Author: Sonia Attri, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
ABSTRACT
Understanding the nature of crime and penal laws is essential to addressing delays in the criminal justice system, as criminal law relies heavily on penal s
tatutes. Criminal laws are established to safeguard personal security, freedom, and property, and to ensure societal order. Effective penal laws are necessary for a state to fulfill its primary role of maintaining law and order, irrespective of its form of government. The rule of law demands timely case disposal and dispute resolution. However, India’s justice delivery system faces significant delays, with approximately three crore cases pending across various courts. Despite numerous reports and recommendations from the Law Commission of India, progress has been limited due to political and administrative inefficiencies. This paper examines the root causes of these delays, evaluates recent reforms, and proposes solutions to expedite justice. It also assesses the adequacy of regular courts in delivering swift justice and considers the associated costs. Ensuring timely justice is crucial for development and upholding constitutional mandates for equal justice.
INTRODUCTION
Securing justice presents significant challenges across jurisdictions, with India facing an alarming scale of delays, particularly in its criminal justice system. As of April 2018, over three crore cases were pending in Indian courts, with subordinate courts accounting for 86% of these cases and High Courts for 13.8%. Between 2006 and 2018, case pendency increased by 8.6%. In subordinate criminal courts, criminal cases constituted 81% of the backlog as of 2016. Although delays are not unique to India, the extent of the backlog here is unprecedented. The principle that “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied” underscores the urgent need for reform to expedite justice. Despite the establishment of fast-track courts, case delays persist. Addressing these issues requires not only innovative judicial reforms but also measures to ensure equitable access to justice, including free legal aid for the disadvantaged. The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, launched in 2011, reflects ongoing efforts, yet the core issues remain unresolved.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
1.1) The Indian judiciary comprises approximately 30 Supreme Court judges, 700 High Court judges, and 15,000 trial judges serving a population of 1.22 billion. This yields a judge-to-population ratio of 13 per million, significantly lower than the 110 per million in the U.S. and 60 per million in Australia.
1.2) As of April 2018, around 27 million cases were pending in trial courts, 4.5 million in State High Courts, and 70,000 in the Supreme Court, resulting in an average caseload of 2,000 cases per judge. All trials, civil and criminal, are conducted without juries, and all cases are heard in open court with opportunities for written and oral submissions.
1.3) Since independence, the proportion of criminal cases in Indian courts has increased relative to civil cases. Currently, out of 27.5 million pending cases in trial courts, 19.2 million are criminal and 8.3 million are civil. Criminal cases often significantly outnumber civil cases, with variations across states.
1.4) This disparity is interpreted in two ways. One view suggests that the increase in criminal cases reflects a rise in criminal activity and a loss of faith in the judiciary, driving individuals to take the law into their own hands. The other view attributes the rise in criminal cases to the criminalization of previously civil wrongs, such as dishonored cheques and domestic violence, leading to more criminal proceedings.
1.5) Among criminal cases, those triable by Sessions Courts constitute 5%, warrant cases triable by Magistrates make up 20-25%, and summons cases account for 70-75%.
1.6) Civil disputes predominantly involve land, employment, family relations, and compensation claims, with consumer disputes handled by specialized fora. Approximately 80% of civil cases proceed to trial, with only 20% resolved pre-trial.
1.7) Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the judiciary is tasked with legal awareness, legal aid provision, and implementing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes.
1.8) India’s diverse and complex socio-economic landscape, including high unemployment and significant poverty, hampers access to justice for the economically disadvantaged. Social and caste-based conflicts further disrupt societal peace.
1.9) Many cases, both civil and criminal, take 2-5 years to resolve, with some extending up to ten years. Appeals can take up to two decades in certain states, leading to a perception of pervasive delay.
1.10) The Supreme Court, while a beacon against political inefficiency and corruption, suffers from delays, impacting its credibility. The High Courts and lower courts face even greater challenges regarding public trust and reputation.
