This is the foremost causes for the pending of cases. The vacancy of judges start from the lower court and ends in the higher courts. This creates a great hazard in disposing of cases and paves way for backlogging of cases. Vacancy in one court creates a burden to a judge who is in additional in charge of that court and it creates a deep setback for speedy justice. This way of giving additional incharge will still makes the lacunae very big. In this issue both the judiciary and the executive are at daggers drown. Out of overall vacancy in all the high courts only little more than the half parts filled and the remaining are left vacant which make more clog in appeal cases.

At one point of time the Supreme Court lambasted the centre and asked “whether the centre intends to bring the entire judiciary to a grinding halt by sitting on the recommendations of the collegium for appointment and transfer of judges to High Court across the country”.[2] While reacting sharply on the issue of appointment of judges, Chief justice of India T.S. Thakur said “vacancies in the judiciary, especially state high courts have become a national challenge and efforts were being made to persuade the government to expedite the matter. We have being talking very often about pendency of cases in the courts. 80% of the backlog is in eight to nine states. Uttar Pradesh, largest state in terms of population has alone 25 % of total pendency followed by other states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and West Bengal. Burden of backlog on account of these states brings the entire judiciary under criticisms has the backlog is huge.”[3]

The next issue is NJAC (National Judicial Appointment Commission) was established by the Union government of India by amending the constitution through the 99^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 which was passed by both the houses of the Parliament by 2/3 of majority by replacing the collegium system for appointment of judges and later on it was struck down by the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and again the collegium system was replaced for appointment of judges. In this way a little step was taken but still it is of vain. Law Commission of India in its report no.245 also recommended the need for filling vacancy of judiciary. It says that “data obtained from High Courts indicates that the judicial system is severely backlogged and it is also not being able to keep pace with current filings, thus exacerbating the problem of backlogs. The system requires a massive influx of judicial resources in order to dispose of the backlog and keep pace with current filings. The data indicates the need for taking urgent measures for increasing the judge strength in order to ensure timely justice and facilitate access to justice for all sections of society”.[4] This loophole is one of the main cause for pending delay, it should be administered effectively and mostly all the vacancies of judges should be filled at least for one decade to reduce the backlog of cases and to decide the cases which were in series of numbers in our courts made by our grant parents.

“Adjournment have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system.[5]” This view was reiterated by Hon’ble Chief Justice. R.M. Lodha on the first day when he assumed the office of CJI. The Honourable apex court through series of judgement emphasised and at time virtually warned all the participants in the judicial system namely the judges, the lawyers and the litigants that too liberal and lenient approach for the adjournment has been a major contribution to the problem of backlog of cases and hence the power to grant the adjournment itself has to be exercised judiciously and by reasoned orders.[6]

“It is sad but true, that the litigants seek – and the courts grant – adjournments at the drop of the hat. In cases were the judges are little proactive and refused to accede to the request of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigations. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional court compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that the courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realised that adjournments do dent the efficacy of the judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit.”[7]

Though there is discretionary power to the judges for adjournment of cases such a discretion should not be at the whims and fancies of the judges, lawyers, or litigants. There should be a reasonable cause for adjournments or on considering the merits of the case. As discussed earlier there is inadequate number of judges, still then if there is more adjournments in cases it will surely create a situation to lose hope upon the judiciary and very nature of implementation of the Act itself becomes meaningless. This exact situation in our judiciary is very well pictured in one of the plywood advertisements which is unfortunate and ashame on the judiciary. The statutes themselves provide for prescribed time limit to complete the case but adjournments goes on defeating the real objects of the Act. Thus this kind of adjournments should be prevented to make the Act fruitful and functioning of the judiciary more effective.

