PROBLEM OF DOCKET EXPLOSION IN INDIA (By: Poushali Das)
PROBLEM OF
DOCKET EXPLOSION IN INDIA
Authored By: Poushali Das
Abstract
The main
focus of this paper is to bring out the issue of docket management in courts of
India. In a democratic country like India where the number of people living is
almost 136 crores , maintaining a proper
proceeding and giving the right redressal becomes a crucial point of Indian
Judiciary system. Docket Explosion is a significant concern in Developing
countries like India , which is the world's largest democracy, with millions of
court cases pending before various levels of the legal system. To combat this
threat, some measures are required, as justice can only be served if it is
delivered quickly and with minimal fuss. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
is an effective redress tool for the administration of justice. Therefore, the
main area of focus in this paper will be the problems of docket explosion in
India and what legislative efforts has been taken to combat this issue.
Keywords
Docket, Explosion, Cases, Pending,
Courts, Speedy Trial
Introduction
In India, there are over 3 crore
cases pending in various courts. Many of these lawsuits have been pending for
over a decade. The number of cases pending in India's Supreme Court, High
Courts, District and Subordinate Courts is listed below.
·
In
the Supreme Court, there are almost 60,000 cases pending.
·
In
the various High Courts, there are nearly 42 lakh cases pending.
·
In
District and Subordinate Courts, there are approximately 2.7 crore cases
pending.
The litigant only has one life, but
litigation has many lives to live. The role of a very well judicial system in
achieving the aim of justice – social, economic, and political peace and
stability, growth and development, as well as maintaining the rule of law is now widely acknowledged. Judges
cannot be said to be helpless in their
roles.[1]
justice, people's hopes darken,
and despair may turn into fear. Dread can easily convert into despair. Such
desperation has the ability to turn into violent extremism. We will produce
greater outcomes by making the legal system, judges, and justice services fully
available to the have-nots. The Executive has power, and the Legislature is
incapable of passing substantive legislation, but it has the confidence of the
population who voted for its members. The judiciary has a bench to sit on and
the Constitution to back it up. The Bar, an essential component of the
adversarial method, is out of reach for the poor and destitute. The fines and
formalities make the legislation prohibitively expensive for the poor. The
hierarchy raises the price, the time it takes to reach a decision, and the
uncertainty of the outcome. Appeals upon appeals prolong and increase the cost
of justice When society rejects by
litigation.
The law becomes the last resort for
those who have been wronged. It has no way of enforcing its decisions if its
verdict is disregarded. The consistency of the judgments rendered and the hard
work put in by our Indian judiciary have earned universal acclaim. This acknowledgement
is something that our people should genuinely be proud of. Nonetheless, there
is growing criticism of our courts' inability to adequately cope with and
eradicate the enormous backlog of lawsuits, even from uninformed or
ill-informed quarters. Nonetheless, several countries around the world are
experiencing delays in the administration of justice, and the Indian judiciary
is no exception. As a result, the Indian judicial system has a duty to provide
timely and affordable justice to its people without sacrificing the standard of
justice.
What Is
Docket Explosion?
There is no legal definition for
docket explosion in India. But in general, it means :
The word "docket explosion"
refers to the rate at which cases are filed (including litigation, felony
cases, criminal complaints, and other applications) relative to the rate at
which they are dismissed. In other words, there are more lawsuits being filed
than there are cases being dismissed. As a result, there are a growing number
of cases unresolved in the courts at any given time. The legal system is faced
with a variety of concerns as the number of cases pending increases. Cases that
take too long to be resolved: justice deferred is justice withheld. Many
situations necessitate timely resolution in order to have some real-world
significance. Most cases in India take more than a year (and often even longer)
to be resolved. As a consequence of the delay, severe human rights violation is
faced by the people every day.
Right To
Speedy Trial
Every citizen has the right to a
speedy trial. It is implied in Article 21, which enshrines the right to life
and liberty, though it is not explicitly stated. No process that does not
guarantee a relatively fast trial can be defined as ‘reasonable, fair, or
just,' but it would be considered unjust. There is no question that a fast
trial by which we mean a fair expeditious trial is an important and necessary
part of Article 21's constitutional right to life and liberty. People spend
their entire lives in courtrooms. Cases often take more than a decade to
resolve. On June 30, 2007, 2.5 crore cases were pending in lower courts and it's all going on.[2]
Ordinary litigants suffer tremendous and, in some cases, fatal consequences as
a result of judicial delays a disaster The constitution of India
guarantees a timely trial which is a
vital part of our Constitution that says no person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to the procedure laid by law under
art 21 of Constitution to grant protection & avoid unjustified preceding
detention to reduce the anxiety and to
reduce the risk that lengthy delays will hinder a defendant's capacity to
safeguard himself. The right to a speedy trial is first stated in the Magna
Carta, England's most significant legal text. Though the constitutional
philosophy of the right to a speedy trial has been around for almost two and a
half decades, the aim to accomplish is still a long way off. It is a philosophy
that deals with the expeditious disposition of cases in order to make the
courts more successful and to provide justice as quickly as
possible. The legislature is the body
that sets the laws, and the government considers how well the laws are
implemented, whereas the judiciary brings them into practise. The question is
whether or not everyone is genuinely worried about these issues. The burden on
the judiciary system is increasing as the technical, manufacturing, and
population fields have expanded rapidly, requiring efficient and rapid
resolution of ever-increasing cases, but the court's efficacy has been severely
hampered.
