High Courts need 361 additional judges; SC needs to increase its sanctioned strength by 6 to clear the backlog of cases , says Economic Survey 2018-2019

Published on:

04 Jul 2019, 3:32 pm

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]HE Economic Survey 2018-19 tabled in the Parliament today has thrown up several suggestions to make Indian courts more productive. From increasing the number of working days, to the deployment of technology, to suggesting the establishment of an Indian Courts and Tribunal Services (ICTS) to focus on the administrative aspects of the legal system – all of them have found mention in the Economic Survey (the Survey).

8,152 judges need at District level to clear backlog of cases

According to the Survey, there are currently 17,891 judges compared to the sanctioned strength of 22,750. On an average, a judge disposes of 746 cases. In order to reach 100 per cent Case Clearance Rate (CCR) in 2018, the District and Sessions' courts needed 2,279 additional judges, which is within the sanctioned strength. However, in order to clear all the backlog in the next five years, a further 8,152 judges would be needed. This is no more than a rough calculation, but it shows that efficiency gains are also required.

As of June 2017, according to the Survey, High Court judges were working at 62 per cent of their sanctioned strength. With a case clearance rate of 88 per cent, each judge achieved an average disposal rate of 2,348 cases per year. The backlog of cases as on June, 2018 was 44.40 lakh. In order to reach 100 per cent CCR, they needed just 93 additional judges, the Survey says. This was already within the present sanctioned strength for High Courts.

SC and HCs need 6 and 361 more judges respectively

To clear all backlogs in the next five years, according to the Survey, the high courts need a further 361 additional judges. As of October 2018, Supreme Court judges were working at 90 per cent of their sanctioned strength. With a high case clearance rate of 98 per cent, each judge disposed of 1,415 cases per year on average. The backlog of cases as on October 2018 was 56,320. In order to reach 100 per cent CCR, the Supreme Court would have needed only one extra judge in 2018. To clear all backlog in the next five years, an additional eight judges are required, the Survey says.

In May 2019, three additional judges were appointed to the Supreme Court raising their number to the full sanctioned strength of 31. To clear their backlog, the Supreme Court needs to increase its sanctioned strength by six.

Increase number of working days

The Economic Survey notes that the Supreme Court's official calendar for 2019 suggests that it would close for 49 days for summer vacations, 14 days for winter break, and a further 18 days for Holi, Diwali and Dussehra. After accounting for weekends and public holidays, it leaves 190 working days for the Supreme Court. In contrast, the average is 232 working days for high courts and 244 days for subordinate courts. There is, according to the Economic Survey, a great deal of variation between states, and many courts make up for vacations by working on Saturdays.

For comparisons, the Economic Survey points out that the central governmentoffices will be open for 244 working daysin 2019. (note the above calculation does not include personal leave)

The Economic Survey has reached the finding that increasing the number of working days may improve productivity of the Supreme Court and in some High Courts but is unlikely to significantly impact lower courts. Subordinate courts, which account for the bulk of pendency, seem to work almost as many days as government offices.

Establishment of Indian Courts and Tribunal Services

Most judicial reforms, according to the Economic Survey, tend to focus only on the quality and quantity of judges, but a major problem lies with the quality of the administration of the courts system, particularly backend functions and processes.

As a recent report by the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy put it, "For effective functioning, courts require competent administration to ensure that processes are followed, documents are submitted and stored, facilities are maintained and human resources are managed. Court administration must support the judges in performing their core judicial function efficiently."

Also read:Former CIC writes to CJI Gogoi with suggestions on how to reduce judicial pendencies

In the current system, according to the Economic Survey, the main responsibility for administration in Indian courts is assigned to the chief judicial officer. In addition to significant demands on their time, this approach is not conducive to systemic reforms and gradual accumulation of institutional knowledge on administrative matters.

In this context, the Economic Survey proposes to create a specialized service called Indian Courts and Tribunal Services (ICTS) that focuses on the administrative aspects of the legal system. The major roles to be played by ICTS would be (i) provide administrative support functions needed by the judiciary (ii) identify process inefficiencies and advise the judiciary on legal reforms (iii) implement process re-engineering.

The ICTS, says the Economic Survey, is not a unique model. Similar, court management services exist in other countries: Her Majesty's Court and Tribunals Services (UK), Administrative Office of US Courts (US), Court Administration Service (Canada), the Survey says.

Deployment of Technology

Technology can significantly improve the efficiency of courts, the Survey points out. One major effort in this direction is the eCourts Mission Mode Project that is being rolled out in phases by the Ministry of Law and Justice. This has allowed the creation of the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). The system is already able to capture most cases, their status and progress.

"The digitalization of cases is now allowing stake-holders to keep track of individual cases and their evolving status. It is not possible yet to statistically measure the efficiency gains from this effort, but it is certainly a big step forward", says Economic Survey, while pointing out that there was significant productivity gains to be derived from better administration, increase in working days, and technology deployment (including likely future applications of Artificial Intelligence).

"It is difficult to predict the exact improvement, but the purpose of this analysis is to show that the required efficiency gains for clearing the backlog are ambitious but achievable if combined with speeding up appointments. Given the social and economic importance of this issue, it should be given top priority by policy-makers," the Survey says.

The Economic Survey has also highlighted the following:

Delays in contract enforcement and disposal resolution are arguably now the single biggest hurdle to the ease of doing business in India and higher GDP growth.
Around 87.5 per cent of pending cases are in the district and subordinate courts. Therefore, this segment must be the focus of reform.
The study found that 100 per cent clearance rate can be achieved by merely filling out the vacancies in the lower courts and in the high courts (even without the productivity gains)
Simulations of efficiency gains and additional judges needed to clear the backlog in five years suggest that the numbers are large but achievable.
The states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Odisha and West Bengal need special attention.

In spite of a number of actions to expedite and improve the contract enforcement regime, economic activity was being affected by "the long shadow of delays and pendency" across the legal landscape. Contract enforcement remains the single biggest constraint to improve our Ease of Doing Business (EODB) ranking, the Survey says, quoting Tulsi Ramayana "praan jayi par vachan na jayi" or "one's promise is worth more than one's life", as an example of how – ironically – India has long idealized contract enforcement.