IMPERATIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED TO ATTENUATE THE PILE OF PENDING CASES

Hindu College Gazette Web Team
Aug 3, 2023
8 min read

Image Credits: Knowlaw

Introduction

Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India, 1950[i] declares the Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial to be a Fundamental Right. However, this right is in a moribund due to the slow justice delivery system. The Indian judicial system is generally considered to be effective. However, there are certain loopholes that put litigants at a disadvantageous position. Despite the commendable commitment of judges to upholding constitutional rights, protecting the vulnerable, and ensuring access to justice for all, these loopholes have made it difficult for the system to function at its best.

Indian courts are now overburdened; as of 12th June 2023, there were over 4.5 crore cases outstanding two years back.[ii] Compared to 50 judges per million in wealthy countries, India only has 13 judges per million citizens.[iii] As a consequence, numerous adjournments, judges switching cases, and long lines of people waiting outside of courtrooms have become usual. The Law Commission admitted that there have been delays in the judicial system for a very long time. It is crucial to remember that a speedy trial or decision in a matter does not signify a hurried application of justice. Moreover, the compensation offered for the delays, however, sometimes turns out to be useless. It is important to examine the reasons behind the backlog of cases and look into viable remedies to solve the issue.

Judicial Backlog: A Major Concern

One primary cause of the large backlog in the legal system is the drawn-out procedure of selecting judges. As noted in the Law Commission of India's Report No. 245[iv], the problem of vacancies in courts has continued for a while and become worse with time. A significant amount of resources is needed to handle this scenario and speed up case settlement. Increasing the number of judges in the courts is essential for effectively delivering justice. The "rate of disposal" per judge per year was chosen by the 20th Law Commission in July 2014 as the accepted criterion for estimating the number of extra judges needed. As vital as it is to reduce the backlog of cases, judges' productivity in our nation must also be taken into account. An indicator of a judge's productivity is their annual "disposition ratio of judges to cases". In all of the 21 High Courts across the country, a single judge handles an average of 1363 cases each year. Judges in India are not very productive, since cases sometimes take several years to be resolved. There are several reasons for this poor production, including a lack of infrastructure and motivation among adjudicators.

Simply adding more judges without addressing the need to improve their disposal rate would only provide a short-term fix. Even while it could help to lessen the number of open cases, it doesn't permanently solve the issue. It's crucial to concentrate on filling open positions while also putting policies into place that will ensure that the cases are not pending unnecessarily for a longer period of time.

Image Credits: Nebraska Today

Cases are Piling up Without Timely Resolutions

Indian inhabitants have a great deal of confidence in the legal system; therefore, they regularly turn to the courts for help with a variety of problems. The result is that with each day that goes by, more lawsuits are being filed. But there is a growing backlog of cases that need to be heard because of a paucity of judges, judges' absence, lengthy trial times, lawyer strikes, and frequent reassignments of judges to lower courts. This situation adds to the growing backlog of unresolved cases and creates major obstacles to their settlement.

Taking about luxurious litigation, which generally involves wealthy individuals, large corporations, or high-profile cases where the parties involved are ready to pay any amount of money in pursuing their legal interests, Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana said, “It is a specific type of litigation wherein parties with resources attempt to frustrate the judicial process and delay it by filing numerous proceedings across the judicial system. Undeniably, the prevailing pandemic has also contributed to our woes.”[v] This phenomenon is often employed, which often results in needless delays. Even attorneys use these strategies to prolong a lawsuit and maximize their fees .

Needless Exploitation Of PIL

A judge often inquires about a petitioner's locus standi when he/she appears in the court. However, since Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is brought for the public's benefit, locus standi is not necessary. However, some people abuse PILs to further their own or other people's political goals. They clog the courts with pointless cases where entertainment of such litigations will frustrate the very purpose of the invention of Public Interest Litigation. In a landmark decision, Justice Bhagwati held that PILs cannot be filed for political or personal purposes in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhari.[vi]

"Public Interest Litigation'' is the name given to legal actions brought on behalf of the general public. Anyone may file a PIL if there is a public interest at stake; the petitioner does not need to show their locus standi. In some situations, though, the petitioner must provide proof of their entitlement to be heard. A good PIL is brought forward to advance society's interests or that of a particular group of people, as opposed to a bad PIL that has political or financial motivations. These PILs have been a major contributor to India's rising backlog of litigation. Even a simple letter could be recognized as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) due to its wide scope. Unfortunately, many people abuse and misuse the PIL process to file unnecessary litigation which, instead of helping dispensing justice, makes the traditional litigation to suffer. As PILs become more common, there are more cases in the High Court and Supreme Court. Some people just file PILs to get public attention and to control the flood of these frivolous cases, it is essential to create standard rules for PIL filing. To stop the abuse of PIL, courts must step in.