In the case of Babu Singh v.
State of UP,[3]
Justice Krishna Iye remarked
“Our justice system even in grave
cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to 'fair trial'
whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice
since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly
and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved
from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings."
Factors For
Pendency Of The Cases
The vision of justice and equality is
inscribed in our minds when we hear the word judiciary, but when justice is
delayed or there is no fair justice it leaves an enduring impact on our minds.
Litigation pending in courts is one of the most widely debated issues of
judicial reform. In India's current judicial system, the legal principle
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied" is well known.
There are numerous causes for the
pendency of cases in India. But the most important factors that led to delay in
Judiciary System are :
1. Indirect ratio of Judges and Citizen
( lack of Sufficient no. of Judges) :
The key cause of the delay is a lack
of judges in relation to the country's population. Another factor that
contributes to delays is the smaller number of vacancies for the position of Judge . The Supreme Court (Number
of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019, was officially enacted by the Parliament,
increasing the number of Supreme Court judges from 30 to 33. The nation's
population has grown significantly since 1987, and the judge-to-citizen ratio
is now about 10 million to 1. In a report from 1987, the Law Commission
proposed a 50 million to one ratio. The approved number of High Court Judges is
1079, with 397 seats (roughly 37% ) vacant in
approximately 25 High Courts across
India.[4]
2. Less number of Courts than required :
In its 254th report, the Law
Commission recommends the development of additional courts to expedite the
resolution of cases. An insufficient number of courts is seen as a major issue.
In the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh,[5]
the Supreme Court also recommended the establishment of additional courts to
the Law Commission.
3. Periodic Adjournments:
It is clearly mentioned in Civil
Procedure Code, Order XVII, Rule 1 that adjournment in the court proceedings cannot be allowed for more than three times .
But the Courts fail to act in accordance with the same and the result of which
affects the litigation following which severe consequence has to be faced.
4. Transfer of judges:
Judges are transferred which causes
delay in the pending cases . When judges are changed, the new judge can order a
new trial, causing the procedures to be delayed. Another factor that obstructs
timely resolution of issues is this.
5.
Non-Compliance With The Provisions Of Section 89 And Non-Adherence To Order
Section 89 notes that if a conflict
can be settled outside of court, the matter would be coordinated for ADR rather
than proceeding with the normal procedure. This provision was introduced by the
amendment Act to shorten the time it takes for civil disputes to be resolved
outside of trial with both the parties' approval using procedures such as
arbitration, conciliation, Lok Adalat, and mediation. Judges, on the other
hand, often refuse to refer cases to ADR, which is yet another factor that
slows down case resolution. In 77th Report, the Law Commission noted that it is
important for the Judge to review the parties' submissions in detail
and to be informed of each party's
case, as only then can the concerns be appropriately interpreted to enable
better use of Order X. Order X applies to the Court's review of individuals,
and so non-compliance with this provision has an effect on the litigation.
6.
Non-Appearance Of The Parties:
In some matters the parties fail to
attend the court proceedings due to many reasons which is also one of the
primary factor that leads to the delay of the cases. Many at times it happens that the advocates
their prepare arguments but due to non-appearance of the client the proceedings
get delay. Again, when a time and date for a hearing is set, the parties fail
to show up on the date and time as the respondent is usually aware of the
likelihood of a negative verdict, he attempts to obtain as many adjournments as
possible to present his case. Furthermore, the parties' inability to appear for
cross-examination adds to the delay.
7.
Increase In Litigation
The statistics show that the number
of lawsuits filed in the courts is rising every day, and that they are piling
up. There are presently 3.5 crore cases pending in the Supreme Court, High
Courts, and Lower Courts, of India . The truth is that the Courts are
overburdened with litigation, and despite the fact that more Courts are being
created, the number of cases reported is inadequate to match the increased
number of cases. The number of cases pending has risen dramatically over the
last decade, due to the fact that more cases are filed each year than are
cleared of.
8.
