Budget 2019: FM Sitharaman's 'bahi khata' held no surprises for judiciary

Financial sources to keep the fund-starved judiciary going are complex and piecemeal. There is no separate head for expenses on running the courts in the Union or state Budgets. Therefore, a lot of bargaining and passing the buck take place between different authorities at the Centre and states.

The Union Budget allocates funds for the Supreme Court but it is an omnibus package, including salaries and expenses on administration. The new Budget has provided Rs 269.48 crore for establishment expenses and an equal amount for administration of justice. Despite the pleas of judges, there is only a marginal increase. The three previous Budgets provided Rs 258.53 crore, Rs 251.06 crore and Rs 255 crore. Judges say that this is around 0.2 per cent of the Budget.

The Ministry of Law and Justice is proposed to get Rs 3,055 crore in this Budget, which is less than the two previous years, that is, Rs 6,326 crore and Rs 4,386 crore. This has to be spent on a number of items like expenses on the secretariat, tax tribunals, phase II of e-courts, Scheme for Action Research and Studies on Judicial Reforms and projects like strengthening access to justice. Compare this with luckier ministries: Textiles (Rs 4,831 crore) and statistics (Rs 5,231 crore). Some funds from the Law Ministry also go to the Election Commission, though it is a separate head in the Budget.

High courts and subordinate courts are largely maintained by the states. If the Union Budget is the model for them, hardly much can be expected from their Budgets. The Central and state governments are the largest litigants. About 60 per cent of the litigation is over central laws. However, there is no proportionate contribution from the Centre to run the courts in the states.
 

 

Even what legitimately belongs to courts is often taken away by state governments. Unlike other departments of the government which uses money available to it, more than half of the amount spent on the judiciary is generated by the judiciary itself through the collection of court fees, stamp duty, fine, interest on deposits and miscellaneous matters. Even then registrars of courts have to panhandle before law secretaries for basic necessities.

Though the concurrent list of the Constitution makes it obligatory for the Centre to bear the financial burden owing to new legislation, in reality, states are saddled with it since subordinate courts are maintained by them.

The consequences are evident everywhere. The Economic Survey, which preceded the Budget, set out in some detail the crisis-ridden state of affairs, including the arrears in courts that have crossed 3.3 crore. District courts are struggling with 3.04 crore cases pending. That is 87 per cent of all the cases. The sanctioned judge strength is 22,750 but the current strength is only 17,891. The annual disposal rate is 746. Additional judges required to achieve 100 per cent clearance in a year is 2,279. Additional judges required to clear the backlog in five years is 8,152. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Odisha and West Bengal fare the worst on all these counts. Against the Law Commission suggestion of 50 judges for 1 million people, the present ratio is about 10 for 1 million.

According to the Survey, delays in contract enforcement and disposal resolution are arguably the biggest hurdles to ease-of-doing business in this country. Though the Survey described the enormity of the problem, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in her speech did not touch upon the serious crisis facing judiciary. There was no word about alternative disputes resolution mechanism or Lok Adalats. Her bahi khata wrapped in red silk held no surprises for the judiciary. 

This perennial neglect of judiciary has been pointed out by several chief justices in their public declarations and in judgments. The present Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi wrote three letters to Prime Minister Narendra Modi last month seeking the appointment of more judges and an increase in the retirement age for judges. After visiting subordinate courts, he found that some judges have no chambers and they were found working in the courtroom, turning a part of it into their office with a curtain. Such a situation has resulted in cases pending for decades, benefiting hardened criminals and politicians accused of corruption. Jails are overcrowded several times over.

Law Commissions in the past have studied the problems of the judiciary and their reports are gathering dust in the higher racks of the Law Ministry. Six years ago, the Supreme Court itself appointed a committee and it has made several suggestions. According to it, new laws are passed every season without studying the financial impact on the courts.

The Bills are normally accompanied by a financial memorandum indicating the expenditure on implementing the law concerned. But they do not detail the additional burden on the judicial system. Therefore, the expenditure required for adjudication of cases from the new law should be estimated and adequate budgetary provision must be made for it. Some jurists think that there should be a separate budget for the judiciary, the third estate. All these wait for another day.