Arrears in courts

By Alladi Kuppuswami

IN A recent official release, it has been stated 21,567 cases are pending in the Supreme Court, out of which 8,472 cases are more than two years old and 645 cases, more than 10 years old. In the High Courts, the number is 32.04 lakhs, out of which about 18 lakhs have been pending for over two years and about five lakhs for over 10 years. The figure for sub-courts is 2.01 crore cases, out of which 8.19 lakhs are more than 10 years old.

During all these years many committees were constituted to go into the arrears and they made several suggestions. The saying ``Justice delayed is Justice denied'' has been repeated ad nauseum by politicians, administrators and judges but nothing effective has been done to clear the backlog. Many tribunals and forums have been constituted to relieve ordinary courts of their burden: administrative tribunals at the Centre and in the States, the income-tax appellate tribunal, sales tax appellate tribunals, consumer forums at the State and district levels, family courts, special courts to deal with atrocities on SCs and STs and many other special courts. However, these have not only failed to ease the case load in ordinary courts but have themselves accumulated arrears. For instance, the consumer forum is expected to dispose of cases within three months but there are cases pending for several years.

The enormous delay in the disposal of cases at all levels has led to a distrust of courts among the litigant public. If people lose faith in the administration of justice, what will ensue but lawlessness and anarchy?

One of the main reasons for arrears in the Supreme Court are lengthy arguments. There should be a time-limit for arguments. In the U.S. Supreme Court, the time given to advocates on either side in a majority of cases is half-hour. Quite recently in the dispute over the election of the presidential candidates, Mr. George W. Bush and Mr. Al Gore, the court fixed 90 minutes. The judges are so strict that some times when the advocate argues beyond the time limit, they get up from the bench. This system can be adopted only if the advocates on either side are asked to file detailed briefs.

The judges should, as in the U.S. Supreme Court, be given the help of ``law clerks'', young advocates who go through briefs, look up the cases cited and provide the judges with all materials of both law and fact. The judges then come prepared, listen to the arguments of the advocates and put questions. It is ununderstandable why our Supreme Court has not adopted this system.

Often adjournments are sought by senior advocates on the plea that they are busy in other courts. This should be rejected as advocates have no business to accept too many briefs to which they cannot do justice.

Under Article 128 of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of India, with previous consent of the President, may request any person, who was a judge of the Supreme Court or a judge of the High Court qualified to be appointed to the Supreme Court, to act as a judge of the Supreme Court to dispose of arrears. This provision should be used frequently. When he found that there was not much work in the House of Lords but there was considerable backlog in the court of appeals, Lord Denning decided to serve as a judge in that court. I wonder whether the judges of our Supreme Court will serve as judges of the High Court to dispose of arrears even if the Constitution were to permit them to do so. Anyhow, retired judges of the Supreme Court would be ready to do so.

Next, the arrears in High Courts. There is a similar provision, Article 224-A, by which a retired judge of any High Court is requested to sit as a judge to help in disposing of arrears. Unfortunately this Article has been made use of only on very few occasions. When even the vacancies of regular judges are not being filled up expeditiously, how can one except the appointment of ad hoc judges under Article 224-A?

In the High Courts also, a time-limit should be prescribed for arguments along with the system of law clerks. Further, adjournments should not be granted for the reason that the advocate is engaged in another court.

A large part of the time in the Supreme Court and the High Courts is taken up in dealing with public interest litigation. While it is true that PIL has been a great benefit, there are also a number of cases filed which do not deserve to come under that category. Unfortunately, as this class of litigation attracts media attention, judges are inclined to play to the gallery and deal with PIL petitions in preference to ordinary cases. Consequently, the cases of the ordinary litigants remain undisposed of.

Often there is a clamour for judicial inquiry because people have lost faith in the police and they fear that a police probe will not be impartial. Those who demand a judicial inquiry ask for a probe by a sitting judge of the High Court or the Supreme Court. When judges are not able to deal with ordinary cases before them and arrears keep mounting, it will be meaningless to ask that sitting judges be deputed for judicial inquiry. Why not such judicial inquiries or commissions be entrusted to retired judges who are available in plenty?

The arrears, running to crores of cases, in subordinate courts are mindboggling. We must be ashamed that there are as many as 8.19 lakh cases pending for over 10 years. The recent amendment to the Civil Procedure code has suggested several amendments to help in reducing delays. Many of the provisions are wholesome but the advocates raised unreasonable objections when the CPC Amendment Bill was sought to be introduced, and the Government, for fear of alienating them, withheld the enactment.

One of the main reasons for the delay in the disposal of cases is that persons of ability are not being appointed judges of the subordinate courts. In a recent case (A.C. Thlawal vs. the High Court of Himachal Pradesh), it was held that in the appointment of judges of subordinate courts consultation with the High Court, contemplated under Article 234, was not a mere formality. It had to be meaningful and effective. Declaring that the consultation was mandatory, the court observed that judicial services had to be independent of executive influence. The expertise which the High Court possesses in judicial services deserves a place of primacy in the process of consultation. It is hoped that the judgment of the Supreme Court will pave the way for providing qualitative services and also for maintaining the independence of the judiciary as envisaged by the framers of the Constitution.

Some times, in an attempt to induce judges in lower courts to deal with cases quickly, there is a tendency on the part of High Court judges to insist on their completing a particular quota of cases every month. This unfortunately encourages them to statistically prove that they have disposed of the required number of cases. Courts are expected to decide after a proper hearing and not to dispose of cases. While justice delayed is no doubt justice denied, justice hurried is justice buried.

It is time we stopped talking about justice delayed being justice denied and did something tangible to make the courts decide speedily without sacrificing justice on the altar of speed.

(The writer is a retired Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Policy changes and productivity
Next     : Lack of objectivity