AFTER ENDURING 48 YEARS OF ENTANGLED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS, Lakhan Pasi, accused of murder, finally walked out of jail on May 20. As an undertrial, he spent more than 8 years behind bars before his conviction was overturned by Allahabad High Court. The High Court found that the lower court had erred in finding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench comprising Justices Vivek Kumar Birla and Nand Prabha Shukla found that the prosecution had failed to clearly establish the genesis and sequences of events, casting a doubt on their case and entitling Lakhan Pasi to the benefit of doubt.
Lakhan’s story is deeply tragic. His wife died fighting the legal battle for his release. She had to sell their land to pay legal fees. Meanwhile, Lakhan’s five daughters and only son grew up witnessing their parents’ unending legal ordeal. Now, Lakhan Pasi, after decades of hardship, is free only to spend the remaining days bedridden by old age.
Lakhan’s court case was fairly complicated, involving four individuals accused of murder and multiple serious injuries, all set against the backdrop of a longstanding family feud. However, by no means did Lakhan deserve the systemic injustice that was meted out to him. It speaks volumes about our judicial system and its failings.
Unfortunately, Lakhan’s case is not an isolated incident. Over 32 lakh criminal cases between ten and twenty years old are pending in India’s subordinate courts. Similarly, nearly 5 lakh cases have been pending for 20 to 30 years, while approximately 53,000 cases are over 30 years old - over 4 lakh undertrials, countless victims and witnesses waiting for their turn in the due process. These staggering figures do not account for criminal cases pending before the High Courts and Supreme Court, or the backlog of civil cases at all levels of the judicial hierarchy.
Over 32 lakh criminal cases between ten and twenty years old are pending in India’s subordinate courts.
Our courts and legal processes have been failing at multiple stages and for various reasons. Consider this: once an FIR is filed, neither the accused nor the victim has control over the next course of legal and judicial actions. Instead, it is the police, prosecution and defence lawyer who set the law and court process in motion. Simply put, our cases – civil or criminal – have several moving parts. Judicial proceedings are inherently complex and involve multiple actors and variables. Without a robust framework and implementation mechanism, the inherent complexity of judicial proceedings makes it impossible for any one actor to dictate the pace or timeline of case processing.
This is true even for our judges. Despite the complexity of judicial proceedings, there is no designated court official who is entrusted to actively oversee the progress of the cases, from filing to disposal.
Our legal framework and court practices presuppose that the judge is in charge of a case; as a manager of the court, he is responsible for the timely disposal of cases. However, this presupposition is fundamentally flawed for two main reasons. First, a judge cannot effectively marshal all the stakeholders in the judicial process. Why, you may ask? This is because marshalling of key stakeholders is mostly an informal process. The judge has to coordinate not only with advocates and the police, but she has to engage with parties and witnesses to commit them to a timeline.
This informal coordinative role, expected to be effectively assumed by our subordinate judges, is fundamentally inconsistent with their role as judges.
While the judges can wield a degree of influence on the advocates, prosecution and police, there is a danger that their direct engagement with parties and witnesses would be viewed with suspicion. As a neutral arbiter, to maintain the perception of impartiality, judges cannot, either in the courtroom or otherwise, engage with litigants and try to nudge them through the process of law. Such proactive interventions would not be taken kindly by some advocates.
Even the High Courts view proactive interventions of subordinate court judges with suspicion, especially when disgruntled advocates or parties concoct judicial misconduct complaints around judges’ case management interventions, alleging bias or corruption. Even on the judicial side, such proactive intervention lends the parties an easy ground to appeal.
Secondly—and most importantly—the key reason our subordinate court judges are not proactively marshalling the stakeholders is that doing so would increase their already overwhelming workload to an unmanageable level, ultimately affecting their efficiency and output. Subordinate court judges are overwhelmed not only by the sheer volume of cases on the judicial side but also by extensive administrative responsibilities.
As managers of courts, they are ultimately responsible for all that happens in their back offices, from maintaining court infrastructure to uploading data to the National Judicial Data Grid. This responsibility is also sacrificial. Meaning, judges who are otherwise ‘very good’ in case disposal may still be rated as ‘poor’ in handling their administrative duties, which will adversely affect their career progression.
Consequently, most of our subordinate court judges prioritise cases where all stakeholders are sufficiently interested in pursuing the matters. Unfortunately, this means that millions of cases are left behind, not necessarily due to any fault of the judges, but because it is nearly impossible for them to nudge uninterested stakeholders while also achieving monthly targets.
What should we do to address this systemic issue?
We urgently need case administrators to support our subordinate court judges. Subordinate court judges spend over a quarter of their daily court time on morning “roll calls” or “hajari” to organise their judicial work for the rest of the day. No matter what procedural law, or the Supreme Court rulings require, the courtroom dynamics make it impossible for subordinate court judges to enforce timeliness without antagonising the Bar, especially in cases that are not actively pursued by litigants. Given these constraints, case flow management and backlog reduction cannot be the sole responsibility of subordinate court judges. Case administrators should be appointed to do this job. Case administrators would be responsible for processing cases as they enter the system. Case administrators should be empowered to set and enforce deadlines and ensure all stakeholders remain engaged, using both informal and formal
interventions as needed. Empowering case administrators in this way would allow judges to focus on their core judicial duties.
