INDIAN COURTS AND PENDENCY OF CASES

In India, there are currently about 3 crore lawsuits pending in various courts. There are
numerous instances that have been pending for almost a decade. The approximate number of
cases that are now pending in India's district, subordinate, high, and supreme courts is listed
below. There are now about 60,000 cases before the Supreme Court. There are almost 42 lakh
cases that are pending in various High Courts. District and Subordinate Courts are now
handling about 2.7 crore cases.

THE CHALLENGE OF BACKLOG CASES IN INDIA

Naturally, the Indian judiciary has long struggled with this pendency issue. Even though the
high courts disposed of roughly 1.8 million cases year on average between 2015 and 2019,
they currently have 5.8 million pending cases. The issue keeps becoming worse because, for
the most part, fewer cases are disposed of each year than are instituted.

In actuality, this backlog results in many significant legal inquiries going unanswered. Many
cases pertaining to people' fundamental rights under constitutional law have been ongoing for
years or even decades. Delays in criminal proceedings cause significant problems because the
accused, many of whom are detained, frequently have to wait years for a verdict. In addition
to making economic activity challenging, pendency increases the cost of contract
enforcement. India was ranked 163rd out of 190 countries in the 2020 edition of the World
Bank's Ease of Doing Business rankings for contract enforcement.

Pendency is a common issue in India's specialized tribunals as well as the country's courts,
demonstrating the widespread nature of delays in the country's judicial system. Statutory
tribunals sprung up all over the place in the aftermath of the early 1990s economic
liberalization in India, but their effectiveness is still far from ideal. Consider the National
Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), a well-known tribunal tasked with addressing India's
financial issues. Scholars and legal professionals have frequently called attention to the
NCLT's shoddy infrastructure.

REASONS BEHIND INDIA'S CASE BACKLOG

 JUDICIAL OPENINGS AS WELL AS PRODUCTIVITY

 A number of experts have recommended that the Indian government appoint more
judges to the bench in order to address the issue of rising pendency in Indian courts.
Although this logic makes sense—after all, India has a very small number of judges
per person when compared to other developed nations—it's also critical to take the
judges' productivity into account.
 FINANCIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE JUDICIARY
Even though the majority of institutions call for increased input levels, it's just as
crucial to concentrate on input use. Consider the way the Indian judiciary is
financially managed. Scholars of law have long maintained that India's judiciary
receives insufficient funding. According to the India Justice Report 2019, the growth
rate of judicial expenditures was less than the growth rate of overall expenditures in
twenty-one of the twenty-seven states and two union territories that were included in
the study.
 CASES MANAGEMENT
Comparable issues with case management are evident. Making effective use of
judges' time and cognitive resources is the aim of case management. However, once
legal processes commence, a judge's time is frequently squandered owing to
inadequate preparation before to hearing a case. Numerous postponements and delays
are another consequence of scheduling issues. The Indian government has been
implementing numerous programs and schemes to computerize the court system's
operations since the early 1990s. Without really reconsidering how these internal
processes are designed, the majority of these attempts have only included inserting
computers into the court's already-existing procedures.

PROPOSAL FOR JUDICIAL REFORM

Successfully completing a variety of administrative tasks, such as those pertaining to
managing and maintaining the courts (such as case, facility, financial, and human resource
management), is essential to the operation of an effective, contemporary judiciary. To be
clear, adding judges is not a solution to the problem of judicial productivity; neither is
improved administration. Additionally, the adjudication procedure needs to be improved.
Nonetheless, resolving a few administrative issues would lessen the limitations that judges
must operate under.
 Taking Over Administrative Duties
The majority of the administrative duties performed by the judiciary are currently
handled by the separate registries of the courts. The possibility for professionalizing
these ranks and developing competence has been hampered by this arrangement.
Other nations have acknowledged the need for a distinct professional agency with
administrative experience, specialty, and up-to-date management techniques and
technologies to assist the administrative duties of courts and tribunals.
For example, in the UK, the majority of tribunals and the courts in England and Wales
are administered by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), which
offers an integrated system of support, including financial resources and
infrastructure. Although it functions as a business under the Ministry of Justice, the
House of Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor jointly own and run the
HMCTS.3. The two partners don't meddle in the agency's daily activities in any way,
direct or indirect.
The 2002 Court Administration Service Act created the Courts Administration
Service, an organization that exists in Canada as well. The Federal Court of Appeal,
the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, and the Tax Court of
Canada receive registry, judicial, and corporate services from this organization. The
organization's top administrator oversees the employees and serves as the chief
executive officer.
Prominent figures in the Indian judiciary have also recognized the significance of
setting up a professional organization to assist tribunals' administrative operations.
Since the 1990s, the Supreme Court has suggested similar changes in a number of
cases. The Supreme Court proposed the creation of "authority charged with
supervising and fulfilling [the] administrative requirements [of tribunals]" in “L.
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India in 1997.”
Committees and advisors inside the Indian government have also made the occasional
suggestion to create a dedicated organization to oversee the administrative duties of
the judiciary. To support the administrative duties of the planned tribunal, the Task
Force on Financial Sector Appellate Tribunal of the Ministry of Finance advised in
2015 that an organization with expertise in court administration be established. A
proposal to establish “... a specialized service called [the] Indian Courts and Tribunal
Services... that focuses on the administrative aspects of the legal system” was
included in the ministry's annual economic review for 2019. This specialist service
was intended to play three main roles: reengineering some inefficient procedures,
detecting process-related inefficiencies and advising the judiciary on legal reforms,
and providing administrative support tasks required by the judiciary.
Further the government must establish the “All India Judicial Service” and treble the
number of judges. The current 21,000 judicial vacancies should be quickly increased
to at least 50,000. As soon as possible, resolve the NJAC dispute and begin selecting
justices for the Supreme Court and other courts. More additional courts: Gram
Nyayalayas, Lok Adalats, and Fast Track Courts should be established.