.jpg?rect=0%2C0%2C2000%2C1125&auto=format%2Ccompress&fmt=webp&width=720)
A recent order of the Supreme Court expressed alarm when it came across a suit for the recovery of money that took 22 years to be disposed of.
This, however, is unsurprising as data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), as of 14 August 2024, shows that there are approximately 6.4 lakh cases in the District Courts that have been pending for over 20 years. Given the dire situation of judicial delay, it is vital that dedicated attention be paid to monitoring cases, ensuring their steady progress, and timely disposal.
The number of pending cases in the High Courts and District Courts has grown from about three crore cases in 2014 to about five crore cases within 10 years.
A recent order of the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Limited v Varanasi Srinivas and Others showed disappointment at the amount of delay faced in the case; the case was filed in 2001, issues framed in 2019, closed evidence in 2022 and was disposed of in 2023.
The Supreme Court directed a detailed pendency status report to be submitted by the Registrar General of the Gujarat High Court in a sealed envelope within eight weeks. The report would be provided for the consideration of the Committee for Model Case Flow Management Rules for Trial Courts, District Appellate Courts, and High Courts in order to suggest a plan to reduce arrears in the High Courts and District Courts.
The information sought in the report includes the following: the pendency of civil suits and civil appeals, the lifecycle of civil suits and civil appeals, pendency in civil courts and the cadre strength, the number of cases allocated to judges on average, the infrastructure provided to each court, and potential remedial measures.
The Data Speaks
With the significant advance in the use of technology by the judiciary over the last decade, much of this information (barring details regarding infrastructure) ought to be readily available. As per information available on the NJDG, there are 3,54,546 pending civil cases in Gujarat’s district courts, of which 1,40,977 are pending civil suits and 16,666 are pending civil appeals.
In terms of the average number of years that these cases have been pending, there are close to 29,000 civil suits pending for five to 10 years, over 14,000 civil suits pending for 10-20 years, and over 1,400 civil suits pending for more than 20 years. Therefore, while the present case happened to receive the attention of the Supreme Court, there are about 1,400 other pending civil suits in a similar situation.
The NJDG also provides a glimpse into the stage where civil suits often get stuck. 60 percent of the civil suits are pending at the stages of evidence, arguments, or judgment, with the highest number of civil suits pending at the stage of evidence (51,963 cases). The situation appears less grim for civil appeals – there are over 3000 civil appeals pending for 5-10 years and over 500 civil appeals pending for over 10 years. About 57 percent of civil appeals are pending at the stages of evidence, arguments, or judgment, with most of them (~5,000 cases) pending at the stage of arguments.
Although the NJDG stops short of making available granular information at the level of a court hall/judge to the general public, this information should be easily available to those within the judicial system. In such a case, the point that the issue really boils down to then is who is monitoring the everyday functioning of the judiciary?
It has become commonplace to see the judiciary often express alarm about high pendency in specific contexts, for example, civil cases, POCSO cases, cases filed against MPs/MLAs, criminal appeals, dishonour of cheques, cases pending for more than five years, etc.
In the spirit of finding a solution, what is often done is to set up committees (which is a further drain on the limited time of court staff and, more importantly, judges, who are usually already part of other committees, legal aid authorities, etc) to produce ad hoc reports on the status of pendency or to make recommendations. However, it is now time for the system to deal with the issue of pendency on a constant war footing.
The Way Forward
As judges and their court staff struggle to dispose of as many cases as possible to reduce pendency, it does little good to saddle them with the additional responsibility to also analyse court functioning on a day-to-day basis. A recommendation that has often been made in the context of judicial reforms is the setting up of a dedicated administrative cadre with managerial expertise that will monitor and manage the day-to-day functioning of courts, to enable them to focus on their core role, ie, adjudicating disputes and rendering justice.
Acknowledging the administrative authority of High Courts as well as differences in the nature of cases filed in different jurisdictions, the problems that hinder case progress, and infrastructural requirements that vary between states, it is important that such a cadre be set up at the level of the High Court.
Having a dedicated body to support the judiciary in managing its caseload will ensure constant monitoring and evaluation of case progress (not only from an overall systemic view but also in analysing the progress of each type of case) and potential solutions (differentiated case management, intelligent scheduling, setting up dedicated courts, etc) to ensure feasible and effective remedies to reduce judicial delay.
As per a 2023 report by the Supreme Court, 37 percent of judicial officers stated that they did not have adequate support staff and that their existing staff were often overburdened, thereby hampering the pace at which judges could carry out their work. Having an administrative body could also support the judiciary by providing timely attention to matters such as infrastructure requirements and ensuring adequate support staff are provided to the judges to carry out their functions.
There have been several studies on the functioning of the Indian judiciary (both by the judiciary and outside the judiciary) that have identified problems and suggested solutions to reducing delays. The need of the hour however is to ensure dedicated attention to monitoring the functioning of the judiciary.
An ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approach to case management where attention is paid to the problem whenever an old case comes before a court is insufficient to tackle the deeply systemic issue of judicial delay.
(The author is a Senior Resident Fellow of the JALDI [Justice, Access, and Lowering Delays in India] team at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)