M J Antony: Judiciary on a shoestring

Amounts doled out as part of the Union Budget are measly and skewed

This is the time when some 35 million taxpayers are wringing their hands in speculation over what’s in store for them in the upcoming Budget. But the judiciary has no such angst; it has accepted as destiny the niggardly amounts doled out to it in every annual Budget — Central or state. There is no one to speak up for it at this crucial time, nor can it employ lobbyists like other sectors.

According to an estimate, only 0.4 per cent of the Budgetary outlay is allocated to the judiciary. “Is justice delivery so unimportant that there is only 0.4 per cent of the gross domestic product [GDP] as Budget for the judiciary?” a Supreme Court judge asked recently at a Delhi meeting.

In contrast, the allocation for the justice system is 1.2 per cent in Singapore, 1.4 per cent in the US and 4.3 per cent in the United Kingdom. Unlike in other departments of the government, more than half of the amount spent on the judiciary is raised from the judiciary itself through collection of court fees, stamp duty and miscellaneous matters.

Those who work in education, health and sanitation sectors have also complained about skewed allocations. When Union minister Jairam Ramesh dropped a gaffe (“gaffe: when a politician tells the truth”) that $20 million spent on one jet fighter could make 1,000 villages free from open defecation, he was booed. There are enormous undeclared funds for snooping on citizens by intelligence agencies without parliamentary approval or oversight.

The situation facing the judiciary is grim. There are 30 million cases pending before the courts. Against the Law Commission recommendation of 50 judges for one million people, the present ratio is 10.5 for one million. Then, there are unjustifiable percentage of vacancies in courts and tribunals. Talented people do not opt for a judicial career for many reasons. Thus, brilliant lawyers have to argue before less-endowed judges.

The infrastructure and working conditions of the judicial and administrative personnel are so poor that these are issues before the Supreme Court in public interest cases. One such case, All India Judges Association vs Union of India, has been going on since 1989 and is heard almost every week. The government has to be nudged at every step to comply with the orders. Some state governments do not file replies before chief secretaries are summoned. Different benches of the court have monitored these problems for years but are still far from achieving the goals.

Nearly 60 per cent of the cases involve Central laws and, therefore, the Central Budget should take care of the expenses. Laws passed by Parliament normally do not talk about the expenses involved in their implementation, like additional infrastructure and personnel. Since the expenses are shared unequally by the Central and state governments, there is constant squabble over the liability to finance the courts and tribunals. Registrars of high courts are often seen panhandling before law secretaries.

It is high time that the Central and state governments think of passing separate Budgets for judiciary. The present piecemeal sourcing of funds to the judiciary leads to a blame game and the courts not knowing which authority to approach for funds. The Centre introduces the Rail Budget annually with much alacrity, though it is a colonial hangover when the British built the communication system two centuries ago. Judiciary should get at least half the attention which the Rail Budget gets.

The niggardly allocations and neglect have led to the present situation in which some accused persons spend more time in prison than the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence. In civil cases, many people abandon their rightful claims because asserting them would be too expensive and time-consuming.

If the present imbroglio is not solved, the system is bound to crash. In the past, reports of committees like those headed by Justice Jagannatha Shetty and E Padmanabhan have warned the government about the pathetic condition of the judiciary. In a recent study, it was found that appeals from more literate states exceed by far those from the less literate ones. If education spreads and people realise their rights and start asserting them, the docket explosion will be unmanageable in times to come. Imagine the golden chain of justice with 60 bells set up by emperor Jahangir ringing every nano-second.

Recent rallies at India Gate and Jantar Mantar have shown that there is growing legal awareness. Constitutional guarantees are being asserted even by small persons. Recently, a lumberjack in Kerala, claiming to be a Gandhian, triggered a constitutional question by refusing to cover his body for the photo identity card, invoking his inviolable right not to wear a shirt. Demands for rights have gone viral via Twitter and Facebook. Neither the government nor the judiciary is prepared to solve the present logjam and, therefore, should be ready for the “Future Shock”.