 | « Back to article | Print this article |
In India when one speaks about the judiciary, the first thing which comes to mind is pendency of cases instead of justice.
There are millions of cases pending before different courts and this has become a major cause for concern which has led the Union government to sanction Rs 35 crore over five years to the Supreme Court to investigate the impact of pendency pressure on judicial officers and also examine if it impacted the output of trial court judges.
It is felt that the high level pendency in the courts, especially in the lower judiciary, and the difficulty of disposing off these cases in good time, has led to a lot of pressure which has run down the morale of judges.
However, the move has evoked a mixed response from legal experts.
The general opinion was that pendency has not led to any psychological pressure among judges. It is more to do with the system and the immense pressure that the higher judiciary seems to be putting on the lower court judges.
Before getting into the debate, here are certain statistics which are needed to be examined.
There are an estimated 26 million cases pending in the lower judiciary across the country. This pendency has impacted the lives of many and there are 2.5 lakh undertrials in jail, 20,000 of them for more than five years.
The judiciary in Uttar Pradesh, which has 5 million pending cases, tops the list. Maharashtra comes in second with 4 million pending cases, while Gujarat (3.8 million), West Bengal (2 million), Bihar (1.3 million), Karnataka (1.6 million) and Rajasthan (1 million) are the other states with high pendency rates.
Going by the statistics it also becomes clear that the number of pending cases has gone up over the years. In 2008, there were 2.54 crore pending cases. In 2009 and 2010, the cases increased to 2.64 crore and 2.72 crore pending cases, respectively.
The question now is whether this pendency is affecting the working of trial court judges.
A judge in the sessions court which did not wish to be named says that the number of litigants are on the rise. The cases have gone up ten folds in the past five years and the infrastructure is the same and this leads to pendency.
"Moreover we have orders to have better disposal rates and in the bargain this affects the functioning as we need to hurry up, and this has a certain amount of impact on our minds," the judge says.
Justice Santhosh Hegde, former judge of the Supreme Court and Karnataka Lokayukta, however differs. He asks, "Who gave anyone the idea that there is psychological pressure?"
"Pressure is there on everyone and it is the pressure of the workload. I have no idea why the government is using such terminology when the issue is something else," he says.
"Looking at the issue of pendency it is clear that there is a lack of infrastructure. Instead of conducting such a study one must take very seriously the judge to population ratio which is dismal when compared to other countries. The number of cases filed and the judges available for deciding them is not at a good ratio at all," Justice Hegde adds.
"The number of cases has increased due to awareness of ones' legal rights. There has been an increase in the number of cases since 1950 due to such awareness. The rate of filing cases has gone up and this has given rise to two sorts of filing -- one by parties who are aware of their rights and the others who have no right but go to court to delay matters," he said.
"Another aspect is that our laws are very old and subscribes to the British system which was meant to ensure justice. But today that procedure is misused both by the litigant, bar and also the bench which makes such an old law unfit in today's society. The other aspect is that the judges need to take care of is the adjournments," Justice Hegde says.
"However, what I find most dangerous is the statistical disposal. One cannot dispose cases for the sake of numbers as this ruins the system. The high court often says dispose off a certain amount of cases and the trial courts come under pressure to do so and this impacts justice. It becomes a case of 'Justice Hurried is Justice Buried'. So to end my argument I would only have to say that no honest judge can have a psychological disability and if he does he is unfit to be a judge," Justice Hegde adds.
Senior advocate Navkesh Batra says that the most important aspect is infrastructure which is at minimal in the Indian courts. The judiciary needs competent judges with commitment, compassion, sensitivity and also a passion for delivering justice, Batra says.
Another major contributing factor would be that the court either takes too long to decide matters or at the cost of justice speedily disposes off matters, Batra adds.