What are the expected duties and responsibilities of case administrators?
The proposal for case administrators is not a novel one. Many countries—including Canada, South Africa, the UK and the USA—employ professionals in similar roles, though they may be known by different titles such as court administrators, court managers, case administrators, docket managers, docket specialists, or clerk of the court. These professionals assume varying case and court management responsibilities and come from diverse educational and professional backgrounds.
No matter what procedural law, or the Supreme Court rulings require, the courtroom dynamics make it impossible for subordinate court judges to enforce timeliness without antagonising the Bar, especially in cases that are not actively pursued by litigants.
Given the role, responsibilities and challenges facing the subordinate court judges in India, the case administrators must assist them, among others, in the following key areas of case and court management:
• Listing, scheduling and prioritising pending cases
• Coordinating with advocates, police, parties and witnesses
• Tracking case progress and maintaining case records
• Facilitating remote/virtual hearing
• Organising equipment, materials, and facilities needed for conducting judicial proceedings
• Managing judge-specific data on pendency, disposal and caseload
• Comply with the arrears committee recommendations and action plans, and liaise with the District Case Management Committee and State Court Management System Committee
• Coordinate with alternative dispute resolution forums for the speedy processing and settlement of cases
• Work on the unready cases concerning the judges’ portfolio
• Assisting the judge with technology such as case management software, e-filing systems, and digital record-keeping.
By handling the above-noted responsibilities, professional case administrators can greatly lessen the administrative load on subordinate court judges and enhance their efficiency, as evidenced by the experiences of other nations where positions such as case administrators have been institutionalised.
How would case administrators make a difference?
An effective case flow management is central to judicial efficiency. The progress of the case cannot be left to the parties and their advocates. Similarly, we cannot simply focus on reducing backlog by improving case clearance rates. Even the most complex cases of the least resourceful litigants must be decided in a reasonable timeframe so that thousands of undertrials, like Lakhan Pasi, would not languish in jail. As noted earlier, there are reasons why judges are reluctant to impose deadlines and timelines on advocates and parties. However, there is a need to find a way out of this problem. The case administrators can be that solution.
The case administrators would allow subordinate court judges to spend most of their court time hearing the cases, not managing people, papers and their courts. They would reorient litigants on how they see courts function. The perception of taareek pe taareek should give a way to time-bound justice delivery that does not tolerate dilatory tactics. Frequent reminders would help ensure that advocates, prosecutors and police feel nudged and they do not take the courts for a ride, exploiting judges’ overwhelming docket, or their typical non interventionist attitude for granted. By effectively integrating case administrators into the judicial system, a cultural shift can be fostered, making proactive, time-bound interventions a standard practice.
Neither frequent arrear committee meetings nor repeated the Supreme Court’s rulings emphasising the importance of case flow management will have a notable impact unless a clear responsibility for implementing action plans for arrears reduction is assigned to an officer at every court. These committees and action plans only increase the pressure on subordinate court judges without offering the crucial support they desperately need to ensure that all stakeholders adhere to established timelines. While judicial proceedings are inherently collaborative, there must exist a central figure, a linchpin, who ensures that all stakeholders do their part of the job diligently.
Without a dedicated case administrator at the heart of case processing, any stakeholder can conveniently overlook case flow norms, simply pointing fingers at another stakeholder for the backlog and delays. Judges would blame advocates, advocates would point fingers at their clients, and clients, in turn, would blame advocates for unnecessary delay, creating a never ending cycle of blame-shifting. This culture of externalising the blame has undermined the efficiency and integrity of the judicial process.
However, a case administrator would, to a great extent, abate this accountability avoidance. It would be very difficult for any one stakeholder to blame the rest when the case records, formal and informal conversations maintained by a case administrator, clearly point out where delays or lapses occur. Therefore, a case administrator with sole responsibility for case processing would enhance accountability across the judicial systems, ensuring that every stakeholder has responsibility in the timely delivery of justice.
Why can’t court managers help subordinate judges with case flow management?
For several reasons, the court managers cannot be the helping hand that the subordinate court judges need. Although court managers are responsible for a broad range of administrative tasks—such as resource management and protocol arrangements—they are not involved in the day-to-day processing of cases. In certain High Courts, such as the Gauhati High Court, court managers have the responsibility to ensure that case management systems are compliant with the high court’s policies and standards. This again does not involve court managers working under a judge to manage his/her docket. Therefore, court managers are not tasked to engage with other stakeholders to speed up the case flow.
In states that have regularised the service of court managers, their numbers remain insufficient to make a notable impact, much less to provide dedicated support to every subordinate court judge. The Supreme Court has recently ordered the regularisation of court managers and directed the High Courts to establish rules clarifying their roles and conditions of service. However, notable improvements in judicial efficiency will only be possible if state governments appoint an adequate number of court managers and High Courts create an environment that enables them to perform optimally. Notably, even under the Gauhati High Court’s Rules on Court Managers, which are regarded as one of the most comprehensive frameworks in the country, court managers are not assigned case flow management responsibilities, alongside trial court judges. As a result, their capacity to assist subordinate judges with case flow management remains very limited.
