It is a measure of the disarray in the judicial system that three different Benches of the Supreme Court – some say four – are currently dealing with the multitude of interlocking problems facing the legal edifice in the country. A petition moved by the All India Judicial Association is being heard since 1989. Some criminal cases with heart-rending stories were turned into public interest petitions by the court so that it could deal with larger issues as in the appeal, Imtiaz Ahmad vs State of UP.
If court orders could substantially improve the situation, without government cooperation, things would have been better. But it had only got worse over the decades, with a siege mentality setting in. In 1982, the Supreme Court passed an order to the Bihar government to appoint a sufficient number of judges while hearing a pathetic case, Kadra Pahadiya vs State of Bihar. It was found that four tribal boys aged between nine and 11 years were in jail for eight years without trial. They were kept in leg-irons. The court released them and other prisoners who were “under trial” for years together. The judges called for data on the number of such cases, the ratio of judges to the accused people and other details before asking the government to create additional posts and fill up existing judicial vacancies.
A generation of judges has since retired disappointed; but last week, the younger incumbents were seen prodding the government to cooperate, still hopeful of triumphing over experience. The government’s response was to read out the “Vision Statement” of the UPA-II, numerous committee reports, funds recommended by the Finance Commission and allotted by the Planning Commission and unsheathing the ultimate but now blunt Brahmastra: the judiciary should not intrude into exclusive executive zones.
Over the weekend, one Bench was emphatically told by the Centre that “the terms of reference of the 19th Law Commission are wide enough to include within its ambit the question of requirement of setting up of additional courts for the purpose of tackling the arrears so that access to justice is ensured.” Translation: the government is doing enough without the court’s shove. The court has heard such stonewalling statements before, but did not leave it at that. It has asked the law officer to provide more details later this week. Most state governments were not even present. This is the usual pattern.
The Bench of the Chief Justice has been passing orders for several years, with little impact on successive governments. Ten years ago, one such judgment elaborately dealt with the pay scales and perks of the subordinate judiciary, buildings and basic facilities required by district courts and a host of problems bedevilling the courts below.
The judgment read: “We are of the opinion that time has now come for protecting one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakh people to 50 judges for 10 lakh people. We are conscious of the fact that overnight these vacancies cannot be filled. In order to have additional judges, not only will the posts have to be created but infrastructure required in the form of additional court rooms, buildings, staff, etc., would also have to be made available. We are also aware of the fact that a large number of vacancies as of today from amongst the sanctioned strength remain to be filled. We, therefore, first direct that the existing vacancies in the subordinate courts at all levels should be filled, if possible latest by 31st March, 2003, in all the states.”
This has remained a “dream”, as a later judgment remarked. Vacancies have only increased since then. There are 300 vacancies in high courts (in the Allahabad High Court, half the posts are vacant), as well as more than 3,000 seats out of the sanctioned strength of 17,150 district and subordinate judges. State governments are lax in the case of subordinate courts and the collegium system has held up appointments at the higher level. Fast-track courts have been shut down. The idea of morning and evening courts are in the twilight area.
One sidelight of the arguments last week was the rate of disposal per judge. The government lawyer put it at the magical figure of 116 per day. Judges thought it was impractical; six is the national average and 25 is the most to be expected from a hard-working judge.
Meanwhile, in an adjacent court room, it was “mentioning” time (when lawyers try to get their cases listed). Judges took 45 minutes to give a date in the case involving the running of the Maharaja Express. Five top lawyers brought case law and troops of juniors to get an early date. The court’s earlier attempts to bar seniors for “mentioning” has failed. With such lack of self-discipline at the apex level itself, there will be more dribbling and blame games before the inevitable goalless draw.
