Legal reforms: One step forward, but a long road ahead

The one great leap forward on judicial reforms so far has been the presidential assent to the 121st Constitution Amendment Bill on New Year's Eve, enabling the setting up of a judicial appointments commission. It scraps the present collegium of judges.

In view of the persistent conflict between the judiciary and the executive over primacy in this field, it is most likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court.

In August, the court had asked the Bar to hold back till the presidential assent before challenging the law on the ground of violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.

WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR

• Possible clash between judiciary and executive on the Judicial Appointment Commission
• Filling up of 300-odd vacancies in 24 high courts
• Raising the budget allocation for judiciary

In the light of the persistent conflict between the judiciary and the executive over primacy in this field, it is most likely that its Constitutionality will be tested in Supreme Court.

While that might provoke another confrontation between the judiciary and the executive, the core problems of the judicial system have not yet been touched by the new government.

The top spot in judiciary's wish list would be a hike in the budget allocation from the present pittance of less than two per cent. Successive chief justices of India have lamented this neglect and warned of the impending collapse of the system. Linked with this is the gross number of vacancies in high courts (300 in 24 courts), subordinate courts and tribunals. With the government holding the purse strings and giving little priority in working the system, 30 million cases are pending. Prisons are overcrowded - mostly with those awaiting trial. One urgent task is to build a database on these subjects, so that the way forward is lit. Around 40 tribunals were set up to offload high courts' work.

However, their infrastructure is grossly inadequate. Judicial members are few and these quasi-judicial bodies are said to be a sinecure for retired civil servants.

The country has long dreamed of attracting international arbitration. However, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been afflicted ever since its inception in 1996 with the same syndromes as the civil courts. Corporations prefer to settle their conflicts in London or Singapore. The amending Ordinance has few provisions to cure old maladies.

Passing laws has been so difficult in recent times that law-makers cannot even tackle low-hanging fruits like repealing colonial statutes citing "His or Her Majesty".

Judges, too, can also do their bit. Adjournments are given easily, hearing in a single case goes on for weeks, corporate appeals seem to break queues, courts sit less than half the days in any calendar year, punctuality is at a discount, and judgments are delivered often by the judge on his retirement day.

These ills can be cured by the judges themselves if only they could think out of the box.

The only major initiative the Supreme Court has taken recently was to set up a "social justice bench", whose working will be keenly watched in the coming months.