PUBLIC TRUST IN THE INDIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE JUSTICE IS DUE MOVEMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON SOCIETY BY: MANJUNATH M P
PUBLIC
TRUST IN THE INDIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF THE ‘JUSTICE IS DUE’
MOVEMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON SOCIETY
AUTHORED BY: MANJUNATH M P,
B.E., M.TECH, LL.B
Legal Researcher, Software Engineer,
Mandya, Karnataka State, India.
Abstract
The slogan “Justice is Due” voiced
recently in India, has sparked a massive social movement across the country,
raising significant questions about Indian judicial system. There is a severe
backlash by the public on the operations of Indian judicial system and its
accountability towards the society. Judiciary being one of the three pillars of
democracy in India along with legislature and executive, which is to uphold the
rule of law. Judiciary is only pillar on which the common man or public had
hope, respect, faith and trust as it was the last resort for the justice,
treated it as “temple of justice”. In fact, common man had already lost trust
on the other two pillars of democracy namely legislature and executive, which
were exposed long back before the public for their corruption, bribery, abuse
of power, favoritism, discriminative action, etc. and to some extent, they were
brought under the purview of accountability through the initiation of inquiries
and other proceedings according to the law. But today the common man has lost
faith and trust on judiciary and with the “Justice is Due” movement, the Indian
judicial system got exposed in public like that of legislature and executive
showing a big crack in the third pillar (judiciary) of the democracy. This has
given rise to voices against the immunity enjoyed by the judicial system and
the call to bring the system under accountability and transparency. In this
paper, we will analyze the evolution of the judicial system in India, the
current state of the system, which has led to a loss of trust, and practical solutions
to address the issues.
Keywords: Justice is Due, Indian Judicial
System, Dharma, Court System, Judge-to-Population Ratio, Jury System.
Introduction
The ancient India’s traditional
justice system was deep rooted in the belief of Dharma and the Panchayats being
the local governing bodies to uphold Dharma in maintaining social order and
justice system which reflected India’s cultural heritage and diverse
traditions. This indeed maintained the harmony and fairness in the society
ensuring justice aligned with customs, faith, principles, and moral values the
native society believed in.
During British colonial rule in
India, in place of ancient India’s traditional justice system British
introduced their European court system to take control over Indian territories
and further used it as a tool to suppress the freedom movements across India.
But the British did not interfere with the personal laws related to marriage,
inheritance, and family matters, which allowed every religious community to
follow their own customs and traditions.
After independence, India wrote its
own Constitution to transform itself from the British colonial system of rule
into an independent, self-governing nation. Whereas India continued to adopt
the British court system which had no essence and belief of Dharma which the
ancient India’s traditional justice system had in it. Further, it interfered
with the personal laws of the majority Hindu religious community by codifying
it as a result of which the judicial system got burdened with Hindu law, which
has brought personal issues of the majority of citizens—issues that were once
resolved within families and communities—into the ambit of the court system.
This made the Indian judicial system more complex, expensive, and time-consuming.
Over time, while addressing the
issues through legislation, the Indian legislature failed to tackle the root
cause of the issue. Instead, it focused on the symptoms that emerged from the
core issue, and legislative enactments were passed that address only the
symptoms. Additionally, the judicial system is very often reluctant to make an
honest and conscientious effort to determine the true intent of the legislature
while interpreting legislative enactments during implementation. As a result,
the legal system in India has become too complex, instead of being simplified
in a way that the common man can understand and follow.
Pendency of
Court Cases in India
NITI Aayog (National Institution for
Transforming India) in its “Strategy for New India @ 75” Nov 2018 report states
that: “A study carried out by the Ministry of Finance found that it takes, on
an average, almost 20 years for a property related dispute to be resolved, and
that it would take 324 years just to clear the present backlog at the current rate
of disposal.”
