The good news from the Union Budget is its grudging recognition that more funds are urgently required to improve the infrastructure of the legal system. The allocation for computerisation of district and subordinate courts has been doubled from Rs 105 crore in 2011-12 to Rs 213.66 crore in 2012-13. Allocations for infrastructural facilities have been increased by Rs 4.57 crore to Rs 510 crore for the next fiscal from Rs 505.43 crore in 2011-12. The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms gets Rs 37.50 crore.
State governments will get Rs 109 crore to assist the establishment of Gram Nyayalayas, taking justice to the door steps. Last year, the allocation was Rs 25 crore. The Plan expenditure has been raised from Rs 772 crore to Rs 1,050 crore. Under the non-Plan expenditure, the increase is Rs 53.32 crore from Rs 432.32 crore in 2011-12 to Rs 485.62 crore. Legal aid and expenses on the department of legal affairs have been allocated Rs 71.93 crore.
One could go on quoting more figures like the Budget analysts love to do. Those ordinary people who are not well-versed in fiscal jugglery judge things by what is going on at the grass roots. That is the bad news.
It has been the enduring gripe of legal professionals that their province gets less than two per cent of the Budget and the states are equally tight-fisted. The men in black robes have reason to be jealous of the men in uniform, who take the bulk of the funds and reveal only during skirmishes with the civilian authorities that the equipment they bought were night-blind or the missile ejector and its timer were both defective. A generation has passed without knowing the agony of a full-scale war. In contrast, litigation three generations old does not surprise anyone.
Occasionally, the plight of the courts makes headlines. Last month, it was reported that the National Green Tribunal was operating from a guest house in the capital. Until recently, the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal was functioning from an Ambassador car. Some tribunals seem to be housed in what appear to be former princes’ dancing halls or stables around India Gate. The Chief Justice of India has lamented that the conditions in the mofussils are abominable — no stationery or plumbing, much like primary schools there.
The Supreme Court itself has a few cases like the All India Judicial Officers Association vs Union of India that highlight the plight of the subordinate judiciary carrying the load of some 20 million cases. A few petitions on this, like that of the Salem Advocates’ Association, have been on dockets for years and the progress has been moderate. The court normally calls for data, more data and meta data. Sometimes it appoints a committee of judges and jurists to study certain aspects. The reports are received, filed and one copy is ordered to be sent to the law ministry, where again it is stacked high up. But these reports discuss serious issues and before the judicial system crashes, the rulers can take cues from it. In the fiscal context, one of the suggestions made by a Supreme Court committee is the need for a judicial impact assessment before a Bill is introduced in Parliament. The law makers are adding more legislation to an already over-legislated nation, often without even bothering to discuss the details of the provisions and their financial impact.
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.
More From This Section
Though the concurrent list of the Constitution makes it obligatory for the Centre to bear the financial burden owing to the new legislation, in reality, the states are saddled with it since the subordinate courts are maintained by them. According to the recommendations, this problem must be remedied by the Planning Commission and the Finance Commission through equitable distribution of funds.
Apart from such recommendations made by expert panels and the Law Commission gathering dust, one other handicap in treating the problem is the secrecy that is ingrained in the judiciary. Until recently, courts were reluctant to disclose the number and nature of the cases pending before them at all levels. Sketchy and outdated figures were disclosed during question hour in Parliament.
After the Right to Information Act, the courts have been forced to let in more light into the registry. Even then, the Supreme Court’s quarterly journal, Court News, is running three quarters late. Judges seem to fear disclosure of information, like some patients suffering from white-coat hypertension and concealing symptoms. As a result, there is no discussion about budgetary allocations in the media or at ubiquitous seminars. Even as lobbyists of every kind descend on the capital in the Budget season, there is no one to speak up for the judiciary or the despondent litigants. That’s the rub.