Pendency of Cases The Supreme Court expressed serious concern at the long delay in hearing of appeals, even in murder cases, in the country's largest high court at Allahabad and sought suggestions from solicitor general Tushar Mehta and two senior advocates to find a way out to ensure speedy justice to litigants. More about the news

• • In a case, it was observed that Allahabad HC may not be able to hear his client's appeal against conviction for at least a decade as the HC was hearing 20-year-old appeals at present. 

• Allahabad HC has a sanctioned strength of 160 judges but as of November 1, there were 59 vacancies. 
• Allahabad HC also accounts for the highest pendency at 9 lakh cases among HCs. This makes it almost impossible for the HC to expeditiously hear appeals, even those by murder convicts.

Pendency of cases across courts in India has increased in the last decade;

• As of April 2018, there are over three crore cases pending across the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the subordinate courts (including district courts).
• Of these, the subordinate courts account for over 86% pendency of cases, followed by 13.8% pendency before the 24 High Courts. The remaining 0.2% of cases are pending with the Supreme Court.
• Between 2006 and 2018 (up to April), there has been an 8.6% rise in the pendency of cases across all courts. Pendency before Supreme Court increased by 36%, High Courts by 17%, and subordinate courts by 7%.

Reasons for too many cases pending in Indian courts At least five crore cases are filed every year and judges dispose of only two crores. The reasons being –

1. Increase in the awareness of rights by the common man

The recent socio-economic advances and the resultant awareness of legal rights, has given courage to common people to approach courts of law for justice.

2. New mechanisms (PIL) and new rights (RTI)

As government explicit made legislation for new rights like ‘Right to Information’, aggrieved parties started to increasingly knock the doors of justice.  Also, the active judiciary has invented new devices like Public Interest Litigation which gave again resulted in more cases.

3. There are not enough judges

• There are not enough judges (only around 21,000). The current Judge to Population ratio is 19 to 1 million(Law Ministry data). The Law Commission report in 1987 recommends at least 50 to 1 million. 
• More than half of the posts are vacant. There is a conflict between the Judiciary and Executive regarding the appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and various High Courts.
• Colonial legacies like paid long vacations – at a time when the number of judges is low, the appointed judges are taking long vacations, especially in High Courts.

4. Inadequate financial resources and modernization

• The Indian judiciary has insufficient resources. Both Center and States are not interested in increasing spending with respect to the judiciary.
• Budgetary allocations for the whole judiciary are a pathetic 0.1% to 0.4% of the whole budget.

India needs more courts and more benches. Modernization and computerization have not reached all courts.

5. There is too much litigation from the Government Side

The government is the largest litigant in India, responsible for nearly half the pending cases. Many of them are actually cases of one department of the government suing another, leaving decision-making to the courts. Also, most of the cases, when the government files a case, it is seen that the government side fails to prove the point.

6. Low judicial quality in lower courts

• The Indian Judicial system has miserably failed to attract the best brains and talented students.
• As the quality of judges in lower courts is not always up to the mark, appeals are filed against the decisions in higher courts, which again increases the number of cases.
• Judges lack specialization and they have turned less efficient and lazy.

7. Archaic Laws or Vague Drafting of Laws

• The archaic laws that fill up the statute books, faulty or vague drafting of laws and their multiple interpretations by various courts are also reasons for prolonged litigation. 
• Some of these laws date back to the 1880s. Somebody wants to do something; he is shown a law drafted in the last century and told to stop doing it.

8. Inaction by the Executive

• Former Chief Justice of India lamented “inaction” by the Executive in increasing the number of judges to 40,000 from the current 21,000.  
• He blamed the Centre for doing nothing to increase the number of courts and judges in the country. He accused Centre of stalling appointment of judges to the High Court.

Consequences of Pending Cases in Indian Courts

• The reduce common man’s faith in the justice system.
• Denies due of justice to the poor man and under trial prisoners.
• Economic reforms remain unrealistic without a speedier justice system.
• Discourage foreign investors as they are increasingly doubtful about the timely delivery of justice, which affects the success of programs like ‘Make in India’.
• Judiciary becomes overworked and lose its efficiency.

Solutions to the Problem of Pending Cases in Indian Courts

1. Recently, Vice-President in his speech has suggested that

• The Supreme Court institute four regional Benches to tackle the enormous backlog of cases and to ensure their speedy disposal.
• He also endorsed the recommendation of the Law Commission of India that the top court should be split into two divisions.

These ideas are not new; apart from the Law Commission, they were mooted in the manifestoes of different political parties for the Lok Sabha elections. But they have not developed into a serious debate, and the Supreme Court itself has been opposed to these ideas.

1. More productive days - In 2014, former Chief Justice of India, Justice R.M. Lodha, proposed to make Indian judiciary work throughout the year (instead of the present system of having long vacations, especially in the higher courts) in order to reduce pendency of cases in Indian courts.
2. The government needs to double the number of judges and create all India Judicial Service. The number of judges (vacancies) should be immediately raised to at least 50,000 from the current 21,000.
3. Fix the NJAC controversy at the earliest and start appointing judges in Supreme Court and High Courts.
4. More courts – Fast Track Courts, Lok Adalats, and Gram Nyayalayas.

Steps were taken recently

• The Supreme Court’s recent experiment with constituting an exclusive bench for taxation produced impressive results. This can be replicated for other subject matters, and emulated by other High Courts that do not have special rosters for daily hearings. 
• The sanctioned strength of SC judges was increased to 34 from 31 earlier.

Conclusion: All these steps can serve as a good example of how to reduce the specialized cases. This may help judiciary in realising the spirit of “Justice delayed is justice denied and Justice hurried is justice buried.”