court currently there are only 32 working. As per a parliament question reply on March 24, as against the total sanctioned strength of 1114 judges in the High Courts, there are 329 posts vacant.
The position in the various Tribunals is even worse. There are vacancies in every Tribunal. The GST tribunals have yet to start functioning even six years after the GST law has come into effect.
The first step towards ensuring cases do not go to the higher fora commences from here. We cannot afford to neglect Tribunals.
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court has warned that “the sheer volume of pendency…is creating an impediment”, and that “if every case is tried till the end, if every first appeal has to be heard by the courts, if every matter transcends itself into coming to the Supreme Court, even 500 years will not see the end of litigation.” This may have been a rhetorical observation but highlights the sheer burden of the problem.
Another fall out of the delay in the cases being settled is the large number of prisoners awaiting trial — the prisons are overcrowded and understaffed. Indian jails have a capacity of about 4.25 lakh. But, currently more than 5.54 lakh people are being held in prisons.
The government has taken the stand that disposal of pendency of cases is in the domain of the judiciary and that no time frame has been prescribed for disposal of various types of cases.
Article 21 of the Constitution speaks of protection of life and personal liberty. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of dispensation of justice. There is a National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms set up in 2011 with the twin objectives of increasing access by reducing delays and arrears in the system and enhancing accountability through structural changes and setting performance standards. However, the Mission has very little to show of the work done.
Therefore, alternate dispute resolution measures need to be urgently encouraged and strengthened. One such alternate option is the Mediation Bill which was passed in the last session of Parliament. The Bill requires persons to settle civil or commercial disputes through mediation before approaching any court or tribunal. Anyway, one will have to wait and see how this pans out.
 
The author, Najib Shah, is former Chairman, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs. The views expressed are personal.
Read his previous articles here 
 

Most Read

Share Market Live

View All
Top GainersTop Losers
CurrencyCommodities
CurrencyPriceChange%Change