DEARTH OF JUSTICES & DELAY OF JUSTICE
INTRODUCTION:
In an overpopulated country like India, the delays in justice delivery mechanism, huge pendency, and ever-increasing backlog of cases are the primary topics of discussion when talking about judicial reforms. It is important to note that pendency refers to all the cases which have not been disposed yet, while delay is a longer-than-usual time taken to dispose of those cases. One of the most significant factors which contributes to the saying “justice delayed is justice denied” is the shortage of judges in all the courts across the nation and their apparent inefficiencies.
THE PROBLEM:
There has always been an inadequate number of judges to ensure speedy trials to the vast Indian population. As per the statistical data provided by ministry of law and justice, there were around 400 vacancies across high courts while the number of vacancies at district courts and other subordinate courts was a concerning 5000[1]. The former CJI Tirath Singh had also addressed this problem as a national challenge. In a landmark case of 2002, the apex court had ordered, as recommended by the law commission in its 120th report as well[2], the number of judges to be increased to 50 per million of population by 2007, which was around 13 in 2012, and not even 25 per million in 2024[3]. One of the landmark cases[4] also acknowledged that “The root cause for delay in dispensation is poor judge-population ratio”. This indicates that there are not even 40 judges for 10 lakh people and shows the severe strain of workload on these judges. A judge being a human also has a limited capacity, and managing such a large volume of cases becomes extremely challenging which leads to pendency, delays or even wrong judgements. To add further to the problem, there seems to be a lack of punctuality and strictness among some judges. For instance, attending social functions during working hours, liberality in granting adjournments and so on[5]. Some judges even proceed without reading the case files, which ultimately results in more wastage of court’s precious time by the advocates for explanation. Moreover, the practice of rotation of benches affects the continuity leading to further delays[6].
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
The first and foremost measure can be recruitment and retention of judges and encouragement through incentivization. The judicial administration budget has been lesser than 1%[7], which implies that the salaries of judicial officers are very low. The lower-level courts are even characterized to be having poor infrastructure with low pay scale. There have been recommendations made by dedicated commissions regarding salary hike of judicial officers[8], which were followed as well, but did not prove suffice. It becomes need of the hour to enhance their income levels and morale in order to maintain an efficient and corruption free judicial system. Like Indian Administrative Services (IAS), there have been recommendations made by a number of Law Commission Reports and such for an ‘All India Judicial Services’ which acts as a centralized system for judicial administration and the Constitution of India empowers the parliament for its establishment[9]. This would not only benefit in analyzing and reducing the delays but also evaluate the individual and overall performance of the judicial officers for more efficiency and effectivity. Moreover, currently, the states are the only authorities responsible for appointment of their new judicial officers. The procedures and time of their recruitment varies from state to state. A centralized approach like All India Judicial Services will speed up this process while also maintaining transparency[10]. A bill seeking increase in the retirement age of judges from 62 to 65 was also proposed, but it could not be passed[11]. This limits the working time of judges. Additionally, there is also a need to increase the working hours or days of the courts since a large chunk of the total time is underutilized due to public holidays and vacations from time to time[12]. Another step that was proposed by former Vice President Venkaiah Naidu was setting up of four regional benches of the supreme court for reducing the arrears and speeding up the justice delivery mechanism of the country[13].
CONCLUSION:
Strong attempts are needed to find a midway between “justice delayed is justice denied” and “justice hurried is justice buried”. To address this growing crisis of pendency and delays, not only shortage of judges, but also proper infrastructure, incentivization and a centralized process should be looked upon. To meet the needs of over 1.4 billion people is challenging, but implementing the above-mentioned reforms can help revive the faith in the judiciary and ensure not just delivery but prompt delivery of justice.
[1] Ananya Dalmia, The Impact of Pending Court Cases on the Efficacy of the Judicial System in India: “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied”, 8 International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research 3086, 3091 (2023), https://doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2023.v08i10.005.
[2] Vandana Ajay Kumar, Judicial Delays in India: Causes & Remedies, 4 Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization 16, 50 (2012), https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jawpglob4§ion=4
[3] Judge-To-Population Ratio Was Ordered To Be Made 50 Per Million By 2007, But Not Even 25 Per Million In 2024: Supreme Court Laments, LiveLaw.in (Nov. 22, 2024, 7:10 PM), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/judge-to-population-was-ordered-to-be-made-50-per-million-by-2007-but-not-even-25-per-million-in-2024-supreme-court-laments-276063.
[4] P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 S.C.C. 578 (India), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/516669/.
[5] Vandana Ajay Kumar, Judicial Delays in India: Causes & Remedies, 4 Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization 16, 49 (2012), https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jawpglob4§ion=4
[6] Id. at 50.
[7] Nathan Rehn et al., Justice Without Delay: Recommendations for Legal and Institutional Reforms in the Indian Courts, Jindal Global Legal Research Paper No. 4/2011, at 44 (2010), https://ssrn.com/abstract=1679350.
[8]Id. at 44–45.
[9] INDIA CONST. art. 312.
[10]Ananya, supra note 1, at 3096.
[11] Id. at 3095.
[12] Id. at 3096.
[13]Vice President Calls For Bifurcation of Supreme Court, NDTV (Sept. 28, 2019, 4:51 AM), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/vice-president-m-venkaiah-naidu-calls-for-bifurcation-of-supreme-court-2108506.