The detailed count of pending cases
in different courts of the Indian judicial system for the year 2018 and as of
2025 (today) are as shown in the Table - 1.1
Table
- 1.1: Pending cases in different courts of the Indian Judicial System
|
Year
|
2018
|
2025
|
|
District
Courts
|
3,00,74,590
|
4,57,20,310
|
|
High
Courts
|
49,83,236
|
62,35,069
|
|
Supreme
Court
|
56,994
|
81,573
|
|
Total
Cases Pending
|
3,51,14,820
|
5,20,36,952
|
Source: National
Judicial Data Grid and Ministry of Law & Justice Govt. of India.
As per the NITI Aayog report, in the
year 2018, it was estimated that it would take 324 years to clear the backlog
of 30 million pending court cases. With reference to the data shown in Table
- 1.1, as of today, the current backlog of pending court cases stands at
45.7 million which would take around 492 years to clear upon applying the
predictive model of above mentioned NITI Aayog report. This clearly indicates
that the Indian judicial system has severely clogged, because of which the
common man has lost trust and confidence in the judicial system. It is now high
time to address the core issues and find solutions to it.
The Supreme Court of India, under the
guidance of the Chief Justice of India, organized a “National Conference on
Addressing Issues Faced by the State Judiciary” on February 1, 2025. The
conference was followed by a meeting with the Chief Justices of High Courts and
senior-most judges of the High Courts, where they discussed issues related to
filling vacancies in High Courts, the appointment of ad-hoc judges, and the
establishment of Evening Courts.
Vacancy in
Courts and Judge-to-Population Ratio
As per the Department
of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of India as on 01.02.2025,
the Sanctioned posts, Working strength and Vacancy of Judicial Officers/Judges
in various courts of Indian Judicial System are as shown in the Table - 1.2
Table
- 1.2: Sanctioned, Working strength & Vacancy of Judges in various courts
of India
|
Courts
|
Sanctioned
strength
|
Working
strength
|
Vacancies
|
|
Supreme Court
|
34
|
32
|
2
|
|
High Courts
|
1,122
|
755
|
367
|
|
District Courts
|
25,771
|
20,479
|
5,292
|
Source: Department
of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of India.
With reference to the Department of
Justice data shown in Table - 1.2, the High Courts of India are
functioning with a strength of 755 judges, against the total sanctioned
strength of 1,122 judges, leaving 367 vacancies to be filled up. i.e. High
Courts in India are operating at 67% capacity, with 33% of vacancies. Whereas
the District and Subordinate Courts of India are functioning with a strength of
20,479 judges, against the total sanctioned strength of 25,771 judges, leaving
5,292 vacancies to be filled up. i.e. District and Subordinate Courts in India
are operating at 79% capacity, with 21% of vacancies. The Courts in Indian
Judicial System are not operating in its full capacity.
The Law Commission of India in its
120th report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary in July 1987,
observed that the strength of judicial officers in India was 10.5 judges per
million population, which is far less as compared to other countries like
Australia (41.6 judges), Canada (75.2 judges), England (50.9 judges), and the
United States (107 judges) per million population. The Commission recommended
to increase the ratio of judges per million of population from 10.5 to 50.
The Supreme Court of India, in the
case of Imtiyaz Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [(2017) 3 SCC 658], makes an
observation of its old judgement that:
“This Court judgement delivered on 21
March 2002 in All India Judges Association v. Union of India endorsed the views
of the Law Commission in its 120th Report and directed that a judge to
population ratio of 50 judges per million be achieved within a period of 5
years and not later than 10 years in any case.”
On 09.02.2024 the Minister of Law and
Justice in Lok Sabha stated that: “At present, the judge - population
ratio in the country works out to be approximately 21 Judges per million
population.”
So, it clearly shows that we are no
where near to the judge to population ratio of 50 judges per million, and the
recommendation made by the Law Commission was way back in 1987. Now, this has
led to a huge backlog of cases, significant work stress on judicial officers,
and making them prone to mistakes resulting in public lose hope and trust on
the Indian judicial system. If the Indian judicial system continues on this
path and proceeds with the establishment of Evening Courts without addressing
the core issues, it might further lead the society into anarchy.
