Opinion SC success in increasing case disposal rate can serve as blueprint

To expedite hearings and disposals, the relevant listing department (Section 1B) was tasked to accelerate the verification process, cure defective cases, and prompt listing. A team from IIM Bangalore was invited to study the Section 1B procedure and conduct consultations with the Bar and the registry. The case verification time was improved by increasing hours of work and staff strength, preventing out-of-turn verifications, and streamlining the verification procedure. As a result, the average verification of cases per day stands now at 228, compared to 184 last year. Once verified, automatic allocation of cases before benches occurs through the Integrated Case Management and Information System (ICMIS), which limits human interference in the listing process.

A second Registrar’s Court was reintroduced to ensure faster processing of cases stuck due to procedural defects. Cases listed in the Court but not heard were directed to be relisted within two to three weeks to increase the possibility of them being heard. Lastly, instead of engaging senior advocates to mention urgent matters, advocates were asked to make email requests for urgent listing. This saves judicial time and creates a level playing field for the litigants.

It was realised that around 16,000 cases were unlisted for months. Critical constitutional matters are actively pursued on behalf of the litigants and have a satisfactory disposal rate. However, many routine matters remain on the docket. The number of miscellaneous after notice matters — those still at the admission stage had ballooned to 42,206. Some of these were pending for over a decade. Though these miscellaneous cases have the possibility of being resolved swiftly, as many may not even be fit for admission, inadequate time was dedicated to their disposal. Thus, initially, three days, and since January, two days were dedicated to these cases.

Differentiated Case Management was introduced. The Centre for Research and Planning, the SC’s research wing, was tasked to identify unlisted short and old matters. A dedicated team of 30 members analysed over 10,000 cases. The cases were scrutinised, assessed, and listed for early disposal with a reasoned case brief prepared for the judges. On “miscellaneous after notice days” (Tuesday and Wednesday), the first 10 identified matters in each bench were listed from this category. Their average disposal time was only around 30-45 minutes. Through this process, around 1,025 main cases with 427 connected cases of the miscellaneous category were disposed of. Simultaneously, old short and unlisted matters were prioritised for regular hearings, too, which led to around 500 main identified matters with 66 connected cases disposed of in just around 15 regular days (Thursday). This is inclusive of the disposal of 376 criminal matters that facilitated the then-running 109 per cent criminal disposal rate.

Through collaboration of the bar and bench, a significant milestone was the revamping of the Case Categorisation Framework that now bifurcates filed cases into 48 case categories and 182 sub-categories. This categorisation is to be introduced across all courts in India with appropriate modifications. With transparent sharing of data, remedial steps can be taken by the major stakeholders to reduce the backlogs. For instance, the government, being a major litigant, can take appropriate action or increase staff strength in the relevant ministries to pursue and resolve matters from the identified categories. Judicial forums can create templates of simple matters from specific categories, where possible, and dedicated benches for a time to ensure their clearance. For example, over 500 connected matters that were awaiting disposal, even as the main case had been resolved, were identified and disposed of.

Lastly, the use of artificial intelligence, beyond translation and transcribing of judgments and proceedings, can be considered. It can be successfully experimented with to assist in curing filing defects and for creating a synopsis by scrutinising bulky judicial evidence. The results of the initial phase of such an experiment conducted under the SUPACE programme were positive.

While pendency is a common concern across judicial forums, there is no panacea for it. Judicial forums must assess the situation before them through careful study and use of empirical data to devise appropriate strategies. This is exactly what was done at the Supreme Court. Ultimately, though, it is the willingness of the judges and the bar that makes the critical difference.

The writer is associate professor at O P Jindal University. She served as deputy registrar, Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court, and was head of the Pendency Project Team