The challenge of timely justice

Yogesh Pratap Singh

For a parliamentary democracy committed by its Constitution to justice for all, Lord Bryce has aptly remarked, ‘There is no better test of the excellence of a government than the efficiency of its judicial system.’ Any justice delivery system, hence, is under an obligation to deliver prompt and inexpensive justice, without compromising on the quality of justice or the elements of fairness and impartiality. However, for justice to be meaningful, it must be delivered within a time frame that makes sense during the lifetime of a litigant. Denial of timely justice amounts to denial of justice itself. Timely disposal of cases is essential for maintaining the rule of law and providing access to justice which is a guaranteed fundamental right.

The official figures of pending cases show that the 21st century challenge to the Indian State is that of timely justice. Disputed contracts, properties and securities lie frozen in the courts for years to mock the constitutional right to property and the human right to dignity. Undertrials burden the state finances amid a seething discontent of political, police and prison governance. The angst of criminal and contractual innocence, unable to wait for a judicial decision, because of the lack of adequate number of judges, converges into a law and order problem. The rule of law, another judicially declared component of the basic structure, stands violated. The credibility of constitutional governance is steadily eroded.

Judicial independence is not conceivable unless the executive ensures that the strength of the judiciary is adequate to discharge its constitutional duty of rendering effective justice within a reasonable time. This becomes impossible if there is an inadequate number of judges at the subordinate courts, high courts and the Supreme Court. This has been the singularly constant finding of all government committees and commissions on arrears in courts — Rankin Committee (1925), Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court’s Report (1949), Uttar Pradesh Judicial Reforms Committee Report (1952), 14th Law Commission Report on ‘Reform of Judicial Administration (1972), 79th Law Commission Report on ‘Delay and Arrears in High Courts and Other Appellant Courts (1986), 31st Report the Estimates Committee of Parliament (1986), Satish Chandra Committee Report (1987), 120th Law Commission Report on ‘Manpower Planning in Judiciary (1989-90), Report of the Arrears Committee (2002), Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2003), 189th Law Commission Report (2004) and 245th Law Commission Report on Arrears Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial Manpower (2014). 

The fact-finding bodies have endorsed increasing the strength of judges — based on evidence on the institution, the disposal of cases and the net annual buildup of arrears, which add to pending cases. The recommendations of these committees, as those by the All India Chief Justices Conference, have remained unimplemented. It is a similar case when it comes to implementing the Supreme Court’s orders for increasing judge’s strength — All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002) 4SCC247, Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 607, Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502, Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr v. UP Public Service Commission & Others (2006)9 SCC 507, Imtiaz Ahmad vs State of UP (2012)2 SCC 688. 

Notwithstanding the facts provided by law commissions, inquiry committees, parliamentary committees and the order passed by the Supreme Court, the executive wing continues to be in denial. Hence, another basic feature of the Constitution — access to justice within a reasonable time — stands violated. What is at stake here is not judges, the judiciary or governance, but the very process of human and economic capital building and accumulation — to meet India’s international commitment at the UN and to achieving the millennial goals through sustainable development. 

In spite of evidence-based recommendations on increasing the number of judges, the governmental response is distressing. Most high courts are working with only 40 per cent of their sanctioned strength. It has been over a year since the last appointment was made in the SC in February 2017. The Collegium made two recommendations on January 10, 2018, but remains with the government, and since then, no recommendation has been made by the collegium. The apex court has seven vacancies as of now, few more are due in a few months. Recommendations of the Collegium is either deferred or indirectly vetoed by the government. Former Chief Justice of India TS Thakur had strongly expressed his discontent on the delay in appointments. 

In a globalised world faced with similar problems of human misery, currently or historically, comparisons are inevitable. According to a recent report by the Huffington Post, “In 2016, India’s judge-population ratio of 17 judges per million is among the lowest in the world. On an average, developing nations have 35-40 judges for a million citizens, while developed countries have 50.” All the commonly used methods of gauging India’s socio-economic development — weighted caseload method, HDI method, rate of disposal method, literacy rate method or time-based method — converges to conclude that more judges are required to ensure the constitutional promise of meaningful justice. 

Even as there is a national debate on pending cases or arrears, new arrears are accumulating daily. Economic planning by the Indian state would have revealed that increasingly resorting to courts is an inevitable consequence of India’s rise in the demographic values recorded in the human development index. 

The inadequate budgetary allocation for the judiciary, absence of a nodal ministry for judicial planning, a national judicial policy and a provision for a regular cadre review in terms of judicial work or the impact of new legislation, are self-evidentiary indicators in this regard.  There is, hence, an urgent need to take up the issue in the best interest of justice delivery.

The writer is Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court of India