In All India Judges Association case[8] the Supreme Court directed that there should be fifty judges for a million population. The court noticed that the strength of the judges then existing was 10. 5 to 13 per one million. While so many state government plead financial inequalities for creation of many courts. The proportion of present sanctioned strength of the judges bears to the total population is about 15 per million,[9] at any point of time for about 20 percent of the vacancies of judges remained vacant. This is due to lack of proper planning on the part of High Courts coupled with inordinate delay in recruitment process and promotions. The issue relating to setting up of a new courts and filling up of vacancies engaging the attention of the courts before a bench presided over by D.K. Jain in two matters (W.P. (c) No. 122 of 2008, Janhit Manch Vs. Union of India and C.A. No. 1867 of 2006 (Malik mazhar Sultan Vs. U.P.S.C. The subject related to infrastructure for the courts is monitored by another bench headed by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India in W.P. No. 1022 of 1989. Further in a recent judgment Imtizaz Vs. State of U.P.[10] this Hon’ble court held that the Law Commission of India has been entrusted with the task of ascertaining the number of additional courts needed in the country after consulting the concerned stake-holders.

There is large number of vacancies for stenographer and computer operator, at times the person appointed is with lack of knowledge and there is lack of proper service facilities which contributes for pendency of cases. Proper training is must for working staff as to the technical growth

There is lack of knowledge for some judicial officers in certain specialised areas like cybercrimes, food adulteration, etc., due to advancement in science and technology, it showvers the impact directly on delivery of justice.

There must be a legal basis for any Public Interest Litigation regarding public interest but there are many ridiculous PIL filed before the Supreme Court, such ridiculous PIL’s should be nipped out by the Supreme Court in the very beginning by refusing to admit such petitions. For example PIL seeking a ban on ‘sardar jokes’. There is no legal basis to seek a ban on any such jokes unless and until they cross such red lines already existing in laws such as Indian Penal Code.

Lot of paper work and procedures also creates the clog, it should be taken care by the judges to make it in the place wherever needed and relax if possible.

There are approximately around 21.3 million cases pending in various courts in India including Supreme Court. The magnitude of this problem was brought sharply into perspective in a magazine article last year which stated “if the nations judges attacked their backlog non- stop with no breaks for eating or sleeping and closed hundred cases every hour it would take more than 35 years to catch up.[11] The statute itself has given ample time to decide the cases but still there is more adjournment or unnecessary delay which undermines or defeats the real intention of the Act. There are major amendments to the CPC in 1999 and 2002 which also focuses on provisions relating to adjournment and time to decide the case. But still it does not remedied as expected. In Salem Advocate Bar Association II case the Supreme Court interpreted the restriction on adjournment has not curtailing the courts power to allow more than three adjournments. Some of the procedural causes for the delay are:

The judiciary is co-equal branch of the government. The role of the courts in the society is not merely to adjudicate the disputes between the parties but also to protect the rights and liberties of an individual. This is mainly important in criminal matters than civil matters. In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar[12] Justice Bhagwathi held that “right to speedy trial is a fundamental right which is implicit under Art. 21 of the constitution”. In Abdul Rahman Antulay Vs. R.S.Nayak,[13] Supreme court provides the guidelines for speedy trial. Right to speedy trial flowing from Art.21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how, this court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted review.[14]

The rule of law will vanish if there is no effective judicial system. Our criminal laws is based on the principle of presumption of innocent until proven guilty but in actual case when the case is in pending trial, it has an impact on the liberty of the accused person especially if they are put in prison pending trail, thus as discussed earlier speedy trial is most needed in for today’s set up. Pronouncement of the judgment is not an end point to provide complete justice. Even it extents to its implementation too. For example in T.V. Vaitheeswaran Vs state of Tamil Nadu,[15] the Supreme Court held that prolonged detention to await the execution of sentence of death is unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure and the only way to undo the wrong is to quash the sentence of death. If the delay exceeding two years in the execution of death sentence the person under sentence of death can invoke Article 21and demand the quashing of the order. The delay in criminal case is not only because of the judiciary, the police officials also got a role to play in it. Few causes for the delay in criminal cases are summed up here:

The criminal law is set in motion when the FIR is filed against a person. This is so but in some cases filing FIR itself is delayed due to various reason. Some due to influential persons due pressure and some due to hindrance on the part of the aggrieved persons to give a complaint and also the arrogant attitude of police and so on.