1.11)The judiciary faces four key challenges: (i) delivering speedy and effective justice, (ii) promoting ADR to alleviate court burdens and enhance dispute resolution, (iii) ensuring access to justice for the underprivileged, and (iv) maintaining and restoring public trust in the judicial system.
PRESENT SITUATION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA
As of September 15, 2021, there were 4.5 crore cases pending across all Indian courts, according to PRS Legislative Research. This reflects an increase of 23 new cases per minute over the past two years, up from 3.3 crore cases in 2019. Notably, the High Courts in Rajasthan, Madras, and Punjab & Haryana face significantly higher pendency rates compared to those in Patna and Calcutta, despite the latter having larger populations. Conversely, there has been a decrease in pending cases in the High Courts of Allahabad, Odisha, Ladakh, and Jammu & Kashmir.
The Supreme Court currently has 32 judges, including the Chief Justice of India, with two vacancies. In the High Courts, there are 465 sanctioned judge vacancies out of a total of 1,098, representing 42% of the positions. Five High Courts, including those in Rajasthan, Delhi, Odisha, Telangana, and Patna, face over 50% vacancy rates, while Meghalaya and Manipur are the only High Courts with no current vacancies.
The Economic Survey (2017-18) emphasizes the need to reduce delays to foster a better business environment, while the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index (2017-18) ranks India 62nd out of 113 countries globally and 3rd out of 6 in the regional context.
LAW COMMISION OF INDIA REPORT
To address delays and arrears in the Indian judiciary, the Law Commission has proposed several reforms. These include redistributing workloads from higher to lower courts, setting time limits for case resolution, enhancing magistrates’ powers, and implementing summary procedures. The Commission also advocated for creating temporary courts to manage arrears and appointing honorary magistrates.
In its 27th Report, the Commission identified four main causes of delay: insufficient judicial officers, inadequate ministerial staff, personal factors, and procedural defects. It recommended increasing the number of judicial officers, improving pay scales, bolstering ministerial staff, and refining trial procedures. The 58th Report emphasized better service conditions for judges and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
The 77th Report focused on criminal trials, recommending improved witness records and ensuring police cooperation in producing witnesses. It also suggested improving trial efficiency and providing direct legal representation for absent accused in multi-accused cases. The Commission’s observations underscore the constitutional importance of timely justice and its alignment with the rule of law. The Latin maxim “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium” supports the need for prompt justice to uphold meaningful rights. Despite various committees and commissions addressing these issues since independence, the challenge of delay remains significant.
Reasons Underlying Delay in Criminal Cases
The backlog of criminal cases in India results from several key factors:
1. Luxurious Litigation: Chief Justice N.V. Ramana highlighted the issue of “luxurious litigation,” where financially capable parties file numerous lawsuits to obstruct and delay the judicial process. This practice exacerbates the case backlog as multiple filings across courts increase the judicial workload and prolong litigation.
2. Lack of Infrastructure: India has a significant shortfall in courtrooms, with only 20,143 available against an authorized number of 24,280 judicial officers. This shortage, including 620 rented spaces, impedes the timely conduct of hearings, further delaying case resolution.
3. Inefficiencies: Research by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy reveals that inefficiencies, often due to the behavior of attorneys and occasional court absences, contribute to delays. Inefficient practices disrupt the judicial process, causing further delays in case adjudication.
4. Pending Cases per Judge: The disparity in case loads between different high courts illustrates the strain on judges. For instance, Rajasthan High Court judges face an average of 19,374 pending cases each, compared to 78 per judge in Sikkim High Court. This immense workload hinders timely case resolution.
5. Time Consumption: The extensive duration for hearing and deciding cases, compounded by frivolous lawsuits, diverts resources from urgent matters. This inefficiency contributes to prolonged delays and affects the handling of serious cases.
CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPEDY JUSTICE IN INDIA
India’s legal system faces a significant backlog, with over 5.02 crore cases pending across the Supreme Court, high courts, and subordinate courts. As of July 1, the Supreme Court alone had 69,766 pending cases, while the high courts and subordinate courts had 60,62,953 and 4,41,35,357 cases respectively.
1. Procedural Delays: Lengthy legal procedures often stretch over years, deterring timely resolution.
2. Lack of Infrastructure: Insufficient courtrooms, judges, and support staff exacerbate delays.
3. Limited Access to Legal Aid: Many citizens lack access to legal representation, complicating their navigation through the legal system.
4. Inefficiencies in Case Management: Outdated technology and bureaucratic inefficiencies further impede swift justice.
Recommendations for Improving Speedy Justice:
1. Modern Case Management Systems: Adopt advanced technology for tracking cases and managing court schedules to reduce administrative delays.
2. Establish Fast-Track Courts: Create specialized courts for urgent cases such as those involving violence or corruption.
3. Promote Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Encourage mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes outside traditional court processes.
4. Set Clear Timelines: Define and enforce reasonable timelines for each stage of legal proceedings.
5. Address Case Backlog: Hire additional judges and staff, and invest in infrastructure and technology to reduce case backlogs.
6. Simplify Legal Procedures: Streamline processes and reduce documentation requirements to accelerate case handling.
7. Invest in Training: Enhance the skills of judges, lawyers, and court staff to improve efficiency.
8. Expand Online Proceedings: Utilize virtual hearings and e-filing to save time and resources.
9. Enhance Legal Aid: Provide legal representation for those who cannot afford it to ensure cases are properly prepared.
10. Foster Community Engagement: Increase legal literacy and resolve disputes locally to prevent unnecessary litigation.
11. Regular Case Review: Periodically assess case progress to identify and address inefficiencies.
12. Legislative Reforms: Update laws to reflect current realities and streamline processes.
13. Create Specialized Courts: Establish courts focused on specific areas such as commercial or family law to leverage judicial expertise.
Remedies for Judicial Efficiency
Addressing the judicial backlog requires immediate and effective reforms to ensure accessible and efficient justice. These measures should enhance judicial accountability and independence, as well as foster a cooperative effort among the government, judges, lawyers, and litigants.
1. Shift System: To mitigate financial constraints associated with establishing new courts, existing courts could operate in two shifts using current infrastructure. Employing retired judges and experienced judicial officers could expedite case resolution and alleviate backlog.
2. Filling Vacancies and Creating New Positions: Immediate action is needed to address judicial vacancies. According to the Law Commission’s 120th report, the ideal judge-to-population ratio is 50 per million, far exceeding the current 10.5 per million. As of January 2008, significant vacancies existed in both High Courts and subordinate courts, underscoring the need for prompt recruitment and creation of new posts.
3. Reducing Litigation: Courts should focus on discouraging frivolous cases and distinguishing them from legitimate ones. Judges must be stringent in managing the volume of cases entering the system.
4. Expert Case Management: Courts should consider consulting management experts to optimize scheduling and case management.
5. Setting Time Limits: Establish clear deadlines for case hearings and decisions to enhance efficiency.
6. Limiting Adjournments: Adjournments should be restricted to emergencies and exceptional cases to prevent delays caused by overburdened lawyers.
7. Promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Encourage the use of ADR methods such as arbitration, mediation, and conciliation to resolve disputes outside the traditional court system.
Implementing these remedies will streamline judicial processes and improve the overall efficiency of the legal system.
Constitutional Perspective on Speedy Justice
Constitutional law in India, as the bedrock of governance, mandates that all state branches uphold justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity. Central to constitutionalism is the principle of “rule of law,” encompassing “rule of law,” “rule under law,” and “rule according to law” (Rao, N.D., Wade & Phillips, 1965). While the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to speedy justice, it is implicitly recognized as a fundamental objective under Article 21, which ensures the right to life.
