Myriad hurdles impede course of justice

Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana was rather critical of our justice delivery system in his speech on a public platform last week. He is reported to have said that an average citizen is apprehensive about approaching courts, fearing the unknown. Concerns have been raised about delays, pendency, accessibility, deficient infrastructure, a large number of vacancies, (lack of) transparency in legal proceedings, an ill-equipped criminal justice system and an increasing count of false cases.

That’s quite a handful of problems faced by our justice delivery system. It begs the question: What is being done to tackle the citizen’s apprehension about approaching courts and what is being done to address the problems pointed out by the ex-CJI?

It is a matter of common knowledge, and this can easily be verified from the National Judicial Data Grid, that the number of cases pending in the district courts and high courts across the country has crossed a staggering 5.1 crore, with a few lakh cases pending for more than 20 years. This is shameful and was sarcastically described as inter-generational justice.

There are several alternatives that are available for managing the caseload, but, unfortunately, there does not seem to be any will to do so. For example, petty criminal cases can be resolved through plea bargaining, a mechanism that is available in our criminal procedure. Civil cases, including some complicated ones, can be resolved through mediation, as recognised by our civil procedure. Parliament enacted the Mediation Act in 2023, but the Mediation Council has not yet been established. A law to establish Gram Nyayalayas was enacted in 2008, but 17 years down the line, it has not been fully implemented across the country. A few hundred Gram Nyayalayas have been established, but almost half of them are non-functional. Unless we implement the laws enacted by Parliament in their true spirit, the problem of a large number of pending cases will continue until the justice delivery system collapses under the weight of the caseload.

Judges’ posts lying vacant is another perennial problem. It is estimated that the number of vacant positions in high courts is about 30 per cent, while the number in district courts is about 22 per cent. Why is it so difficult to fill these vacancies? It is not that there is a shortage of qualified lawyers, but again the will to fill vacant posts is missing. Anecdotal evidence suggests that lawyers are not inclined to become judges because the salary is somewhat inadequate and there are pressures such as the possibility of a sudden transfer from the place of work, frivolous complaints being filed against judges with a view to demoralise them and so on.

These issues require serious consideration; otherwise, a time will come when it will be difficult to appoint qualified lawyers as judges. The large percentage of vacancies is not a new phenomenon — it has been continuing for several years and will persist unless the decision-makers get their act together and fill the vacancies with well-qualified lawyers by improving their service conditions.

Infrastructure has always been a huge problem for the judiciary. In some states, if the full complement of judges is appointed, there will be no room for them to hold court or the space would be inadequate, adding to their inconvenience. Having visited district courts in several states across the country, I can confidently state that there is a lot that needs to be done to upgrade infrastructural facilities. While there is a massive move to improve infrastructure across the country in terms of roads, buildings and so on, there is hardly any movement to make courts better, except in large cities. This needs to change, and change urgently.

One of the problems facing the justice delivery system, generally, is the absence of adequate budgetary allocation. A study conducted by the India Justice Report points out that the allocation is less than 1 per cent of the state’s budget. It is well known that a large amount of the budgetary allocation goes on payment of salaries. There is hardly anything left for improving infrastructure, not only in terms of buildings but also in terms of facilities for the litigants such as chairs in the courtroom and provision of services related to litigation. The problem is huge and only a litigant will be in a position to tell you where the shoe pinches. Who will ask the litigant these questions?

What are the possible solutions to remedy the somewhat bleak situation highlighted by the former CJI? I think there should be brainstorming sessions in every state in which judges, lawyers, litigants, bureaucrats and legislators should participate and find solutions to the problems which are very well known.

There is talk about decolonising or Indianising our justice delivery system, but that can only happen if there is a discussion and dialogue between various stakeholders. It’s not only about finding solutions but having found them, they must be implemented with sincerity; otherwise, they will fall by the wayside like some of the schemes that have been introduced in the past, such as fast-track courts, special courts, special fast-track courts and so on. Action must follow words.

In addition to brainstorming sessions, it is imperative that all stakeholders appreciate that everyone yearns for justice, and something positive must be done to bring about that yearning to fruition. It is not good enough to get justice after 10 or 15 years. Everybody realises that there is nothing like instant justice, but the dispensation of justice must be swift and inexpensive. Unless and until we strive to work towards that goal, the views expressed by the former CJI will continue to find a mention in newspapers and then forgotten a couple of days later.