Fixing judicial delays

Attention to problems of India's judiciary overdue

There can be no two opinions that the sight of the Chief Justice of India nearly breaking down in public when discussing the problems faced in effectively delivering justice should serve as a wake-up call for the government and for the public. Increasing the effectiveness of the judicial branch of government is essential. The settling of disputes is central to the duties of a well-governed state and to the prospects of economic growth; India’s sclerotic and dilatory judicial process is not just unjust, but a severe impediment to any other efforts to raise India out of poverty. There are over 30 million pending cases in Indian courts, and settling them all could, at the current rate, take several decades. Clearly this is unsustainable.

The Chief Justice was right to draw attention to the fact that the executive has been guilty of neglecting the human and financial resource needs of the judicial branch. Vacancies at the level of the subordinate judiciary amount to almost a quarter of the currently sanctioned posts; and it is even worse at the crucial high court level, where 44 per cent of appointments remain unfilled. The judges can rightly complain that even when names have been shortlisted to fill these vacancies, the executive has been slow in confirming the appointments. Even the currently sanctioned strength of the judiciary, as the Chief Justice pointed out, is insufficient to deal with what he called an “avalanche” of litigation. There are 21,000 judges in India, he said, when as far back as 1987, the Law Commission had said the number should be 40,000. This means that there are just over 17 judges per million Indians, when there are over 150 judges for every million Americans. Meanwhile, judicial infrastructure remains backward – and yet the Union government allotted, in Budget 2016-17, just Rs 56 crore for judicial infrastructure. Of the total Rs 5,100 crore allotted for law and justice, Rs 3,650 crore is for election expenses. Obviously this expenditure is too low a priority for the government. The government could also help by reducing appeals of cases that have gone against them – and by settling those disputes between two branches of the government that have gone to the courts.

While clearly there is much that the executive must do, the judicial authorities, in their role as administrators of the sector, could also consider some reforms that have been long sought. For example, adjournments are granted too easily and too often, leading to delays in the administration of justice. For similar reasons, oral arguments could be replaced by written submissions. Perhaps overworked judges are not able to devote as much time to their administrative duties as is necessary. Solutions to this problem that have worked elsewhere must be examined. For example, the reorganisation of the British court system that was passed by that country’s parliament in 2005 created a professional Judicial Office reporting to the Lord Chief Justice that was responsible for administrative work. The Chief Justice of India is absolutely right that attention to the problem of India’s courts is overdue, and the government must respond.