Syllabus: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
Context
- India’s judiciary is burdened with massive pendency. The Supreme Court alone has over 90,225 pending cases, the highest in history. Chief Justice of India-designate Justice Surya Kant identified reducing pendency as his foremost institutional priority.
Why Pendency Persists (Structural Causes)
- Human Resource Deficit
-
-
- India has only 21 judges per million, against the Law Commission’s recommendation of 50 per million.
- Acute shortage of court staff, stenographers and research support affects case flow.
-
- Weak ADR Deployment
-
-
- Mediation, arbitration, Lok Adalats underused.
- Gram Nyayalayas remain non-functional in most States.
-
- Procedural Inefficiencies
-
-
- Frequent adjournments, frivolous filings, multiple appeals and vague laws slow trials.
- No scientific grouping of similar cases; lack of prioritisation mechanisms.
-
- Infrastructure & Technology Gaps
-
-
- Subordinate courts face poor amenities, limited digital record-keeping and inadequate videoconferencing.
-
- Fiscal Constraints
-
-
- Judiciary receives only 0.1% of GDP, restricting expansion and modernisation.
-
- Government as Biggest Litigant
-
- Government accounts for nearly 50% of all litigation, worsening delays.
Impact of Pendency
- Violates Right to Speedy Trial (Art. 21) (Hussainara Khatoon (1979))
- Weakens rule of law; emboldens offenders.
- 76% of prisoners are undertrials, disproportionately harming the poor.
- Stalls infrastructure, land and environmental clearance projects.
- Erodes public trust and encourages extra-legal settlements.
Justice Surya Kant’s Reform Priorities
- Prioritising Core Constitutional Cases
-
- Identify long-pending cases involving substantial questions of law.
- Such cases create a trickle-down delay, blocking decisions in HCs and lower courts.
- Forming Larger Benches
-
- Constitute seven-judge and nine-judge Benches to deliver authoritative rulings.
- Aim: “Untie knots” delaying thousands of linked disputes nationwide.
- Strengthening Coordination with High Courts
-
- Sought data on long-pending HC cases.
- Urged litigants to approach High Courts first, as they are “equally constitutional bodies.”
- Tackling Miscellaneous Filings
-
-
- Noted SC often revisits decades-old matters, slowing disposal.
-
- Promoting Mediation
-
- Called mediation a “game-changer”; prioritised pre-litigation and court-annexed mediation.
Government Measures
- National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms (2011):
- Focuses on lowering backlogs and delays by improving court infrastructure and streamlining procedures.
- Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Judicial Infrastructure:
- Provides funding for constructing courtrooms, judges’ residences, lawyer amenities, toilets, and strengthening digital facilities in subordinate courts.
- e-Courts Mission Mode Project (Phases I, II, III):
- Aims at complete digital transformation of courts through computerisation, e-filing systems, online hearings, virtual courts, the Virtual Justice Clock, and the JustIS monitoring app for judges.
- Commercial Courts under the 2015 Act:
- Established for quicker resolution of commercial disputes, reducing monetary thresholds and enabling electronic case management tools.
- Fast Track Courts (FTCs):
- Set up for speedy disposal of serious and long-pending criminal cases, including NIA matters, POCSO cases, and other specialised offences.
- Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR):
- Promotes settlement of disputes outside traditional courts through mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats, thereby easing judicial workload.
Way Forward
- Create a Central Judicial Infrastructure Authority: The proposed National Judicial Infrastructure Authority (NJIA) must be set up to design, build, and maintain modern court infrastructure across all levels.
- Integrate AI into Case Management: Artificial intelligence should be leveraged for smarter scheduling, filtering repetitive cases, and improving overall judicial workflow.
- Use Ad-hoc Judges for Clearance of Backlog: Constitutional provisions under Articles 128 and 224A should be invoked to appoint retired judges on a temporary basis to speed up pending matters in the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- Mandate Disposal Targets: High Courts and subordinate courts should adopt yearly case-clearance goals and hold bi-monthly or quarterly reviews to ensure measurable progress.
- Strict Regulation of Adjournments: Courts must curb routine and unnecessary adjournments, as they consume significant judicial time and contribute to delays.
- Improve Government Litigation Practices: The State must reduce avoidable litigation, draft clearer laws, ensure timely compliance, and penalise frivolous appeals.
- Strengthen ADR Mechanisms: Mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats should be expanded to divert minor disputes away from regular courts.
- Promote Pre-Litigation Mediation: Legal Services Authorities should conduct large-scale pre-litigation mediation to prevent avoidable cases from entering the judicial system.