While addressing a joint conference of chief ministers and chief justices of high courts, the Chief Justice of India made an emotional plea to appoint more judges to resolve millions of pending cases in the courts. Such a step, he said, would do justice to the poor litigants and restore confidence among foreign investors.

The number of judges in the country is inadequate to cope with the staggering pendency of cases in different courts. According to a report by the PRS Legislative Research, 32 million cases (civil and criminal) are pending in the courts. Fifty eight thousand cases are pending in the Supreme Court, 42 lakh cases in the various high courts and 2.8 crore cases in sessions and subordinate courts. The rise in the number of cases has not been matched by an increase in the number of judges. There are 10-12 judges per million people in India. In developed countries, there are 50 judges per million people.

However, increasing the number of judges is not the only answer. Some urgent institutional changes are called for. The critical test is not the judge-population ratio but the judge-docket ratio. Docket refers to the list of cases to be tried and is an accurate indication of the work load of a judge. In India, the docket ratio per judge is 987 whereas it is 3,235 per judge in the United States of America. The answer perhaps lies in effective court management, which, unfortunately, has not been seriously attempted at by the Indian judiciary.

Old habits

The arrears committee headed by late Justice V.S. Malimath identified the following causes for pendency - litigation explosion; inadequacy of the staff attached to the high courts; inordinate concentration of work in the hands of a few members of the Bar; lack of punctuality among judges; inadequate supply of the copies of judgments and orders, and so on. The Law Commission and the National Police Commission have suggested measures to reduce the huge backlog. There should be a ticketing system for on-the-spot disposal of traffic offences to reduce pending cases. In its 154th report, the Law Commission endorsed the recommendation of the National Police Commission and said, "the periodical review of the pending cases can be undertaken with a view to striking many of them out from the court's calendar."

Even though Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the holding of trial proceedings expeditiously, it is an open secret that there is enormous delay in the disposal of cases because of frequent adjournments. When the sessions trials begin, they must be heard on a daily basis till the end. Non-availability of witnesses or counsels should not be considered grounds for adjournment. The Law Commission in its 154th report recommended that every criminal court shall send a return in a prescribed pro forma to the chief justice of the high court, stating the particulars of the cases in which adjournments were granted by it during enquiry or trial of cases with details thereof.

Computers have not been used adequately to improve court management. There should be provision for e-filing in all the courts. All judgments and records should be available online. Court notices, summons in petty cases and service of documents, too, should be uploaded online. The courts should be equipped with modern technology to facilitate quicker disposal of cases. Outdated laws continue to clutter the statute book.

Public respect for the judiciary is being eroded. The danger to the judicial system is from within. Poor supervision is taking a toll. The NJAC controversy highlighted the need for transparency in the appointment of judges. The judiciary must discourage frivolous public interest litigations and reconsider the practice of long court vacations.