The Cinderella syndrome

The Budget makes no effort to address the neglect of the legal system

In the week Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir wrote to all chief justices of the high courts, asking them to persuade the state governments to double the strength of judges, the Union Budget disappointed the legal fraternity. The Supreme Court has estimated that the number of cases will go up by 150 million in the next three decades, requiring at least 75,000 judges. Currently, there are only 18,871 judges, and the target set by the National Court Management System is 30,000 in the next five years. Against the Law Commission's suggestion of 50 judges for one million people, the present ratio is 10 for one million. Whether the Budget allocations will permit the realisation of the chief justice's hope is a moot question.

The Budget figures do not reflect any concern for improving the legal system. There is no single source of funds for the judiciary, and the field is unformulated. Therefore, look at the allocation under "law and justice" for some light on this topic. The allocation this year is Rs 1,815 crore - consisting of Rs 1,103 crore as Plan and Rs 712 crore as non-Plan expenditures. Considering the steep increase in infrastructure costs and litigation, this is a marginal increase from last year's Rs 1,249 crore and Rs 1,539 crore the year before.

Out of this total, Rs 400 crore goes for the Lok Sabha and other state elections. There is a separate demand for the Election Commission (Rs 68 crore). These appear to be an intrusion into the field of "law and justice" that the Budget makers have retained, such as the expenditure on railway ministry despite the elaborate Railway Budget.

Though the Supreme Court functions in a cramped building, creating problems for seniors even to enter most rooms, its expenditure is assessed at Rs 129 crore. The increase is hardly proportionate to the workload. In 2011, the Budget specifically provided Rs 95 crore for the Court, down from the previous year's Rs 98 crore and Rs 99 crore the year before that.

The allotment for "administration of justice" has nearly doubled from last year's Rs 183 crore to Rs 342 crore. This includes Rs 108 crore for the computerisation of subordinate courts, which falls under Plan expenditure. Under the same omnibus head come two current fads - special courts' Rs 5 crore, and fast-track courts' nil.

A notable entry this year is Rs 44 crore Plan expenditure for the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms. The International Centre for Alternative Disputes Resolution gets Rs 0.01 crore. The states that want to set up gram nyayalayas will get assistance from the Plan fund of Rs 20 crore. Under the head "fiscal services" come the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the National Tax Tribunal, which have been granted a total of Rs 50 crore. A welcome feature is the allotment of Plan expenditure of Rs 756 crore on infrastructure facilities for judiciary.

The judiciary has reasons to be jealous of some ministries for the simple reason that they get much more. Civil aviation walks off with Rs 7,527 crore, culture Rs 2,062 crore, information and broadcasting Rs 3,035 crore and textiles Rs 5,431 crore. Therefore, the chronic gripe of the legal profession that the share of courts is less than two per cent is likely to be heard for more time to come.

Parliament and state Assemblies are quick to pass legislations without any thought to the expenditure involved. The condition of tribunals, which have been set up in every sector, tells the story of fiscal neglect by both the Centre and the states. Most of them are run without members, staff and their own buildings. The Central and the state governments often squabble over the expenses. One reason is that cases start from subordinate courts in the states, but more than 60 per cent laws are Central.

Treating the judiciary as the cheapest arm of the state has devastating effects at the ground level. It destroys many families. Prisons shut persons up, who keep waiting for years for their trials. Jails stuff many times more people than they were meant to accommodate. An average 15 years are taken in a civil case, though one record set recently is 75 years involving three generations in a land dispute. A lack of financial autonomy and the Cinderella treatment meted out to the judiciary cripple the system.

Some radical steps are necessary. In a 2001 consultation paper on the financial autonomy of the judiciary, it was proposed that a judicial council should prepare a Budget and take it to the executive for consultation. It should be made part of the general Budget. The Comptroller and Auditor General should be involved in the procedure, and it should monitor the disbursement and expenditure. These and several well-meaning suggestions over the years have remained in the higher racks of the law ministry. It is an irony that though the finance ministry and the law ministry are headed by former Supreme Court lawyers, they seem to have forgotten their roots.