Open Access Research Article
INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF TRIAL COURTS IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF TRIAL COURTS IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY - JYOTIKA ARORA
D Y PATIL DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY, SCHOOL OF LAW
BA LLB (5 YEARS) BATCH
OF 2020
DECLARATION
I
hereby declare that the work reported in this project report entitled “Increasing the efficiency of trial courts
in India” submitted at . I have duly acknowledged all the
sources from which the ideas and extracts
have been taken. To the best of my understanding, the project is free from any plagiarism issue.
(Signature of the Candidate) Name: Jyotika Arora
Program/ Batch: BA LLB 2020
Date:11th June
LIST OF
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
(Alphabetically)
AIR All India Reporter
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
ASCI American Standard Code for
Information Interchange
Cr. L. J. Criminal Law Journal
ICA International Centre for Arbitration
ICADR International Centre for Alternative
Dispute Resolution
NALSA National Legal Services Authority
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UNCITRAL The United Nation Commission on International Trade
v. Versus
WLR Weekly Law Reports
1. INCREASING
THE EFFICIENCY OF TRIAL COURTS IN INDIA
1.1What is the situation of trial
courts in India
Delay in conducting trials and
increasing pendency of cases can be seen in the courts of India. There is no
proper conduct of trials seen in Indian courts. Rate of corruption has
increased amongst the lawyers judges and the public. “The judicial system in
India is under tremendous pressure. As of May 2022, over 4.7 crore cases are
pending in courts across different levels of the judiciary. Of them, 87.4% are
pending in subordinate courts, 12.4% in High Courts, while nearly 1,82,000
cases have been pending for over 30 years. Amid the rising trend of litigation,
more people and organizations are approaching courts. This spike, however, is
not reflected in the number of judges available to hear these cases. Inadequate
infrastructure has resulted in overburdened courts, which in turn has led to a
massive backlog of cases.”[1]
“Cases filed in the high courts and
Supreme Court are new cases or appeals against lower court judgements from
dissatisfied litigants. On September 29, 2020, the total number of pending
cases in all the courts was approximately 4 crore (Staff, 2019); almost a year
earlier (on November 28, 2019), there were 59,867 cases pending in the Supreme
Court, while the corresponding figures in the high courts and subordinate
courts were 44.75 lakh and 3.14 crore, respectively.8 This continuous growth in
case filing can be attributed to the rising population, literacy, per capita
income and growing public awareness about constitutional rights. Also,
disagreement with the policies of the government, unfavourable Acts(Laws), and
skewed and discriminatory actions by the authorities to favour a particular
class with the idea of achieving certain political ambition could also be major
reasons for increasing case institution. Additionally, cases related to
property, services, and family disputes are witnessing a steep rise, as those
resulting from rising trends in crime, growing caste conflicts, and instances
of social tensions. Pendency has a huge economic cost affecting expenditure,
investment, resource mobility, and wastage of human resources, all of which
leads to a loss in GDP. According to Narasappa, a conservative estimate puts
GDP loss from delays and pendency in the justice system at 1.5 per cent (Dey,
2016).”[2]
1.1 Pendency of Cases
|
COURT
|
INSTITUTION OF CASES
|
PENDENCY
|
PENDENCY RATE(%)
|
|
High Court
|
1,079
|
2,839
|
263
|
|
High Court
|
684
|
1036
|
152
|
|
High Court
|
1,762
|
3,875
|
225
|
|
Sub. Court
|
3,718
|
8,450
|
227
|
|
Sub. Court
|
15,222
|
18,651
|
122
|
|
Sub. Court
|
18,940
|
27,285
|
144
|
Source:ASCI, Final Report (2018)
1.1.1Why are the trial courts
inefficient
There is a lack of awareness of
rights in a layman and they are not well informed about the regulations that a
court should follow or what is the right procedure to follow while conducting
trials and hence the public is not able to fight against the wrong happening
since so long, this gives the people in authority a chance to misuse their power which leads to a slow an inefficient
judiciary system. Corruption is a major reason in making the process of serving
justice inefficient these days. A major reason of pendency of cases is due to
the huge amount of population in India with a very few agents of judicial
system in proportinate to the population which causes delay in cases. “With
a backlog of 3.5 crore cases pending across the courts of the country, it would
take decades to clear the backlog of cases. Moreover, India has the worst ratio
