Source: http://bareactslive.com/LCR/LC245.HTM
Timestamp: 2020-02-23 07:41:11
Document Index: 209213098

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3162', '§ 3161', '§ 3161', '§ 3164', 'art 3']

245. Arrears and Backing: Creating Additional Judicial (wo)manpower
Law Commission of India Report No. 245
Arrears and Backing: Creating Additional Judicial (wo)manpower
Forwarded to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India by Justice A.P. Shah Law Commission of India, on 7 July 2014
Mr. P.K. Malhotra, Secretary (Department of Legal Affairs and
Telephone : 23736758, Fax 23355741
D.O. No. 6(3)224/2012-LC(LS)
Please find attached Report No. 245 on Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (wo)manpower.
The focus of the report is to examine and suggest additional judicial (wo)manpower needed and its optimal utilization. The report is largely driven by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when in the matter of Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal Nos. 254-262 of 2012(Arising out of SLP (Cri.) Nos. 1581-1598/2009) it asked the Law Commission to undertake an inquiry and submit its recommendations in relation to creation of additional courts to help in eliminations of delays, speedy clearance of arrears and deductions in costs.
I hope the report would be of some use to the government in framing its policy with regard to judicial reforms.
The Commission deeply appreciates valuable inputs received from the Group it had constituted in finalising the report on "Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors (Criminal Appeal Nos. 254-262 of 2012)" to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the present report. The group that initially comprised : Prof. Theodore Eisenberg, Henry Allen Mark Professor of law, Adjunct Professor of Statistical Sciences at Cornell University; Prof. Sital Kalantry, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, International Human Rights Clinic, University of Chicago Law School; Prof. Sri Krishna Deva Rao, Registrar, National Law University, Delhi (as representative of NLU Delhi); and Mr. Nicholas Robinson, Fellow at Centre of Policy Research was expanded when Dr. Aparna Chandra and Mr. Utkarsh Saxena, Consultant to Law Commission of India joined it. Mr. Madhav Mallya and Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Research Associates, National Law University and Mr. Saral Minocha and Ms. Sonal Sarda, students of National Law University also helped in analysing and compiling the data. Enthusiasm and dedication apart from research inputs of Dr. Aparna Chandra deserves special mention.
Denial of 'timely justice' amounts to denial of 'justice' itself. Two are integral to each other. Timely disposal of cases is essential for maintaining the rule of law and providing access to justice which is a guaranteed fundamental right. However, as the present report indicates, the judicial system is unable to deliver timely justice because of huge backlog of cases for which the current judge strength is completely inadequate. Further, in addition to the already backlogged cases, the system is not being able to keep pace with the new cases being instituted, and is not being able to dispose of a comparable number of cases. The already severe problem of backlogs is, therefore, getting exacerbated by the day, leading to a dilution of the Constitutional guarantee of access to timely justice and erosion of the rule of law. The present report is aimed at addressing this scenario that demands a multi-prong approach including more sensitive and rational judicial (wo)manpower planning.
It may be acknowledged that the present report is largely driven by the Hon'ble Supreme Court when in the matter of See Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., AIR SC 2012 642 it directed the Commission to undertake an inquiry and submit its recommendations in relation to the following:
"I. Keeping in view that timely justice is an important facet to access to justice, the immediate measures that need to be taken by way of creation of additional Courts and other allied matters (including a rational and scientific definition of "arrears" and delay, of which continued notice needs to be taken), to help in elimination of delays, speedy clearance of arrears and reduction in costs. It is trite to add that the qualitative component of justice must not be lowered or compromised; and
II. Specific recommendations whenever considered necessary on the above aspects in relation to each State be made as a product of consultative processes involving the High Courts and other stake holders, including the Bar."
For arriving at informed understanding of the problem at hand and for making any meaningful suggestion(s), to deal with it, the Commission requested all the High Courts to provide data on litigation in each district within their jurisdiction. To facilitate orderly organization and supply of data, the High Courts were sent a prescribed format (Annexure I). Some very useful data was produced. However, most High Courts due to variety of reasons, could not fully provide the data/information sought.