Court managers are mostly seen as an appendage to the principal district judge and the high court registry to improve overall court management. Consequently, they report to principal judges and the Registrar General of the High Courts. Additionally, as most court managers are MBA graduates, they often lack a practical understanding of court procedures. As a result, even if the court managers are assigned the responsibilities of case administrators in future, it is difficult to see how they can effectively assist subordinate court judges in managing their dockets, courtrooms, or coordinating interactions with other stakeholders involved in judicial proceedings.
To avoid repeating mistakes made in integrating court managers in judicial administration, High Courts should clearly define the role and modus operandi of case administrators. The case administrators’ responsibilities should be specific, outcome-driven. Each subordinate court judge should be assigned a dedicated case administrator. A case administrator should not be expected to serve more than one judge, except in situations where the workload is sufficiently light to allow for optimal support of two judges. While case administrators should operate under the supervision and mentorship of the subordinate court judge, they must also be granted a degree of autonomy to ensure efficient functioning with minimal intervention from the judge.
While most responsibilities to be assigned to case administrators would be primarily administrative in nature, they are central to effective judicial administration. These duties must be performed with the highest standards of integrity, competence and diligence. Case administrators' engagement with other stakeholders should not cast doubts on the impartiality of the judicial process. Therefore, a comprehensive code of conduct, supported by a robust enforcement mechanism, is indispensable.
The appointment of case administrators supporting each subordinate court judge will have significant financial and infrastructural implications for the states. Therefore, the implementation should proceed in a phased manner, with each stage followed by a thorough review of policy and practice. A policy decision of this magnitude cannot be designed solely by the High Courts or the state governments. Instead, they should collaborate to avoid repeating past mistakes, such as those encountered with the introduction of court managers.
For several reasons, the court managers cannot be the helping hand that the subordinate court judges need.
Even the existing court staff cannot take on the role of case administrators, although their work profile somewhat meets the job description of the proposed case administrators. The existing court staff is deeply embedded in the current modus operandi and court dynamics, and, crucially, their roles do not involve the public-facing or stakeholder-coordination functions that case administrators must perform. Facilitation of effective coordination is a specialised skill that requires prior professional orientation and a degree of functional autonomy. Moreover, subordinate courts are already facing a significant staff shortage, making it impractical – and ultimately counterproductive – to assign case administrator duties to existing court personnel, even if some are well-suited for the job.
Lessons from the Court Manager reform
The introduction of the court manager was a sound policy decision, but its implementation has left much to be desired. While the central government’s discontinuance of funds dealt a severe blow to the initiative, the state governments and High Courts must also share responsibility for failing to formulate a comprehensive framework outlining the roles, responsibilities and modus operandi of court managers.
Multiple studies have reported that many court managers were unsure of their duties and reporting structure. Furthermore, they faced resistance from the principal district judges and senior court officials at the High Court – temporary appointments of court managers further exacerbated this.
Many judges and the court bureaucracy had conflicting views on the responsibilities and status of court managers in the administrative hierarchy of courts. According to one of the retired subordinate court judges whom I consulted on the topic, there is often conflict between court managers and the principal district court's Chief Administrative Officer (‘CAO’). Since Principal District Judges defer to the CAO's recommendation on staff management, transfers, and promotions, the CAO usually has more sway.
Court managers, on the other hand, have minimal or no say in these administrative decisions. Additionally, some High Courts placed unrealistic expectations on the court's managers, expecting them to be a human resource manager and protocol officer at the same time. The court managers cannot be a panacea for all administrative challenges facing the courts.
Meaningful change will only come when we acknowledge the deep-rooted flaws and commit to genuine reform, offering hope and justice to the countless individuals affected by delays in our legal system.
In most countries, the case administrators are not required to be law graduates. However, in India’s context, that would not work well. The legal and procedural landscape and trial court dynamics make legal training and practice experience necessary for the role. Case administrators should be law graduates with a minimum of three years’ practice experience. The professional qualification is also essential as the job demands soft skills that could be leveraged in a high-stakes job environment, such as courts. Furthermore, like judicial appointees, we cannot expect these case administrators to receive extensive induction training at the judicial academies.
Most of the judicial academies are already working beyond their capacities. Unless each High Court establishes a dedicated court staff training academy, professional qualification becomes critical. Moreover, we cannot afford to overburden subordinate court judges with another court staff that needs extensive mentorship and handholding.
Lakhan Pasi’s tragic case starkly illustrates the harsh realities of judicial administration in India. Meaningful change will only come when we acknowledge the deep-rooted flaws and commit to genuine reform, offering hope and justice to the countless individuals affected by delays in our legal system. State governments and High Courts should consider various ways to support our subordinate court judges with the resources and mechanisms necessary to mitigate the persistent problem of delay and backlog.
Relying solely on administrative directives and top-down case flow management plans only keeps subordinate court judges under constant strain. It is crucial to have dedicated professionals who can translate these action plans into reality. Therefore, it is time to look beyond court managers and introduce case administrators to provide much-needed support to our subordinate court judges.