of judge to citizens; with only 13 judges per million people, it is not a
surprise that we have such a huge backlog of cases.”[3]
Increasing no of crimes due to technological advancements and access of
internet is also a reason why there is a huge numbers of crimes being committed
and pressurizing and burdening the courts with even more cases
1.2How can we increase the efficiency
Online Courts is a very effective way
to make the process of serving justice very quick and efficient. It will not
only help in increasing the speed of conducting the trials but also help
complete more number of cases, reducing the backlog of the past years. It will
also result in benefiting the people in saving time while waiting for their
case to start, the time taken to travel to the court and will be a more
economical alternative to physical courts. This would also help in recording
the trials and so the judges and the advocated would not be able to conduct the
trials fraudulenty because they will be monitored. The problem of less court
rooms will also be solved as there won’t be the requirement of rooms in the
courtroom to conduct the trials as it could be easily done by just a click of a
button. Increasing the working timings of the court would make the process more
smoot and faster. Employment of more judges to hear out cases would result in
creating a more reliable and trustable system. Making laws to mandate to
complete or hear a certain number of cases within a certain period of time will
help in making the judges work their level best rather than being inefficient.
Giving incentives to the judges for completing more no of trials within a
certain period of time can boost the judge to work harder and more efficiently.
It is also proved during covid that online court can be a better alternative
for better working of our judicial system. Reducing the vacation time for the
courts and opening the courts to function 24 hours will give the judges ample
time to conduct trials not in haste but without the crunch of time. Imposing
stricter guidelines for the judges and courts for granting adjournment for
cases. Taking actions on those who are not following the already made laws for
following the proper procedure of courts. ADR system should be promoted, if
people will settle and negotiate in a lawful manner there will be less cases in
the court of law reducing the pendency of cases.
“Fast
Track Courts were set in the principal example by the Central Government to
arrange off cases which were long forthcoming cases which for the most part
included session court legal disputes. The 11th Finance Commission endorsed a
financial plan for the formation of Fast Track Courts in India. It made a plan
for the production of 1734 Fast Track courts in the country. The Ministry of
Finance authorized a measure of Rs. 502.90 crores as a “special issue and
upgradation grant” for judicial administration.
The
term of this grant concluded in 2005 and was restored by the Finance Commission
for the upkeep of 1,562 existing quick track courts for an additional 5 years
up to 2010. In 2000, the idea of fast track court enjoyed a lot of varied
mechanisms. The 188th Law Commission Report in such a manner suggested the
setting up of a fast track commercial division at each High Court as a lasting
Fast track court to manage high worth business questions. In 2008, the Law
Commission again perceived the significance of Fast track courts in managing
the issue of accumulation of check bouncing cases, however, it was suggested
uniquely as an ad-hoc measure.
The
decade’s end saw a change in perspective in the idea of Fast Track Courts (FTC)
which at that point started to be distinguished uniquely as a specially
appointed system for managing the issue of pendency of cases. In April 2011,
the Central Government began financing the FTCs after which the greater part of
them was twisted up. It is additionally fascinating to note here that these FTCs
were set up specially and lacked legislative backing.
At
the point when the Central Government chose to stop its financing for the most
optimized plan of fast track courts, it was challenged in the case of Brij
Mohan Lal v. Association of India where the Supreme Court chose to strike down
the arrangement choice of Union of India not to fund the FTC conspiracy past
March 31, 2011.
The
Supreme Court has anyway passed numerous decisions which pointed toward
improving the justice delivery framework and assisting the trial process in
standard courts and bracing the autonomy of the judiciary. The Court noticed
that the “constitutional mandate to accommodate reasonable and expeditious
trials to all litigants and citizens of this country.” and consequently directed
that the State and Central Government to make extra-judicial posts inside a
quarter of a year from the date of the judgment.