Keeping in view insufficiency of the data received, after detailed in-house discussions and also involving experts that an additional questionnaire was sent to various High Courts. In response, no doubt, some relevant data was received. However, lack of scientific collection, collation and analysis still remained a serious constraint. Despite these constraints, reading and analyzing data received very closely, especially in the light of different methods of data analysis available that the Commission gave its response to queries and matter raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has provided the basis of this report.
While acknowledging that the problem of delay is not only enormous but complex, the Commission in the present report has remained confined to developing more informed understanding of as to whether problem of delay and strength of judges is a related one in some ways and if so how? In the report, an attempt has been made to suggest number of judges as are required to reduce delays. In a way, the report provides a roadmap for judicial (wo)manpower planning. While agreeing that there exists no clear 'time standard' or a 'reference' to which a case can be classified as 'delayed'. How one defines 'timeliness' (and, therefore, how many cases are delayed) is crucial to suggest any kind of basis for computing how many additional judges are required to process cases in timely manner. Without arriving at some such definition, it is difficult to suggest any appropriate method for planning and computing additional resources required to contain problem of delay. Similarly, the Commission is fully aware as thus undermined in the report that terms, such as 'arrears', 'pendency' and 'backlog' which are so oftenly used in almost all kinds of discourse on working of justice administration system in India are used very vaguely and beg clear and precise definition. The report is an attempt to reflect and throw more light on some of these terms, and it is hoped that the policy makers and other stakeholders in the system may find these reflections and attempt to introduce some clarity by the present work of some use during their course of deliberations on judicial reforms.
As the pivotal issue for the report is to suggest some basis for computing as to how many additional judges are required to process cases in 'timely' manner to large extent, answer to this question depends on how one defines 'timeliness' (and, therefore, how many cases are delayed). As already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, it may be emphasized at the cost of sounding repetitive that without arriving at some such definition, it is difficult to suggest any appropriate method for planning and computing additional resources required to contain the delay. A significant portion of the report right at the start, after critical examination of various approaches to defining terms like 'arrears', 'pendency' and 'delay' as floating around in the literature on the subject incorporates Commission's own reflections. These reflections, while may provide little more clarity to assigning meaning to above referred terms which have been generally understood so ambiguously, the Commission still views that it may not be possible to devise any perfectly scientific and uniform definition of these concepts. Acknowledging such definitional limitation and of inadequacy of data received, present report culminates in making some suggestions on the additional resources required to dispose of the current pendency, and to prevent the backlog in future.
Defining Key Concepts: Pendency, Delay, Arrears, and Backlog
There is no single or clear understanding of when a case should be counted as delayed. Often, terms like "delay," "pendency," "arrears," and "backlog" are used interchangeably. This leads to confusion. To avoid this confusion and for the sake of clarity, these terms may be understood as follows:
d. Backlog: When the institution of new cases in any given time period is higher than the disposal of cases in that time period, the difference between institution and disposal is the backlog. This figure represents the accumulation of cases in the system due to the system's inability to dispose of as many cases as are being filed.
Therefore, as is evident, defining terms like delay and arrears require computing "normal" case processing time standards. How should the normal time frame be determined? It may be noted that since the Supreme Court had directed the Law Commission to recommend a "rational and scientific definition of "arrears" and delay," the Commission clarified to the Hon'ble Court at the outset that there exists no single "objective" standard or mathematical formula by reference to which "normal" case processing time and hence delay can be defined or calculated. However, Commission is of the view that various methods, drawing on statistics, social science research techniques and experiential inputs can help make "rational" determination of "normal" case disposal times, and hence of delay. Based on a survey of various jurisdictions and previous reform efforts in India it is revealed that two approaches, and combinations thereof, are generally used in computing rational timeliness requirements.
