Start from the top

To set an example for the judiciary, the Supreme Court must address its own backlog of cases.

Written by Bibek Debroy | Published:November 10, 2016 12:05 am
supreme court, supreme court pending cases, chief justice t s thakur, judges appointment, njac, collegium system, njac judges appointment, collegium judges appointment, narendra modi, india pending case, india court trials, indian judiaciary system, india news, latest news Supreme Court of India

As of March 2016, 27.7 million cases are pending in district and subordinate courts. This is a stock. During the January-March quarter, there were five million new cases and 4.5 million cases were disposed of. If new cases exceed the number disposed of, the stock of backlog increases (there are variations across states and in some states, disposal is more than institution). With 3.9 million cases pending, the story isn’t that different for high courts. There were around 4,50,000 new cases and around 4,35,000 cases were disposed of. The Supreme Court contributed almost 60,000 cases to backlog/pendency, with institution at a little more than 20,000 and disposal a little less than 20,000. If you add backlog numbers across all three tiers of courts, the figure is almost 33 million. I haven’t seen any credible figures on backlog across all quasi-judicial forums, like tribunals. Adding those, the backlog may well approach 40 million. There are around 2,50,000 households in India. A former Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Venkatachaliah, dramatised the situation and once told me the following. Each case has two parties. Therefore, there are 80 million litigants. Roughly, every third household is busy litigating. Admittedly, there is simplification in this dramatisation. But it illustrates the point that an efficient dispute resolution mechanism is in everyone’s interest. It is variously suggested that gypsies originated in India and there is a gypsy curse: “May you have a dispute in which you are in the right.”

“Unless a court can start with a reasonably clean slate, improvement of methods is likely to merely tantalise. The existence of a mass of arrears takes the heart out of a presiding officer. He can hardly be expected to take a strong interest in preliminaries, when he knows that the hearing of the evidence and the decision will not be by him but by his successor after his transfer. So long as such arrears exist, there is a temptation to which many presiding officers succumb, to hold back the heavier contested suits and devote attention to the lighter ones. The turn-out of decisions in contested suits is thus maintained somewhere near the figure of institutions, while the really difficult work is pushed further into the background.” This is a very apt description, but you may not know where the quote is from. It is from the report of a committee set up to “enquire into the operation and effects of the substantive and adjective law, whether enacted or otherwise, followed by the courts in India in the disposal of civil suits, appeals, applications for revision and other civil litigation.” This committee was the Rankin Committee. It was set up in 1924 and submitted a report in 1925. Justice Rankin was from the Calcutta High Court.

I can cite many other committees — High Court Arrears Committee (1949), Shah Committee (1969), Trevor Harris Committee in West Bengal (1949), Wanchoo Committee in Uttar Pradesh (1950), Satish Chandra Committee (1986) and Arrears Committee (1989-90). I can quote from these reports. Conceptually, their recommendations are of three types: Supply-side (more courts/judges); productivity (better procedures, work norms, shift systems); and demand-side (alternative dispute resolution, curb on government litigation). Former and incumbent CJIs have been daunted by the big picture and have wept. Did you know that in 1990, a suit of contempt of court was filed against former CJI, Justice Venkatramaih, when he gave an interview to a newspaper and commented unfavourably on the judiciary? (the petition was dismissed) The big picture is overwhelming, but let’s focus on the small picture — what the Supreme Court can do on its own, in the Supreme Court. There is no better place to demonstrate reform intent. Here are some backlog numbers for the SC — 771 in 1950, 23,092 in 1978, more than 100,000 in 1983, 134,221 in 1991 and 19,806 in 1998. That remarkable decline in backlog was then attributed to IT use and better case management (there was some statistical rejigging). The backlog climbed to 34,481 in 2005, 54,562 in 2010 and 59,595 in 2016.

As citizens, we aren’t supposed to possess expertise about how the backlog in the SC can be reduced. That’s for the courts to decide. We see the following. First, despite six vacancies, the number of Supreme Court judges has steadily increased since 1950. There doesn’t seem to be a great supply-side issue. Second, the Supreme Court’s website states, “Out of the 59,595 pending matters as on 31-03-2016, if connected matters are excluded, the pendency is only of 34,562 matters as on 31-03-2016.” Indeed, that seems to be the bunching of cases, specialisation and “productivity” improvement attempted in the 1990s. Why can’t it be replicated now? Third, the Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction, but advisory jurisdiction isn’t that important quantitatively.

