Opinion Indian justice system needs to be fair — not just fast

Categorising judges, on their disposal performance, could push them to choose cases that have a high likelihood of faster disposal. This might negatively impact the hearings of sensitive cases where judges might not have enough time left on the listing days. Hasty judgments can increase the likelihood of appeals, further clogging the judiciary.

The article also mentions, “In an average district or subordinate court, about half of the 90 cases listed daily reportedly get adjourned.” Keeping the fairness aspect in mind, we need to ask why are there such frequent adjournments. Which type of cases are adjourned frequently? Is it justified to put a permissible limit for adjournments? During our research, multiple advocates told us that they demand adjournments to get more time to gather evidence, research the law, file motions, or wait for certain events that can have a significant impact on the verdict. Refusing these adjournments in such cases could be unfair.

The judicial system is complex with numerous actors — with judges, lawyers, litigants, and court employees having their own mental models. Delegating administrative tasks to retired officials who are not familiar with and sensitive towards judicial procedures, might create new inefficiencies and increase the unfairness. A system’s behaviour is a function of its structure. Delayed disposals and high pending case counts are due to the justice-system structure and cannot be improved by tweaking without addressing structural issues. Each case passes through multiple stages: Charge sheet filing, charge framing, trial (evidence presentation), arguments, and judgment. Each stage has a different source of delay. For example, investigation officers can take time to gather evidence; police and public prosecutors usually keep issuing summons instead of a non-traceable report if a witness is not responding; the roznama has inaccurate or misleading information about the case stage; case files get misplaced or are not available since the case has been pending for long. It is necessary to identify the critical stages where there are bottlenecks and focus on reducing the delays in those specific stages.

Several experts we spoke to raised concerns about video proceedings. During such proceedings, the accused are often surrounded by jail officers creating an environment of intimidation. If they are mistreated in jail, say they have been tortured, they fear saying so; judges cannot see their physical condition clearly. During the physical trial, the accused are under the custody of judges, not jailers. Coming out of jail to the court for trial is the only chance for an accused to breathe free air. They can meet their family members and talk to their lawyers confidentially. Video conferencing trials take away these particularly important rights of undertrials.

Accessing prompt legal advice and assistance is critical for ensuring a fair trial and the rule of law. However, researchers at National Law University Delhi’s Project 39A have shown that undertrials from poor socioeconomic backgrounds cannot get the desired legal assistance due to unawareness about free legal aid, and the poor quality of the legal aid system. We urge allocating more resources to strengthen the legal aid system to ensure that the judicial system is both efficient and fair.

Damani is with the Department of Computer Science and the Center for Policy Studies at IIT Bombay. Agrawal is a research associate at IIT Bombay