The petitioner's bona fides, or if they have a sincere desire in pursuing PIL, are an important feature of the petitioner that the court should consider while entertaining them. It is crucial to enquire about the petitioner's intentions and if they care about the welfare of the public throughout the petition registration process. PILs that are legitimate should be given due consideration by the court, while petitioners who file PILs just for political or financial gain should face consequences.

Misuse of Appellatory Rights

One party is deemed the winner and the other loser in the judge's ruling. The losing party has the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court if they are unhappy with the outcome. The appellatory rights of a party are supposed to guarantee that justice will be done, but attorneys have transformed them into a method to make money off the disagreements that exist between the parties.

60.5 Lakh cases in High Courts and 4.8 Crore cases in District Courts are recorded to be pending by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. The court that first handed down the judgment is responsible for determining the acceptability of any appeal and the total number of appeals that can be filed over any judgment, which are then subsequently evaluated by the higher courts like the High Court of any particular state and the Supreme Court of India. A notice of appeal must be lodged to the lower court that rendered the judgment within a certain deadline, usually 30 days in civil cases and 10 days in criminal cases, to begin an appeal. The appellate court won't take the case under consideration if the notification isn't given within the required time frame. The attorney may submit a draught or petition of the matter to the higher court once the notice of appeal has been provided.

A criminal appeal is considered by the session court in situations where the district court's ruling is final following Chapter 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, while a civil appeal is handled following the Section 96 of the same code. If an appeal is warranted, one may approach the Supreme Court or High Court and ask for a special waiver of the appeal process under Articles 136 or 227 of the Indian Constitution. Cases decided by the Supreme Court of India are regarded as conclusive and cannot be appealed to another court. A total of 49 million cases are now pending before the Indian Courts and over 69,000 in Supreme Court of India, comprising 24 million civil appeals, 13 million criminal appeals, and 19 million writ petitions. Some litigants see the pursuit of appeals as a hobby that they engage in primarily for financial benefit. The upper courts are under stress as a result of this surge of appeals. The court should make sure that appeals are only permitted for legitimate reasons to remedy this problem. According to rough estimates, 7 out of 10 appeals are rejected for lack of merit. It is crucial to establish a "single appeal-only" right, prohibiting any additional appeals. The court's registrar should examine the justifications of the appeal before granting authorization. Implementing this measure will effectively deter frivolous and unnecessary appeals, thus curbing malicious intentions. Consequently, only genuine appeals warranting rehearing will be considered, ensuring a more streamlined and fair legal process.

Image Credits: Economic Times

Tedious Process of Law

Many people have to wait years outside the courthouse in the hopes of achieving justice because of the drawn-out legal procedure. Victims get tired and frustrated in their quest for justice as a result of the multiple hearings and frequent adjournments that occur in court proceedings. Unfortunately, some defendants take advantage of the court system to further their interests. Therefore the judicial system must take action to speed up the process of handling legal issues.

To expedite trial procedures, the Supreme Court of India may establish some time limits for subordinate courts to dispose of cases. Furthermore, it will also be essential to ensure that these time limits are adhered to by subordinate courts. It is typical to come across situations that have been unresolved for more than 50 years. The Supreme Court should create a set of regulations to solve this problem and hasten the adjudication of such cases.

Conclusion

In terms of sturdiness and honesty, our judicial system is on par with that of other countries. Its efficacy, meanwhile, is now being hampered by several issues. The public's trust in the justice system has been shaken by the prolonged case processing times. Inadequate numbers of judicial officers, a shortage of ministerial personnel, personal circumstances influencing the parties, procedural errors, a lack of infrastructure, and misuse of the legal system are the main causes of case processing delays. Lower courts, where the bulk of Indians seek justice, often get less attention than they should. The administration of hearings and witnesses must be improved. It is possible to lessen the burden of litigation by creatively combining various such tactics. The government should give more impetus to other conflict resolution processes like Lok Adalats, fast-track courts, and Gram Nyayalayas to lessen the burden on the judiciary and guarantee effective justice delivery. To eliminate systemic flaws and keep the judicial system operating swiftly, immediate action is the need of hour.

By: Jay Kumar Gupta

This article has been authored by Jay Kumar Gupta, a third-year BBA LL.B.(Hons.) Student from School of Law, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Bengaluru. He is always a motivated person and an avid reader. He loves writing and has written in various domains.