Syllabus: GS I I – Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Judiciary
How does the culture of frequent adjournments contribute to judicial pendency in India? Discuss.
(15 marks, 250 words)
Introduction:
Judicial pendency in India, with over 4.4 crore cases pending across courts as of 2023, highlights systemic inefficiencies. The National Judicial Data Grid reveals that 70% of these cases are pending for more than a year, reflecting the dire need for reforms. The culture of frequent adjournments, a persistent issue, is a key contributor to this backlog, disproportionately affecting the marginalized.
Body:
1. Role of Adjournments in Judicial Pendency:
- Prolonged Case Timelines: Adjournments disrupt the continuity of proceedings, often stretching cases for years or even decades, leading to delayed justice.
- Financial and Emotional Burden: Litigants bear rising legal costs, lost productivity, and mental stress, eroding faith in the judicial system.
- Erosion of Accountability: Unrestricted adjournments enable a lackadaisical attitude among stakeholders, including advocates, litigants, and even courts.
Value Addition:
- Data Point: According to the 245th Law Commission Report, adjournments are one of the primary reasons for judicial delays.
- Case Example: In Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court emphasized that justice delayed is justice denied, particularly for the poor.
2. Other Factors Contributing to Judicial Pendency:
- Judicial Vacancies: Over 5,000 subordinate court positions remain vacant, adding pressure on the existing judiciary.
- Complex Legal Procedures: Time-consuming practices like repeated summons and inefficient service delivery hinder case progress.
- Limited Use of Technology: Despite initiatives like e-courts, technological penetration remains inadequate in rural and lower courts.
- Increasing Litigation: Rising population, commercial disputes, and PIL misuse contribute to case overload.
Value Addition:
- Fact: As per Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy (2022), subordinate courts handle 87% of India’s caseload, with each judge managing over 1,200 cases annually.
- Comparative Insight: In developed countries like the US, technological tools and case caps ensure efficient case management.
3. Measures to Address Judicial Pendency:
- Strict Guidelines on Adjournments: Enforcing Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to limit adjournments while ensuring genuine cases are accommodated.
- Filling Vacancies: Implementing the All-India Judicial Services for transparent and time-bound recruitment.
- Technology Integration: Expanding AI-based case sorting systems, digitization of records, and virtual hearings across all levels of courts.
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Promoting mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats to reduce the burden on courts.
- Fast-Track and Special Courts: Creating more dedicated benches for categories like commercial disputes, gender violence, and senior citizen matters.
Value Addition:
- Policy Insight: The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms emphasizes technological integration and judicial manpower expansion to reduce pendency.
- Example: The success of Lok Adalats in settling 50 lakh cases annually demonstrates the potential of ADR mechanisms.
Conclusion:
Frequent adjournments represent a microcosm of larger systemic inefficiencies within India’s judiciary. Addressing this culture, alongside structural reforms, is crucial to ensuring timely and equitable justice. As emphasized by President Droupadi Murmu, delays not only hurt litigants but also weaken the foundation of democracy. The focus must be on creating a responsive, accountable, and technology-driven judicial system that upholds public trust and delivers justice without delay.
Value Addition:
- Vision Document: Align reforms with the goals of Vision 2047, which emphasizes reducing pendency to uphold India’s status as a global rule-of-law leader.
