A bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said that until NCMSC formulates a scientific method for determining the basis for computing required judge strength of district judiciary, judge strength shall be computed for each state in accordance with the interim approach indicated in the note submitted by the NCMSC chairperson.
Several other critical parameters for determining judge strength include rate of case clearance, the number of cases disposed of as a percentage of institution, on time disposal rate -- the percentage of cases resolved within an established time frame, pre-trial custody periods wherein an undertrial is in custody pending trial of a criminal case and trial date certainty.
Taking note of the NCMSC interim report, the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao, said the report submitted by the NCMSC chairperson observes that in the long term, judge strength of courts in district judiciary will have to be assessed by a scientific method to determine the total number of judicial hours required for disposing of the case load of each court.
More From This Section
The apex court said that state governments shall take up
with the high courts concerned the task of implementing interim report of the chairperson, NCMSC and take necessary decisions within a period of three months for enhancing the required judge strength of each state judiciary accordingly.
"The state governments shall cooperate in all respects with the high courts in terms of the resolutions passed in the Joint Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers in April 2016 with a view to ensuring expeditious disbursal of funds to the state judiciaries in terms of the devolution made under the auspices of the Fourteenth Finance Commission," it said.
It said that the final report submitted by NCMSC may be placed for consideration before the Conference of Chief Justices.
It directed that a copy of this order be made available to registrars generals of high courts and to chief secretaries of the states for appropriate action.
The court also observed that long delays in the disposal of cases, particularly criminal cases, has a serious impact both on the rule of law and on access to justice which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench observed that "a lower rate of disposal may not necessarily reflect upon the efficiency with which a judge has conducted the court. Trials are held up because of a paucity of public prosecutors. Witnesses cited by the state, particularly police personnel, remain absent on dates fixed for trial, resulting in delays. Service of summons is delayed because of the laxity of police".
It expressed concern over lack of infrastructures in the courts and said, "In several northern states, particularly, the state of Uttar Pradesh soaring summer temperatures have in the absence of basic infrastructural facilities including continuous power supply resulted in the institutionalisation of morning courts in several districts.