Report cards are usually opened with some forced optimism, whether it is from the school teacher or institutions. The latest data on the state of the judiciary, released by the Supreme Court this month, bring no cheer and show a relentless increase in the number of cases pending in all courts over the past five years. The picture is more dismal on the government’s side. There have only been promises of reforms all these years and vision statements have turned blank when one rubs one’s eyes.
Starting from 2006, the number of cases pending in the Supreme Court has steadily increased each year from 35,201 to 41,581, 45,887, 50,163. And now (May 2011) the number stands at 55,539. However, there are some consolatory words from the Supreme Court. According to it, if “connected matters” are excluded, the pendency is only 32,361. Out of the total, 19,630 matters are up to one year old and thus arrears (that is, cases pending more than a year) are only of 35,909 matters as on May 31.
In the high courts, however, the rise during the same period was from 35,21,283 to 36,54,853, 37,43,060, 38,74,090 and the last figure for the 2010 year-end was 42,17,903. The subordinate courts recorded 2,56,54,251 cases pending in 2006 and ended up with the current figure of 2,79,53,070.
Another dire aspect, contributing to this state of affairs, is the number of vacancies in the subordinate courts. In the district courts, there were 2,730 vacancies of judges out of the sanctioned strength of 14,412 in 2006. Each year the figure climbed. At present, there are 3,170 vacancies though the number of posts has gone up to 17,151.
In the 21 high courts in the country, 154 judges’ seats were vacant out of the total sanctioned strength of 726 in 2006. The situation is still unredeemed because the corresponding figures are 291 vacancies in a full strength of 895 judges. The climb was steady over the years.
One definite reason for this state of affairs is the tussle between the judiciary and the executive on the selection list. The process of appointment is neither transparent nor statutorily regulated. Earlier, the complaint was that the executive had an overwhelming power in the choice of judges to the higher judiciary. The pendulum swung nearly two decades ago as the Supreme Court, through judgments, grabbed this power. The “collegium” of five senior Supreme Court judges that selects judges has also come under a cloud and the Supreme Court is going to examine the system in the coming months.
It is not just the unconscionable number of vacancies in the high courts that warrant a reconsideration of the present arrangement. The Supreme Court itself is going to have seven vacancies in the coming months. The strength of 31 judges will be drastically reduced, at a time when the Chief Justice is desperately struggling to keep the arrears down.
In this dismal situation, the legal profession and the public are looking towards the government for some initiative. However, it was disappointment all the way. The only beneficial step taken by the Union Law Ministry seems to be the release of some 700,000 people under trial from the country’s prisons. Computerisation of the courts has also progressed somewhat satisfactorily. That is the easier part. However, lasting legal reforms to tackle the deeper malaise are mired in complexities and lethargy.
It was tantalising to hear Law Minister M Veerappa Moily promising in 2009 that, “the next five years will be an era of judicial reforms.” Half-way through the parliamentary term, there is little sign of contending with even the essentials. Almost every assurance of “revisiting and re-defining” legal issues has got stuck in legal quicksand or floundered outright. The worst examples are attempts to make transparent laws regarding the appointment and removal of judges, setting standards and accountability for them and declaration of their assets.
On the other hand, there are vacuous orations on a National Litigation Policy (whatever that means), a re-look at sedition laws in the wake of the Binayak Sen controversy and the ultimate solution to social evils like khap panchayats. Heady stuff from the podium of Vigyan Bhavan in the capital, but it sinks from memory sooner than the high tea afterwards. The latest from the minister is a proposal to launch a “campaign mode approach” to achieve speedy justice and a “charter” for quick disposal of criminal cases. He has written thus to all judges, most of whom are perhaps vacationing in cooler climes.
However, judges are weighed down by unmanageable dockets, an inordinate number of vacancies on the Bench, lack of funds, appalling corruption in the system and pressures of different kinds. They cannot come out and argue their case, or lament their plight, before the media like ministers. Anna Hazare might not have heard this one.
