Date: 01/12/2022

Relevance: GS-2: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary; Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.

Key Phrases: public interest litigation, judge-to-population ratio, the clogged state of the Indian judiciary.

Context:

• Recently, the Supreme Court said that increasing the number of judges will not demolish the perennial problem of pendency.
• The court also noted that it is already difficult finding good lawyers to accept the call to the Bench in High Courts.

Background

• Recently a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Supreme Court regarding increasing the strength of judges in district courts as well as higher judiciary.
• The petitioner said that the judge-population ratio in developed countries was 50 for every million. Also, there were at least 10 crore cases pending in the district judiciary alone.
• The court said that a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking to double the number of judges in the High Courts and the district judiciary was a rather “simplistic” solution to arrears.
• The Court observed that the judiciary was overburdened because of the system that is already in place. If it stops taking new cases, it will be able to clear the arrears.
• In its oral observation, the CJI said that the American Supreme Court does not hear lawyers on whether you should admit a case for hearing and the UK Supreme Court decides which 180 cases they have to hear.

Public Interest Litigation

• The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation (SAL).
• PIL refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati.
• It is a relaxation of the traditional rule of locus standi.
• Before the 1980s, the judiciary and the Supreme Court of India entertained litigation only from parties affected directly or indirectly by the defendant. It heard and decided cases only under its original and appellate jurisdictions.
• However, the Supreme Court began permitting cases on the grounds of public interest litigation, which means that even people who are not directly involved in the case may bring matters of public interest to the court.
• It is the court's privilege to entertain the application for the PIL.
• The concept of PIL is suited to the principles enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution of India to protect and deliver prompt social justice with the help of law.

The clogged state of the Indian judiciary

• The judicial system in India is under tremendous pressure. 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. At present, India has a sanctioned strength of 25,628 judges.
• Inadequate infrastructure has resulted in overburdened courts, which in turn has led to a massive backlog of cases.
• The chronic problem of shortage of judges was brought into focus by former CJI N. V. Ramana’s recent remarks on pendency and vacancies in the judiciary.
• He underlined the need to improve the judge-to-population ratio to reduce the workload of judges who he said are already disposing of an unimaginable number of cases.

What is driving the delay?

• The shortage of judges and the impact of the pandemic are considered the top reasons for high pendency of cases, adding to the burden on the judiciary.
• The sanctioned strength of judicial officers in subordinate and High Courts saw a gradual increase with the population explosion in India.
• However, vacancies increased from 18% to 21% across courts between 2010 and 2020, an analysis by PRS Legislative Research reveals.
• By April 2021, the SC had five vacancies, while 411 of 1,080 positions (38%) were vacant in High Courts.
• The 25 High Courts in India have a sanctioned strength of 1,104 judges. But the Department of Justice data shows that there are 387 vacancies with a working strength of 717, as of April 2022.
• This implies that India currently has only 717 HC judges to clear a backlog of 59 lakh cases, which roughly translates to one judge for 8,200 cases.

Way Forward

• Access to justice is possible only when we provide a sufficient number of courts as well as infrastructure.
• Unless the foundation is strong, the structure cannot be sustained.
• The need of the hour is an urgent resolution of the issue of unfilled vacancies in the judicial system.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Question:

Q. Courts are sitting on a pendency bomb and it has never been more urgent to strengthen the subordinate judiciary. Analyze the statement by citing relevant data. [250 Words]