M J Antony: The Cinderella of budget-makers

OUT OF COURT

A judicial system starved of funds cannot function efficiently or impartially.

The latest figures released by the Supreme Court last week on the state of the judiciary in the country give little cheer. More than 25 million cases remain pending in the district and subordinate courts "" 1.8 million criminal ones and 7.3 million civil. The courts could dispose of 1.1 million civil cases and three million criminal cases in one quarter.

In the introduction to the document, Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan has regretted that "there has been no appreciable improvement in the filling up of vacant posts of subordinate judicial officers." He urges the high courts and the state governments to make concerted efforts to fill up the vacancies to reduce the staggering arrears of cases.

There are 284 vacancies in the 21 high courts, while the sanctioned strength is 877. The Allahabad high court, as usual, tops the list with 89 vacancies in the sanctioned strength of 160. The Punjab & Haryana high court comes next with 26 vacancies out of 68. The Bombay high court also needs 24 judges to fill the quorum of 75.

The vacancies in the district and subordinate courts are an astounding 3,233 out of a total strength of 15,672. This is one of the most debilitating parts of the functioning of the judiciary as the common people come into contact with it at this level. Therefore, this is also the place where they tend to lose faith in the system.

This short survey of statistics should alert the budget makers at the centre as well as the states. Former Chief Justice A S Anand said a few years ago: "As the position stands at present, every high court and the judicial system is starved of funds. The expenditure on judiciary in this country is only 0.2 per cent of the GNP as compared to 4.3 per cent in the UK. More than half of the expenditure on judiciary is generated by the judiciary itself through court fees and fines."

The judge-population ratio in this country is 10.5 judges per million. Long ago, the Law Commission suggested that the ratio should be raised to at least 50 judges per million. But this recommendation is still gathering dust in the law ministry as the governments, either at the Centre or at the state levels, are not willing to provide the required finances.

The law-makers, who are quick to criticise the judiciary for delays in the disposal of cases and for intruding into the territories claimed by them and the executive, are reluctant to loosen their grips on the purse strings to improve the infrastructure of the courts and the remuneration of the personnel. This tendency is evident not only in the fund providers at the centre "" the budget, the Planning Commission "" but also at the state level. The executive has almost total control over the budgetary allocation to the judiciary. The chief justices or the heads of tribunals have to approach the ministers for adequate funds.

The plight of the hundreds of tribunals, regulatory commissions and other quasi-judicial bodies is dismal. Some of them in the nation's capital function from World War barracks or what look like the stables of former princes. They do not have adequate staff or stationery, let alone a library. Computerisation is a far cry. This sustains corruption.

The salaries of the judges at all levels are so low that no brilliant or successful lawyer would be tempted to move from the bar to the bench. The Supreme Court has been hearing the case, All India Judges Association vs Union of India, for several years and prodding the states to provide adequate working conditions and remuneration to those who opt for the judicial services. The stiff resistance of the state governments, reflected in their devious affidavits over the years, is evident to all those who visit the Chief Justice's court which hears the case. The poetic justice, perhaps, is that accomplished lawyers are compelled to argue before less endowed judges. They are condemned to say euphemistically, "I'm sorry I've not been able to make myself clear, my lord," while they have some unkind thoughts in their mind.

Thus we are again in another budget season. At the centre, we have lawyers who adorn the posts of the law minister and the finance minister. They should not keep the judiciary as the cheapest arm of the state. Neglecting education and health is already setting off migration, aggravating social tension. On the other hand, the victims of a neglected judiciary are safely locked up as 'under trials' and are out of sight, out of mind.