Lack Of Infrastructure :
One aspect that triggers more pending
lawsuits by slowing down the trial process is court facilities. Mr. Dipak
Mishra, India's former Chief Justice, in an interview, said that the main cause of the litigation
backlog is a shortage of facilities for judges, litigants, and court
workers. Basic amenities such as proper
washrooms, canteens, parking, a library for advocates, seating areas for
advocacy groups, and drinking water are all lacking in subordinate courts. The
court rooms in district or subordinate courts are so limited that no more than
7-8 people can stand in them. The government must recognise that the infrastructure
of the courts is the roadblock
preventing judges and court workers
from performing their duties effectively. Indian administrative system should
put money into the judiciary's growth. Both land and building should be made
easily available for court building,
more digitalised systems should be inculcated to boost court facilities, which is why the
government intends to launch online connectivity. If the technology is in
place, litigants will be able to monitor and check their cases online.
9.
Lack Of Proper Education System:
Pending of litigation proceeding can
be settled if the lawyers work diligently and do not spend time preparing for
the case, resulting in a quick trial. If the court staff does their job well,
the case can be heard easily as well. The educational system must prepare
students for work rather than for money. In this new age, there is fierce
competition among schools, colleges, and universities. The educational
institutes nowadays are less concerned with the student's education; instead,
they are concerned with fees and competition with each other. As a result,
students are becoming less educated, and when they enter the workforce, they
are unable to function. This is a
serious issue which needs to be focused.
10.
Abuse Of The Process Of Law:
The civil procedure code and the
criminal procedure code are the key actions that characterise of the entire
trial process in a case in India. In a criminal case, the trial begins with the
framing of the charges against the accused, followed by the prosecutor's
testimony, the defence’s evidence, witness questioning by the prosecutor and by
the suspect counsel, and finally statements submission by the prosecution and
defendants, and then the verdict. The court will take up to 5 years to complete
the process, but it can take up to 10 years. There is summons given to the
witnesses in between the trials, which requires time as well. Sometimes the
lawyers insist that the case be adjourned for their own benefit which is
definitely a grey area in Indian Judicial System.
Position
Prior To Amendment Acts
Previously there was no provision in
the CPC for an out-of-court settlement. The Civil Procedure Code, which dates
back to 1908, has been revised many times since its inception to ensure a
timely trial and resolution of cases, but it still faces delays. In the years
1999 and 2002, the Code was significantly changed. A new Section 89 has been implemented to
ensure that parties resolve conflicts in
amicable terms through the Alternative Conflict Resolution process.
There was no time limit for serving summons on the accused in the Code. It was
not uncommon for the defendant's summons to respond the accusation before the
Court and take a long time. People took
advantage of this by avoiding the summons. Furthermore, the courts had
broad authority to extend time without restriction, resulting in a delay in
case resolution and an increasing backlog cases that remained unsettled.
Amendments
Of 1992 And 2002
In the year 2002, the Code of Civil
Procedure underwent major revisions. An amendment to the Code was also proposed
in 1999, but it was never implemented. Both amendments went into effect on July
1, 2002. The primary aim of the update to the Code was to ensure that civil
cases that came under the CPC were resolved quickly.
Case Law : In the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association of India
vs Union of India,[6] in
which the Court held that the amendments are legitimate and that if any
problems occur, they may be brought to the attention of the committee, which
will consider the issues and make recommendations.
Legislative
Framework To Combat The Issue
In India, the legislative sensitivity
to ensuring timely and efficient justice is primarily expressed in two
enactments: The first is the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, while the
second is the addition of Section 89 to the standard Civil Procedure Code(CPC).[7]
India's liberalised economic policy, implemented in 1991, paved the way for
India's economy with the global economy. As a result, the statute was passed.
As India had to abide with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the
legislature enacted the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
as the Indian laws has to abide by
the international norms. It replaced the antiquated and inefficient Arbitration
Act.
Role Of The
Fast Track Court
The Eleventh Finance Commission
proposed the formation of a fast-track court in 2005. It proposed establishing
a 1734 fast track court in India to deal with pending cases. With the support
of the concerned state's High Court, the ministry of finance allocates funds to
state governments for the establishment and development of Fast Track courts.
Fast Track Courts are only in effect for a five-year duration, after which it
is up to the state to determine whether or not to proceed. If the state wants
to keep it going, they must make it permanent.
Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India
(2005) 3 SCR 103[8] was a landmark case in this ground.
Conclusion
Justice Chandrachud said, "The
need of the hour to mitigate the problem of pendency is to think out of the
box" implying that our outdated methods of resolving cases have resulted
in clogging of the mechanism and over burdening of the judiciary with pendency.
We must think about these issues and take concrete measures to fix and resolve
them so that people do not lose confidence in the judiciary and its ability to
provide justice. This article has made an attempt to highlight challenges that
our judiciary has been facing, as well as potential and realistic solutions
that, if implemented, might fix these problems.