Syllabus: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
Context
- Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal provided detailed data in the Rajya Sabha on judicial vacancies and case pendency across courts.
Judicial Vacancies
- India has 4,855 vacant judge posts in district and subordinate courts.
- There are 297 vacancies across various High Courts.
- The Minister clarified that filling positions in lower courts is the responsibility of High Courts and State governments.
- For the Supreme Court and High Courts, appointments are being made through joint efforts of the judiciary and executive.
Pendency of Cases
- Nearly 4.8 crore cases are pending in lower courts nationwide.
- The Supreme Court has 90,694 pending cases as of December 1.
- The pendency figure was 70,239 cases in 2021, indicating a rising backlog.
State-wise Pendency and Vacancies
- Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of judicial vacancies with 1,055 posts unfilled.
- Gujarat follows with 535 vacancies, and Madhya Pradesh with 384 vacancies.
- The Allahabad High Court has the maximum High Court vacancies at 60 posts.
- It also records the highest pendency among High Courts at 11,66,971 cases.
- Lower courts in Uttar Pradesh have 1,13,05,841 pending cases, the largest in the country.
Reasons for High Pendency
- Structural and Institutional Gaps
-
- Shortage of judges slows case disposal due to inadequate judicial capacity.
- Insufficient court infrastructure limits the system’s ability to handle rising caseloads.
- Complex nature of several cases demands significant time and resources for resolution.
- Procedural delays arise from difficulties in locating witnesses or procuring evidence.
- Weak enforcement of court orders prolongs disputes and pushes cases back into litigation.
- Demand-Side Pressures
-
- Increased legal awareness has expanded the volume of cases filed.
- Growth of mechanisms like Public Interest Litigations (PILs) has contributed to higher filings.
Impact of Judicial Pendency on Justice Delivery
- Systemic Consequences
-
- Long delays in justice delivery force litigants to wait years or decades for final resolution.
- Judges may lack adequate time for deep examination, reducing quality of judicial decisions.
- Heavy caseloads burden the judiciary, slowing hearings and straining administrative resources.
- Social and Economic Implications
-
- Persistent delays create loss of public trust in the legal system.
- Financial pressures on litigants rise due to prolonged proceedings and recurring expenses.
- Victims and witnesses suffer, as memories fade, individuals die, or become unreachable.
- Business disputes remain unresolved, causing economic slowdown and uncertainty.
Steps Taken to Reduce Pendency
- Technological Reforms
-
- Virtual courts enable online hearings, improving access and reducing delays.
- The e-Courts portal provides a digital platform for litigants, advocates, police, and agencies.
- E-filing systems simplify case submission, save time, and digitise case records.
- Online payment of court fees and fines reduces dependence on physical transactions.
- Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) enables seamless data sharing among courts, police, jails, and forensic labs.
- Institutional Measures
-
- Fast-track courts expedite specific categories of cases to reduce backlog.
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms — Lok Adalats, Gram Nyayalayas, and Online Dispute Resolution — ensure quicker settlements.
Steps Suggested to Further Reduce Pendency
- Capacity Expansion and Legal Reforms
-
- Increase the number of judges as recommended by the Law Commission (1987) and reiterated by the Supreme Court and Parliamentary Committee.
- Promote mediation and arbitration to reduce the burden on formal courts.
- Streamline legal processes using technology and eliminating redundant procedural steps.
- Strengthen enforcement of court orders to ensure timely compliance and reduce repeat litigation.