Standards
and Sensitivity in the Court System
The Indian judicial system has
witnessed, respectable number of judges in the past who remain unforgettable
even today for their deep knowledge of the law and the sensitivity they
possessed, maintaining the integrity of the legal system. They had set
remarkably high legal and moral standards, which kept the public hope and trust
in the judiciary alive, which showed their competency, responsibility, and
sensitivity towards society.
For example, Justice Mr. V.R. Krishna
Iyer in the case of “P. N. Eswara Iyer vs The Registrar 1980 SCR (2) 889”,
said that: “Litigants are legal patients suffering from injustice seeking
healing for their wounds.” And in the case of “Bar Council of Maharashtra vs
M.V. Dabholkar Etc. Etc. 1976 SCR (2) 48” he observes that: “Law is no
trade, briefs no merchandise and so the leaven of commercial competition or
procurement should not vulgarise the legal profession.”
Whereas, at present we have Judges of
the Supreme Court of India saying: “Society must change we can't do
anything. Parliamentary laws are there.” while declining to hear the plea
regarding reforms in domestic violence laws and preventing their misuse in
light of suicides in India which are happening due to family problems, as the
protection against domestic violence is not gender neutral. Also, recently
there was petition before High Court of Karnataka which raised a serious doubt
on the credibility of the trial court’s decision where the trial court cited
the non-existing/manufactured judgements in its order.
With such developments, we no longer
see legal and moral standards being maintained in the judicial system. It looks
like the judicial officers are developing the mindset that they bear no
responsibility and accountability towards society. As a result, the Indian
judicial system’s irresponsibility, insensitivity, incompetence, and
inefficiency, has deeply saddened the citizens of the country, further leading
the public to lose trust in the system.
Suggestions
The judicial ecosystem of India has
gone beyond repair. It’s time to focus on research and develop a parallel system
to the existing judicial system, introducing the jury trial where trials occur
every day, continuously. The personal laws like marriage, inheritance and
family matters should be kept out of the ambit of court system and
criminalization of these matters should be stopped immediately. Such matters
should be managed sensitively before a jury at the local and community levels
which will be more effective, simple, timely disposal as compared to the court
system. The multiple proceedings arising between the same parties should be
dealt before one single of the court. Laws should evolve as society changes,
and they should not be stagnant. The laws implemented in society should be
reviewed regularly to evaluate their effects, implications, and any unintended
consequences, and to ensure the law remains relevant as society or
circumstances change over time. To bring transparency and accountability, the
audio of court proceedings should be recorded, and the transcript of the same
should be made available to the public. At any given point in time, the
judicial system should be operating at its full capacity, and the system should
function with high legal and moral standards, along with sensitivity.
Conclusion
The ancient India had the essence and
belief of Dharma in its traditional justice system, ensuring that justice to
align with the customs, faith, principles, and moral values the native society
believed in, maintaining harmony and fairness in the society.
Post-independence, interference with personal laws, the issues which were once
resolved within families and communities were brought into the ambit of the
court system, making the Indian judicial system more complex, expensive, and
time-consuming. In addition to this, the vacancies of the judicial officers in Courts,
the current judge-to-population ratio maintained, the lower standards and
insensitivity of the Courts has choked the judicial system. Today, as a result,
the Indian judicial system is severely clogged with huge pendency of cases, and
the common man has lost trust and confidence in the system. The establishment
of Evening Courts without addressing the core issues would not serve the
purpose; moreover, it would further lead society into anarchy in the absence of
common justice. Possible that people might take the law into their own hands to
seek common justice, and the “Justice is Due” movement is one such caution to
the society. The time has come to explore a parallel system to the current
Indian judicial system, as it has crumbled, and to introduce the jury trial
system at the local and community levels.
References:
4. NITI Aayog - Strategy for New India
@75 Report - https://www.niti.gov.in/the-strategy-for-new-india