Since backlog reduction in the Supreme Court is probably primarily a function of demand management, should it hear so many original and appellate petitions? Legal systems vary and procedures can’t be imported. Even then, on appeals, the US Supreme Court receives 7,000 to 8,000 petitions a year and hears (for oral evidence) 80. This is around one per cent. There are serious data issues. However, a comprehensive paper by Nick Robinson found the Indian Supreme Court accepts between 15 per cent and 26 per cent of petitions(the exact figure depends on the year, let’s say an average of 20 per cent). This is too high and represents a hollowing out of the lower judiciary. Instead, once the Supreme Court has established precedence, it should be the reverse.

The writer is member, Niti Aayog. Views are personal

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. P
    Prashant
    Nov 10, 2016 at 6:56 am
    Best approach is to run Judiciary in shifts,,,atleast evening shifts,,,,
    Reply
    1. P
      Prashant
      Nov 10, 2016 at 6:54 am
      Sir human right violation in India is 1000 percent more than USA,,,,so you cant compare India with US legal system,,,or you can't decline 900 out of 1000 appeals in India bcs one who go to SC are normally genuine cases(70% atleast)
      Reply
      1. M
        Mathura
        Nov 10, 2016 at 4:45 am
        surprising niti ayog member writing such a piece as personnel view. probably writing on behalf of personnel manning the government. He knows fully well that government is issuing appointment letters of judges to its full strength. has he written to government to on such a issue. can he name how many Minister / secretary level posts are lying vaccant. Probably more persons have been appointed than sanctioned posts/ needed .
        Reply
        1. A
          AMAN AGRAWAL
          Nov 10, 2016 at 11:08 am
          WE Are well using the productivity elements- IT, specialists, etc but the apathy towards infrastructure of lower judicairy and inclusion of incompetent people there alongwith recent tussle between executive and judicairy is making the condition worse... maybe on productivity side a well thought ALL INDIA JUDICIAL SERVICES (AIJS) comes handy..
          Reply
          1. E
            Ekta Beniwal
            Nov 11, 2016 at 11:19 am
            The author has neglected the supply side hurdles shunning the fact that increase in potion has been more as compared to the no of judges. According to law commission report,1987 judge to potion ratio was 10.5 to one million and currently it is about 12 to 1 million. Additionally there are lot of vacancies in high courts. Law commission also recommended requirement of 107 judges per million potion. Given a populous country with largely unaware people(most of them dont know remedies available/alternate routes), we need a holistic approach to alleviate the pending cases which are approximately 38.3 lakhs.
            Reply
            1. F
              fazalfaizi
              Nov 10, 2016 at 10:08 am
              Government hasn't money for the improvement of justice as neatas will face loss
              Reply
              1. P
                Punit Lohia
                Nov 10, 2016 at 3:54 am
                why doesnt the judiciary work in night time also ? i mean from 6 to 10 pm , from 10 to 1am that is 24 hours.the government should amend the consution to increase the number of judges from 31 to lets say 50 .these judges should then work in shifts .lt;br/gt;lt;br/gt;same should be done at the high courts level.this would reduce the pendency of cases. we have lot of retires judges who will be willing to work .
                Reply
                1. A
                  anil
                  Nov 10, 2016 at 6:37 am
                  SC accepts more cases because more cases means more money to lawyers.
                  Reply
                  1. S
                    shamim ali
                    Nov 10, 2016 at 5:13 am
                    It is finding difficult to fulfill the current no. of seats of judges in the courts of country. 3 judges post lie vacant in SC while in HCs it is around 37% of all the seats. How can one expect the courts to function at night when they, instead of working, remains closed for months, with this less no. of judges, due to vacations. Most of the requirement are needed to be at parlimantary level regarding various provisions for judges, the increase in number of judges, the night shift etc.
                    Reply
                    1. S
                      sushmita
                      Nov 10, 2016 at 3:52 am
                      didnt understand clearly the matter
                      Reply
                      1. T
                        Thomas George
                        Nov 10, 2016 at 1:25 pm
                        The US Supreme Court hears only consutional matters. Every state has a supreme court of its own in the US.
                        Reply
                        1. Load More Comments