The
Court additionally expressed that the States have the freedom to either end the
most optimized plan of fast track courts conspire or to proceed with
that. However, the States may not decide to proceed with the plan on an
ad-hoc or impermanent basis. Following the Nirbhaya case in 2012, the proposals
of the J. Verma Committee and public opinion preferring quick justice likewise
went about as an impetus for setting up all the more fast track courts in
India.
Subsequently,
according to the current Center’s activity plan, the most optimized plan of
fast track courts will be needed to dispose of 14 session trial cases and/20 to
25 civil/criminal cases each month. The State Governments and the High Courts
have been requested to arrange for the prosecution to guarantee fast cycle
administration. The plan likewise envisages the appointment of specially
appointed judges from among the retired session and additional session judges
pass judgment on advanced and posted in these courts or from among members from
the Bar. The choice of appointing judges would be finished by High Courts.
The plan likewise visualized the setting up of a normal of five fast track
courts in each district of the country.
Contemporary
challenges to fast-track courts in India
The
adequacy of both the special fast track courts and other fast track courts for
getting justice for the citizens of this Nation has been under the scanner for
an extended period now. Out of the 623 cases that have been allotted to the
special fast track courts since its origin, just 107 cases have been disposed
of, of which just 18 cases brought in convictions. There are around 1192 fast
track courts in India where the quantity of pending cases is 6, 05,813.
Such
terrible showing can’t be ascribed to a particular explanation. Individuals who
have worked in these most optimized plans of fast track courts call it ‘fast
track injustice’ as these courts are at times given an unreasonable target of
cases to wrap up. They are approached not to get involved too actually in the
matter and that extensively, assuming they feel that the individual is guilty,
proclaim him to be liable and on the off chance that he is honest, announce him
to be honest.
This
isn’t how the criminal justice framework or any justice framework on the planet
works. Justice can’t be given based on hunches and mystery and that it requires
purposeful consideration and attention. Judges are additionally discovered to
be eliminating proof, not permitting full cross-examinations, permitting
proceedings without legal counsellors as a rule and consequently it tends to be
expressed that is not extremely a good delivering justice system. Rushed and
husky trials raise the dread of potential unsuccessful labours of justice which
the Law Commission of India summed up as “justice deferred is equity denied and
simultaneously justice rushed is justice buried.”[4]
1.2.1 What
impact will it show on trial courts if
efficiency is increased
Cases will be solved quicker due to
efficiency of courts causing to reduce the pendency of cases. As it is said
Justice delayed is justice denied, if it will be believed that the public is
being served justice the public will have a lot more trust in our judicial
system than before as they will be served justice which will lead to more and
more people knocking the doors of courts to solve their disputes rather than
taking the law in their hand.
1.3 What
is the impact of inefficient trail courts
Due to inefficient working of the
courts the cases are given dates instead of conducting the hearing for the
same. This is a major reason why people don’t take their cases to the law and
try to handle themselves because they are scares that they will get trapped in
the game of dates, this results in increase of crime as well as people have
assumed that as courts are inefficient so they won’t get caught even after
committing of any crime or they believe that going to the courts is a waste of
time so they take their revenge themselves by committing another crime. People
also have stopped helping people and going to the courts as evidences, eye
witnesses or their allibies just to avoid the trap as they all believe that the
court will take a long time to finish this matter and they will have to waste
their time in the inefficient process of the judicial system. It is very unfair
for the under trial prisoners to waste their lives in prisons because of the
delayed court system of our country as they were not heard in the courts in
time. There are so many under trial prisoner who were later acquitted as they
were proven not guilty who have wasted more than half of their lifetime in
prisons for no fault of theirs but because of the slow court system.
“Such person is accused and his or
her guilt has not been proved, hence he cannot be called a convict. According
to 78th Report of the Law Commission of India (1979), Undertrial is a person
who is in a judicial custody or remand during investigation. An undertrial
prisoner is the one who has been detained in prison during the period of
investigation, inquiry or trial for the offence they are accused to have
committed.
