As per the recent NCRB (National Crime Record Bureau) report, over 47 million cases are pending before the judiciary awaiting justice, which recently surpassed the 5 crore mark in a report presented by the government in Rajya Sabha from the data retrieved from the Integrated Case Management System (ICMIS) by the Supreme Court of India.¹ Furthermore, nearly 90 percent of logjams come from subordinate courts, followed by a considerable amount from the higher judiciary. On top of that, nearly 2 million cases have been pending for the last 30 years before different courts. On average, it takes a decade and more than a half for the disposal of matters related to civil and criminal law, respectively. However, often the number rose to 20, or even more than 30 years in some cases.

LEGAL POSITION

In the judgment of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (UOI), the Honourable Apex Court opined that there should be a law, and the law should be ‘reasonable',’ fair', and ‘just’ that tacitly indicates that the law should be citizen-centric; it should strive to cater to public needs, serve relief, and provide justice as the end goal. Further, while explaining the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, which envisages the right to life and personal liberty, the apex court emphasized the scope and reasonability of a particular action of stakeholders and the legislation. This landmark judgment penetrated the ecosystem constructively, and the litmus test of reasonability was one of those fixes. Further, in Munn v. Illinois, the Court advocated that the term ‘life’ under Article 21 meant a lot more than mere animal existence.

Frequently, we witness the miscarriage of justice and the sorrowful state of administration of justice during legal and administrative proceedings. One such case, Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, casts a permanent shadow on the lives of concerned individuals, including women, children, and people coming from deprived categories of the poor section who were kept behind bars for 17 long years. Thus, the honourable court directed the concerned Bihar government to prepare a chart categorizing the under-trail prisoners into major and minor offense categories. Further, the court acknowledged that the under-trail prisoners engaged in minor offenses and were imprisoned for quite a few years. Those people were considered to hail from the lowest strata of society, which could not even afford to advocate for or refuse bail. Henceforth, this judgment brought the right to speedy trial under the ambit of Article 21, thus a fundamental right.

One such landmark judgment, P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, conceptualized the factors on which a judgment can be identified to determine whether an accused has been deprived of a speedy trial. As per the court, if the length of a proceeding is long with proper justification, it will constitute delayed justice. Further, factors, viz., the assertion of the accused and consequently the prejudice caused to the accused, were taken into cognizance while deciding upon the delayed justice. Besides criminal case pendency, we witness the same debilitated judiciary in matters pertaining to family, civil, and other disputes, which eventually impact lives. There have been instances when courts took decades to pronounce divorce proceedings; the mental agony, financial burden, and logistics really make it impossible for the person to bear this delay. Further, matters pertaining to industrial or civil disputes sometimes never see the light of day; people lose confidence in the judiciary and take extreme measures. In a flagrant property matter, the Shovabazar case lasted for 175 years. Such incidents raise concerns about the utility of the justice system.

After the Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar judgment, the concept of a speedy trial was considered a fundamental right; however, does it really solve the problem of frequent inordinate delays in criminal proceedings? The simple answer is no.

Albeit this move of the honorable apex court in matters pertaining to the criminal justice system to bridle the miscarriage of justice, it was a progressive step. However, there was no concrete development registered over logjams. In a public interview, Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kaul estimated 500 more years considering the current infra and the sheer amount pending to get cleared.²

REASON BEHIND SHEER LOGJAMS

However, if we critically analyze the leading cause behind this crammed justice delivery system, we will end up discovering lacunae on layers. To start with, if we look into the judge population ratio, we will be surprised to discover that we have 21 judges per million population², which is one of the lowest in the world³. In addition to that, the procedural complexities, which include obsolete methodology and lethargic and inefficient subordinate employees⁴, ameliorate the intricacy. We also experience reluctance towards adopting new systems and procedures, viz., technological assistance and automation through a programmed ecosystem, which hinder efficiency. Moreover, the frequent adjournments due to the unavailability of judges, advocates, and sometimes witnesses impede the wheel of the judiciary.

Being part of a common law country, we largely adhere to an adversarial system of judiciary in which the pleader or council plays a major role from investigation, trial, sentencing, or appeal in a criminal case, or from filing a complaint to a verdict or appeal in civil proceedings. We, at any step, cannot take the role of a council for granted. However, different reports, obiter dicta, and other sources openly confront the prevalent issue of the inefficiency of the majority of advocates in different courts; they lack the basics of pleading and argumentation. Even some reports claim that more than 70 percent of the country's advocates are not capable of standing before a court and pleading. In the majority of cases, we tend to feel that seeking adjournment is the new normal. Moreover, we experience a huge gap between the skills of the top 2–5 percent and the rest⁵ , which makes it really difficult for people coming from humble backgrounds to seek robust or fair representation. This lack of fair presentation eventually delays the proceedings. However, Article 39(A) of the Constitution has provisions for free legal aid for individuals with scant resources, but the lackadaisical attitude of the council demotivates and sometimes backfires on fair representations.

Way forward

To ensure true justice, perhaps these steps might work.

The very idea of speedy trial or justice in a reasonable duration is directly based upon an adequate judicial ecosystem that includes a fair judge-population ratio and judicial infrastructure focusing on technocentric upgradation by reducing tedious paper work and babusahi. In addition to that, the current proceeding of the courts is intricate and has become obsolete; the proceedings at the district level have never been updated since last century⁷, which has now turned into an alien ecosystem for the commoners to decipher. Besides, the focus should also be based on preparing a pool of skilled advocates who can present and argue fairly. Unfortunately, knowingly or unknowingly, we still experience the hold of some celebrated families playing pivotally in the ecosystem; thus, it has become very difficult and unpromising for young, talented lawyers pursuing litigation. In addition to that, legal education in India is highly inaccessible due to unreasonably high fees and the English language barrier.

Besides, we should also focus on developing a congenial ecosystem for alternative dispute resolution. This system will save money, time, and mental agonies for concerned parties by providing justice amicably. Moreover, this system also promotes investments and attracts businesses to the country by promising true justice.

CITATIONS:

1.      Sumeda, S. (2022) Explained: Over 47 million cases pending in courts: Clogged state of Indian judiciary , The Hindu. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-judiciary-pendency-data-courts-statistics-explain-judges-ramana-chief-justiceundertrials/article65378182.ece (Accessed: 30 October 2023).

2.      www.ETLegalWorld.com (2022) ‘it may take 500 years to dispose off all pending cases’ - ET legalworld, ETLegalWorld.com. Available at: https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/it-may-take-500-years-to-dispose-off-all-pending-cases/93338563#:~:text=Noting%20that%20%E2%80%9Cthe%20sheer%20volume%20of%20pendency%E2%80%A6is%20creating,also%20not%20see%20the%20end%20of%20this%20litigation.%E2%80%9D (Accessed: 30 October 2023).

3.      India has about 21 judges per million people (no date) The Economic Times. Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-has-about-21-judges-per-million-people/articleshow/89481479.cms (Accessed: 30 October 2023).

4.      Thapliyal, N. (2022) ‘attitude of Union of India has been lackadaisical’: Delhi High Court grants last opportunity for filing reply, imposes rs. 50k cost, Live Law. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/attitude-union-of-india-lackadaisical-delhi-high-court-last-opportunity-filing-reply-imposes-rs-50k-cost-192018 (Accessed: 30 October 2023).

5.      (No date). rep. Available at: https://do3n1uzkew47z.cloudfront.net/siteassets/pdf/ISR_Report_2023.pdf.

6.      (No date a). rep. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=75772.

7.      (No date). rep. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/06/03/unconstitutionality-of-legislations-for-being-obsolete-outdated-and-outlived/amp/.