In case of cognizable offence the police officer gets the power on his own to investigate the case as per section 156 of Criminal Procedure Code and in non-cognizable case the police officials get the power to investigate the case by an order from the magistrate. In H. N. Rishbud state[16], a three judge bench states that investigation consists of

After investigation if he finds there is sufficient collection of evidence against the accused then such accused shall be forwarded to the magistrate as per section 170 of Criminal Procedure Code or else the accused shall be released under section 169 of Criminal Procedure Code it is concluded that the police officials as vital role in speedy disposal of cases. If the investigation is completed without the delay, justice is made without delay.

When the investigation is complete the police officer is required to submit a report under section 173 of CRPC to the magistrate known as charge sheet. If the filing of the report is delayed it automatically ends in delay of justice. In H.S. Bains Vs State[17] it was held that the Magistrate should apply his judicial mind to report and he is not bound by the conclusion drawn by the police, the judgement is made only after finishing the trial and the evidence recorded from the trial. He may differ with charge sheet or the final report.

Absence of some or all the accused or nonproduction of under trial prisoners at the time of framing of charges and during trial earnest efforts are not being made by the police in apprehending and producing the absconding accused. If the accused are residing outside the District or the state it compounds the problem further[18]

Advocate appearing for the accused seeking adjournments without adequate justification mainly to delay the trial or to win the witnesses by the accused. Even heavy work load in courts are also taken advantages by the advocates to press adjournment.

“In the matter of controlling the case diary and in fixing of cases for each day working the presiding judges discharges important duty but there is a practice by the judges to leave the matter of fixing dates to their reader or sheristadars”[19] hence the judges should not delegate power of fixing dates for hearing.

After the conclusion of argument the judgment is reserved for months together. This is like adding fuel to the fire to the sufferings of the litigants. This kind of practice is very bad on the part of the judiciary. A judge in Patna high court expressed his wrath in following words when a magistrate took nine months to pronounce a judgment. “The magistrate who cannot find time to write judgment within reasonable time after hearing arguments ought not to do any judicial work at all. This court strongly disapproves of the magistrate making such a tremendous delay in the delivery of judgment.”[20]

Sec 353(1) of Cr.PC clearly provides that the judgment in evry trial shall be pronounced in open court immediately after the completion of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties. The Supreme Court of India explained this subsequent time u/s 353(1) should be made without undue delay. The delay in pronouncement of judgment will affect the principle of rule of law.

Apart from these causes, the delay even includes taking of evidence in instalments, asking unnecessary questions to the accused or to the witness and making excessive cross examination and wasting the precious time of the courts, absence of summary trial wherever needed and fixing of too many cases for hearing on any single day when it is not possible.

Delayed justice is very much dreadful to the people and it affects more the poor as well as the financial position of our country is clogged together with the clog of land dispute cases with decade or more which hinders the development in business or industrial growth. Therefore our judicial system has become the organ to preserve the wealth of our country. The victims thinking of going to court for seeking justice goes a step backward because he knows that it will take years to prove the case and get the proper justice for a case. On the other side the criminals are taking more advantageous position and roaming freely without any guilt in case of due judgment. This creates a negative impact to the people at large and lose faith upon judiciary. As our Constitution provides an independent judiciary it can take essential steps independently to cut short the drawbacks. By which the judiciary can maintain the equilibrium in the scale of justice between delayed is justice denied and hurried justice is buried justice. To attain the balance in scales of justice, the following suggestions may be considered:

Though the structure of court as power house radiating wisdom, happiness and peace, dedicated service is the foundation on which the reputation of the court rests. This requires not much brilliance. Conscience to give best to litigant is sufficient. It can be achieved only through the cooperation of Advocate – judges and staffs.