[5]Undertrial prisoners population in India is estimated to be the 18th highest in the world and the third highest in Asia.
Undertrials such as Muslims, Dalits and
Adivasis are in disproportionate number. About 53% of undertrial prisoners are
from these communities, which make up 39% share of the population of India.
Around 29% of undertrial prisoners are not formally literate, while 42% had not
completed their secondary education.”
Scholarly observations and concerns:
“JusticeV.R Krishna Iyer , former
judge , Supreme Court of India observed that: 24 “In India, the arrears of
litigation are so terrible that Justice in the Indian Courts with its slow
processes and appeals, revisions and reviews making Justice, justices and
justicing an interminable phenomenon Actually a patriotic legislature if it has
concern for social and economic justice should take away too many appeals and
revisions, one appeal being sufficient this measure will make number of cases
considerably reduced. The expenditure on lawyers and litigative process will be
made inexpensive. Today, a lawyer is an expensive creature. This need not be Here
the legislature has to be active. Today, litigation lives long. The litigant
himself with the heavy expenditure finds himself short lived”.”[6]
Senior Advocate and Member of
Parliament[7],
K.T.S.Tulsi, observed that:
“The real solution to the humongous
pendency of court cases is in complete overhauling the criminal justice system.
Our criminal justice system relies on bullock cart technologies in this
supersonic age”.
“India
has about 21 judges per million people, Rajya Sabha was informed on Thursday.
In a written reply, Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said to calculate the
judge-population ratio for per million population in a particular year, the
Department of Justice in the ministry uses the population as per Census 2011
and as per available information regarding sanctioned strength of judges in
Supreme Court, the high court and district and subordinate courts in the
particular year. Seeking to provide speedy
justice, the 14th Finance Commission had recommended the setting up of 1800
FTCs during 2015-2020 and had urged state governments to utilise enhanced
fiscal space available through tax devolution for dealing with specific natured
cases of heinous crimes, civil cases pertaining to women, children, senior
citizens, other vulnerable sections of society etc and property related cases
pending above 5 years. As per data
provided by the high Courts up to December 2021, total 898 FTCs are functional
in 22 states and UTs.”[8]
Conclusion
The most difficult times for the
whole world that was during covid, taught us that online courts were a very
good alternative to increase the efficiency of courts in our country. Taking in
notice, all the technological advancements of our country the online courts can
be implemented very easily with just a little spreading of awareness about
internet and how to access it amongst the rural people. As we are aware of the
fact that everything has a pro and a con; a coin has two sides to it and hence
necessary and specific monitoring would be required as there could be a negative
impact of judges completing cases in haste to earn incentives. It is rightly
said that Justice delayed is justice denied but justice provided in haste is
also of know advantage as it won’t be proper and right. Justice delayed is not
right but justice given in hurry is also of no use
REFRENCES
1.
Hindu
2.
Ipleaders
3.
Jstor
4.
Legalservicesindia
5.
Legitquest
6.
Livelaw
7.
Economictimes
8.
Indian
express
9.
Bar
and Bench
[1] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-judiciary-pendency-data-courts-statistics-explain-judges-ramana-chief-justiceundertrials/article65378182.ece
[2] https://csep.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Analysing-Judicial-Efficiency-of-Indian-Courts-_F-1-1.pdf
[3] https://www.probono-india.in/blog-detail.php?id=119
[4] https://blog.ipleaders.in/contemporary-route-justice-analysis-efficiency-fast-track-courts/
[5] https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-4537-the-human-right-of-under-trail-prisoners.html
[6] https://archives.palarch.nl/index.php/jae/article/download/9013/8371/17681
[7] https://archives.palarch.nl/index.php/jae/article/download/9013/8371/17681
[8] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-has-about-21-judges-per-million-people/articleshow/89481479.cms
Article Information
INCREASING THE EFFICIENCY OF TRIAL COURTS IN INDIA
Authors: JYOTIKA ARORA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/06/14
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.