There is a lot of discussion in the courts of the country about resolving the pending cases of crores of cases, but this does not lead to anything. There is no significant difference in the number of pending cases as the speed of their disposal is very slow. One of the main reasons for this is the stalemate over the date of judgment. But there is no denying that the law provides for time to deal with cases involving serious crimes such as sexual violence or rape of women and adolescent girls.
There is a need to set strict time limits for the hearing of cases and to formulate a concrete policy on postponing hearings from the lower echelons of the judiciary to the Supreme Court.
In the Supreme Court last week, Justice Dhananjay Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah’s bench refused to adjourn the case on the ground that the lawyers arguing in one case were engaged in another.
The court asked the lawyers who made such a request to argue themselves but that did not happen and the bench dismissed the appeal.
The bench sternly said, “We are swearing to carry out our duty by deciding disputes and should not be postponed. Judges have to read all case files by midnight for another day. The case cannot be adjourned in this way. But it often appears that one of the parties’ counsel requests that the hearing be adjourned. As a result, the case is not heard and remains pending.
By the way, the role of the court registry in postponing the hearing of cases is also not less. It often happens that in this case, despite the order of the judge to serve a notice, the notice is received from the parties concerned a few days before the hearing of the case. This is because, despite the advancement of technology, the registry did not immediately send court notices to the parties concerned. The tendency to send last-minute notices within a few days of a court order needs to be curbed.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly objected and resented the reasons given by advocates for postponing the hearing of cases. Most of them say that the arguing lawyer is not available, or some are engaged in urgent work. In many cases, the court accepts a request to adjourn the hearing or allow the case to be resumed because of the absence of a lawyer, but this does not happen in every case.
In one such case, the court, in its order dated February 7, 2019, also stated that there could be no reason to adjourn the hearing as the lawyer was out of town. The government recently provided interesting information to the Rajya Sabha about pending cases in subordinate courts and judges in a population of one million. The situation is that even today about three crores 94 lakh cases are pending in the subordinate courts. Currently, more than one lakh cases are pending in the lower courts for more than thirty years. Of these, 37,423 are civil cases while the remaining 64,578 are criminal cases.
There are no judges in the courts in proportion to the population and about 25 percent of the posts of judges and judicial officers are vacant as compared to the sanctioned posts. The sanctioned number of judges in the courts was 19,518 in 2014, which increases to 24,225 in 2020. But given the increasing speed of the number of pending cases, this cannot be considered sufficient.
In addition, the tendency to postpone hearings on one basis or another also contributes significantly to not reducing the number of pending cases. This tendency can be curbed by the rigidity of the judiciary.
The reality is that the number of judges per million population in the country was 21.03 in 2020, while in 2018 it increased to 19.78 judges per million people and in 2019 it was 20.39. But is this ratio reasonable and practical?
If there are 21.03 judges for every one million population, then the cases should be disposed of expeditiously. If the judge tries to expedite the disposal of the case in all seriousness, the case is postponed on one basis or another and the date-to-date series begins to play its role.
To determine the judge-population ratio for every million people, officials base the 2011 census, but that figure is nowhere to be seen on the ground. In addition to increasing the number of judges in the subordinate courts in proportion to the population, the central and state governments will have to ensure that the date-to-date cycle of hearing cases is stopped.
(Views are personal)
Vikas Parashram Meshram is a social development professional.
