Jharkhand’s new high court complex boasts of being the largest in the country, yet the judiciary continues to remain understaffed and misrepresented, and case pendency continues to mount. Will a larger court lead to a bigger effort to solve these chronic problems?
—
THE largest expanse reserved for a high court in the country is not in the nation’s biggest states— Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu. The largest high court in the country, by area, is now reserved for one of the country’s smallest states: Jharkhand.
The recent renovation of the Jharkhand High Court— now occupying 75 acres in buildings and 165 acres in land in a new claim to fame is yet another reminder of India’s obsession with infrastructure spending over substantial, structural change.
Much has been written about the optics of spending on high-speed trains without fixing the tracks, spending on bulldozing slums over rehabilitation and making cities ‘smart’ instead of sustainable.
But in a country burdened by some of the worst delays in delivering justice, diverting court resources to physical beautification— in Jharkhand’s case, roughly ₹550 crore outlay— is a dangerous façade. To deliver substantive justice in states such as Jharkhand, the judiciary would need real structural changes, not just in its physical architecture.
While the new architecture managed to overcome obstacles of bureaucracy, case pendency has yet to see the same fate.
While the new architecture managed to overcome obstacles of bureaucracy, case pendency has yet to see the same fate. A total of 84,892 cases were pending in the high court as of late September 2023.
Of these, 15.92 percent (13,516 cases) have remained pending for more than 10 years, 1.6 percent (1,361 cases) have remained in abeyance for more than 20 years and 0.03 percent (32 cases) have calcified over more than 30 years.
Part of the reason is empty seats on the Bench— with a sanctioned capacity of 25 judges, the Jharkhand High Court is functioning with only 19 justices. While the judges work extra hours to reduce the pendency of cases, it is humanly impossible for a few judges to adjudicate more than eighty thousand cases.
As far back as 1987, the Law Commission of India had recommended 50 judges per million people. The India Justice Report, 2022 shows that Jharkhand has merely 15 judges per million in district judiciary and 0.5 high court judges per million.
Also read: How can India have a more diverse and representative judiciary?
The corresponding national figures are 14 judges per million and 0.6 judges per million respectively.
Vacancies do not hamstring only the Bench, but the corridors as well. As of 2021–22, almost 17 percent of high court staff positions remain empty as per the India Justice Report, 2022.
A regular bail application in Jharkhand takes anywhere between two to four weeks to be listed, if not mentioned for an urgent hearing. At the Delhi High Court, cases get listed the next day if all conditions are met.
Now that Jharkhand has a more elegant infrastructure, there is a reasonable expectation that the same speed can be achieved in the state.
To understand the stakes, Jharkhand’s tribal population has faced some of the worst forms of human rights violations. The state deals with brutal occurrences of fake encounters custodial deaths and land displacement. Its tribal population also face invisibilised discrimination— far more hidden than the discrimination faced by almost any other demographic in India. The new state seems to be focused more on its appearance than its substance.
A regular bail application in Jharkhand takes anywhere between two to four weeks to be listed, if not mentioned for an urgent hearing. At the Delhi High Court, cases get listed the next day if all conditions are met.
For a vast majority of these cases, justice is served or missed most in its district courts. A study undertaken by the former Chief Justice of India, Justice N.V. Ramanna in 2021, showed that Goa, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Mizoram had the lowest percentage of court complexes with functional washrooms.
If the future will tend towards a hybrid-hearing mode, the district judiciary needs to be adequately equipped with digital infrastructure to not be left behind. In India, the budget for the district judiciary is shared by the Centre and state.
In fact, a recent report shows that Jharkhand is underutilising its funds for district courts.
An impressive wall sculpture of famous tribal leader Birsa Munda looms heavy with symbolism at the court’s foray. But the actual representation of tribal communities in the higher echelons of the court remains abysmal.
I have previously highlighted that since the state’s formation in 2000, only two judges from the Adivasi community have presided as high court judges in the State, while Scheduled Tribes (ST) form 26.21 percent of the state population.
Currently, only one woman and only one Schedule Tribe member occupy a seat on the Bench among the 19 judges of the Jharkhand High Court. The problem is national. In the last five years, only 11 percent of high court judges have been from Other Backward Classes (OBC) and 2.6 percent have been from minority religions or tribal backgrounds.
Of 604 high court judges appointed since 2018 till July 17, 2023, 458 judges belong to the ‘general’ category, 18 judges belong to the Scheduled Caste category, nine belong to the ST category, 72 judges belong to the OBC category, and 34 judges belong to the minority religion category.
In terms of gender representation, Jharkhand’s district judiciary numbers, compared to even other eastern states, remain equally disappointing.
The India Justice Report, 2022 highlights that women form only 23 percent of the district judiciary in the state. Neighbouring states such as Chhattisgarh (41.7 percent), Odisha (44.4 percent), Uttar Pradesh (31.7 percent) and Bihar (24.2 percent) fare better than Jharkhand.
Currently, only one woman and only one Schedule Tribe member occupy a seat on the Bench among the 19 judges of the Jharkhand High Court.
Architectural changes may have been made, but citizens await actual ‘structural’ changes in their court.
The building might be high and mighty but it should be accessible for the most underprivileged.
The Jharkhand High Court has shifted further away from the city centre, but it must strive to shift closer to the public.
It should represent the diversity, accessibility and faith of the common man, without which the present ‘structural’ changes are meaningless.
The change should be visible not only in the building materials but in all of the foundational aspects that make up the justice system.