Effective justice is vital for maintaining public confidence in the legal system. Lord James Bryce noted that the quality of a government is often measured by the efficiency of its judicial system, which should be accessible, swift, and equitable. Despite these ideals, delays in justice persist, undermining public trust and straining the judicial system. The Law Commission of India has highlighted case backlogs as a significant concern.
Criminal cases, in particular, suffer from prolonged delays, which contravene the right to a fair trial. The legal adage “Justice delayed is justice denied” reflects the critical need for timely case resolution. Delays can lead to the loss of evidence and witnesses, and for the accused, prolonged detention without resolution can result in undue suffering.
Key judicial decisions reinforcing right to speedy justice:
– State of Maharashtra v. Champa Lal: The court ruled that if delays are caused by the accused, they cannot claim a breach of the right to a speedy trial.
– Delhi Administration v. Sunil Batra: The court found that detaining undertrials with convicts violated constitutional rights under Articles 19 and 21.
– State of Bihar v. Vakil Prasad Singh: Emphasized the need for timely investigation and trial as part of Article 21 protections.
– State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Moti Lal Saraf: Stressed the necessity for prompt action to ensure that the right to a speedy trial is genuinely upheld.
– Archana Guha v. Santosh DE V: Quashed proceedings due to a 14-year delay not caused by the accused.
– State of Bihar v. Raghubir Singh: Found that delays due to the nature of the case did not necessarily infringe the right to a speedy trial.
– State of Bihar v. Mahendra Lal Das: The court invalidated proceedings due to unexplained delays exceeding 13 years.
– State of Karnataka v. P. Ramachandra Rao: A seven-judge bench recognized the right to a speedy trial as essential to fair procedure under Article 21.
CONCLUSION
India’s criminal justice system faces severe delays with over 5.02 crore cases pending. Major issues include inadequate infrastructure, low judicial staffing, and inefficient procedures. The judge-to-population ratio is critically low, and case resolution is excessively prolonged. Key problems are judicial vacancies, procedural inefficiencies, and limited legal aid access. Proposed solutions include using existing court infrastructure in two shifts, promptly filling vacancies, and curbing frivolous litigation. Enhancing case management, setting strict timelines, and limiting adjournments are crucial. Expanding Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) can reduce pressure on traditional courts. Constitutional and judicial principles underscore the right to a speedy trial, highlighting the urgent need for reforms to improve justice efficiency and fairness.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:
1. What is the judge-to-population ratio in India compared to the U.S. and Australia?
– India has 13 judges per million people, compared to 110 in the U.S. and 60 in Australia.
2. What are some of the recent reforms proposed to address delays in the judiciary according to the Law Commission of India?
– Redistributing workloads, setting time limits, and creating temporary courts.
3. What are the main reasons behind the delays in criminal cases in India?
– Luxurious litigation, lack of infrastructure, inefficiencies, and excessive time consumption.
4. What recommendations have been made to improve the speed of justice in India?
– Modern case management, establishing fast-track courts, and promoting ADR.
5. Which courts in India face the highest pending case rates, and which have seen a decrease in pending cases?
– High Courts in Rajasthan, Madras, and Punjab & Haryana face high rates, while Allahabad and Jammu & Kashmir have seen decreases.
6. What constitutional principles are relevant to the right to a speedy trial in India?
– The principle of “rule of law” and Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to life.
BIBLOGRAPHY
Pradeep Kumar Saxena, Delay in Criminal Justice System in India – The Way Forward (2022).
Jayanth K Krishnan & C Raj Kumar, Delay in Process, Denial of Justice: The Jurisprudence and Empirics of Speedy Trials in Comparative Perspective, 42.
Dr Girjesh Shukla, Disposal, Delay and Denial: Case Study in Criminal Justice System, 1.
Kat Albrecht et al., Justice Delayed: The Complex System of Delays in Criminal Court, 53.
Bibek Debroy, Justice Delivery in India – A Snapshot of Problems and Reforms.
Dr Junaid, Speedy Justice in India: Challenges, Reforms, and the Road Ahead.
