07

The delay in the disposal of cases in Indian courts remains a significant hurdle to the nation’s progress. As the saying goes, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” The number of pending cases in courts continues to rise, exacerbating the burden on the judicial system. To address the growing backlog, several measures have been proposed, including: increasing the number of judges, simplifying procedural laws, implementing time-bound legal processes, ensuring high-quality substantive laws that leave no room for evasion, expediting court procedures, curbing delays caused by parties and court officers, extending court working hours, ensuring prompt service of notices, and enabling digital submissions of reports, including investigation reports, to courts and opposing parties.

Additionally, the timely delivery of judgments, regular training for judges to keep them up-to-date with legal developments and enhance their efficiency, adherence to professional conduct by judges, and their accountability for both judicial and non-judicial actions are critical. Improvements in legislative drafting (including in Hindi), the quality of legal education, and legal practice to meet international standards are also necessary. Moreover, effective and mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, including tribunals, should be integrated into the regular judicial process. The establishment of Gram Nyayalayas and enhanced infrastructure, including comprehensive computerization of court proceedings and the training of judicial staff and lawyers, are crucial steps forward.

Public Discontent with the Judicial Process

The litigants who approach the courts are often frustrated by delays. They arrive at court dates with the hope of receiving a judgment, only to return empty-handed due to adjournments. Despite the presence of judges, lawyers, and the payment of fees, the outcome is often not as expected. The Code of Civil Procedure, under Order 17, Rule 1, has provisions stating that no party should receive more than three adjournments during the hearing of a suit. However, this rule has been diluted by the Supreme Court itself, and in practice, it is more frequently violated than observed.

The new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) under Section 256 provides that applications for adjournments should be refused if they are intended to cause vexation or delay or to defeat the ends of justice. However, the reality is that if judges refuse adjournment requests, lawyers’ associations often unite to protest or bring false allegations against the judges. These protests sometimes escalate to strikes, despite such strikes being banned by the Supreme Court. According to the late V.K.S. Chowdhary, Senior Advocate at the Allahabad High Court, resorting to strikes by lawyers constitutes professional misconduct. Consequently, judges are reluctant to challenge such behavior, leaving the judiciary and the public to bear the brunt.

Under Section 258(1) of the BNSS, it is mandated that judges deliver judgments within 30 days of completing arguments, with an extension of up to 45 days allowed under exceptional circumstances. The true impact of this provision remains to be seen, as the judicial system, in its current form, appears to prioritize the interests of judges and advocates over the public—the true stakeholders in a democracy. However, there is hope that the judiciary, guided by the Constitution of India, will uphold the principles of justice, ensuring that the public does not feel disillusioned or sidelined.

Discrepancy Between High Courts and Subordinate Courts

Some High Courts have implemented strict norms and time-bound stages for each suit or criminal case, integrated into their software or apps. However, many judges and magistrates in subordinate courts ignore these protocols, as there is little accountability. Inspecting judges from High Courts often fear taking action, as doing so could result in political or professional consequences. This lack of oversight has led to an enormous backlog of more than 5 crore pending cases, straining the judicial system.

Interestingly, certain parties and advocates have vested interests in delaying judicial proceedings, particularly in cases involving significant arrears of taxes or government dues. In criminal cases, law enforcement agencies may also delay trials. The new legal framework aims to address these delays by mandating the immediate videography of crime scenes, time-bound submission of post-mortem and viscera reports, and the swift processing of evidence. While the government is making earnest efforts, the real test will be whether these measures can be successfully implemented or turn into yet another failed initiative.

Inefficiencies in Court Processes

A significant waste of time in courts occurs when case files are brought to the courtroom. It takes approximately one hour to retrieve a file from the record room, list it, and present it to the judge. This inefficiency contributes to the unnecessary granting of adjournments. According to a 2011-12 study, the cost of one minute of work in the Delhi High Court amounted to `14,771, and this figure has only increased over time. With taxpayers’ money being spent on court operations, the system offers minimal returns to the public.

However, with the ongoing digitization of courts and the potential integration of AI in judicial processes, there is optimism that the system will improve. The goal is for the judicial system to become more efficient, transparent, and responsive, ultimately leading to greater satisfaction and trust among litigants and the public at large.