Backlogs: Increasing judges only half the solution

Thirty three years ago I had made a seizure in a customs case and now I had to appear for the eighth time in the Court as a witness. The prosecution case is pending for thirty two years. Seven times I was cross examined as witness before the fra-ming of charges. That was fifteen years ago. Eighth time was now. After my retirement I went to places like Bangalore, Goa, Delhi many times for appearing as witness. All these are not true for me alone but all who appear as witness. I am highlighting all these facts not usually known to others who recommend solutions but are not exactly aware of the ground realities. The reality is far grimmer than what people can imagine from outside.

Recently the Prime Minister told a conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts that the apex court should be the catalyst, organiser, mentor and umpire in tackling this issue of massive backlog of cases pending disposal in courts (Four million cases pending before the high courts and thirty million before the lower courts). As a solution it has been suggested by many that filling up the vacancies of judges and increasing the strength of the Bench would solve the problem largely.

My considered view is that increasing the number of judges is only half the solution. What is needed is a thorough procedural overhaul and attitudinal change in the judicial system.

I may be allowed to present several suggestions from the experience I have gathered over several decades in conducting litigation in different courts in India. This is in continuation of the discussion the Prime Minister has initiated for clearing the backlog. It does not cast any aspersion on any class of people in the system.

i) Easy adjournments should neither be asked for nor allowed. If a person is to be cross-examined as a witness, it should not be done over a period of several years but in quick succes-sion and preferably on a day to day basis.

ii) Delaying tactics by one party (who has vested interest in delay), mostly the one prosecuted, should not be allowed.

They usually ask for irrelevant papers and go to hig-her court for a stay of proceedings on the ground of denial of natural justice. It is easy to detect their intention and scotch such move.

iii) Frivolous appeals from the government side particularly in the fiscal cases has become quite common. There is a very large percentage of cases which are rejected at higher courts. The tendency to file appeal in higher courts even when the issue is settled against the Government is quite common.

A task force should be created to analyse in how many unmerited cases appeals were filed. There is no point in saying that the senior lawyer approved of it.

iv) Admitting writ petiti-ons and giving interim injunctions rather easily in so many cases is one aspect which has to be conside-red with due attention. The principle of alternative remedy should get due consideration. In a very large number of cases, writ petitions are admitted and after a few hearings they are sent back to the department for adju-dication or for decision in appeal.

v) For deciding old cases (which are more than five years old) separate judges may be earmarked so that greater attention can be paid to such files which are usually very bulky and have got dozens of statements and documents in them.

The conclusion is that the massive backlog in courts can be reduced not by a qua-ntitative approach but a qualitative change in the approach on the part of all stakeholders.

Email: smukher2000@yahoo.com