The first approach, which can be called the Practice Assessment Approach, involves studying the patterns of current filing, disposal, case-length and pendency. A comparative analysis of these patterns inter se and between jurisdictions, can help policy makers determine whether a particular Court takes more or less time compared to either a system-wide average, or the median case in the system. This analysis does not tell the policy maker whether a particular Court or type of case is delayed. However, it does allow for a relative assessment of which Courts are taking longer than others, such that they may require targeted intervention in terms of greater allocation of resources, etc.2 When a Court is a complete outlier in terms of its case processing time, the policy maker (or superior Court) may be able to draw an inference that cases in that Court are unacceptably delayed and are, therefore, in arrear. This relative assessment approach was followed by the Canadian Supreme Court in making a determination that an Ontario criminal Court was unacceptably delayed, such that the right to speedy trial of criminal defendants was being violated. See R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199 (Canada Sup. Ct). Further, while current practice assessments are inadequate for defining delay, they can reveal when and where (in which Court and in which types of cases) backlog is being created, so that targeted intervention is possible to address the issue. In the absence of other measures, this is the approach that the Commission has adopted in examining the question of adequate judicial strength for the Subordinate Judiciary.
2. See, e.g., Justice M.J. Rao Committee Report, Judicial Impact Assessment in India, vol. 2, p. 46 (2008) (comparing Delhi and Australian disposal rates). Advocating a comparative approach based on current patterns of filing an disposal, the Approach Paper attached as Annexure I to the Committee's Report suggested that, "based on data for the previous couple of years there should be a data base of disposal rate [per judge] for every case type. It should be monitored that every judge is within a band of 10% of this median value within his/her case type. If found otherwise, the reasons behind less disposal rate should be probed and if the reasons are unsatisfactory, then remedial measures needs to be designed. Moreover, if the clearance index for any particular judge falls below 0.90 for three consecutive months or is cumulatively below 0.90 compared to the previous quarter, then the disposal rate should be checked, and whether it conforms to the band of 10% should be verified." See, id. at p. 52-53.
Another approach, which may be called the Normative Assessment Approach, is to fix time standards for the disposal of cases. Cases that are disposed of within such time are not delayed; cases beyond such time are delayed; cases which exhibit unwarranted delay are in arrears. One of the means by which such standard setting can take place in a rigorous and rational manner is to begin by studying the current patterns of filing, disposal, pendency, length, etc. Based on this study, the policy maker can determine the average or median time taken for processing various types of cases. Studies based on interviews with stakeholders, examination of the life cycle of sample cases, etc, can then be undertaken to understand whether these time frames reflect an optimal standard for timely disposal. A committee of experts, drawn from persons with extensive experiential knowledge of the system, can then review the current patterns to determine optimality, keeping in mind resource constraints, Court cultures, system goals and constitutional and statutory requirements.4 The Normative Approach,therefore, relies on an amalgam of past and current statistics, social science research techniques and experiential inputs to make a "rational" determination of "normal" case disposal times, and hence of delay.
4. This approach is often followed in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., National Center for State Courts, Model Time Standards for State Trial Courts (USA, 2011); Trial within a Reasonable Time: a Working Paper Prepared for the Law Reform Commission of Canada, (Department of Justice, Canada, 1994).
5. The U.S. Speedy Trial Act, 1974 provides for time limits which, subject to certain exceptions (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)) and exclusions (e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) - (8)) have to be followed. Any deviation can result in the imposition of prescribed sanctions and consequences. See e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3162. For example, indictment (corresponding to framing of charges under the Indian CrPC) must take place within 30 days (extendable in certain cases to 60 days) of arrest or service of summons. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). Trial should commence within 70 days after either (a) indictment, or (b) the date of the defendant's initial appearance before the Court, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c). The trial of a defendant held in pretrial detention must also commence within ninety days of arrest. 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b).
6. Examples of instances where time frames are prescribed include Order VIII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, which prescribes a maximum time limit of 90 days from service of summons for filing of written statements. Similarly, Section 167 of the CrPC provides that the chargesheet should be filed within 60 or 90 days (depending on the type of case) of arrest of the accused. Section 309 Cr.PC. provides a general guidance that hearings should be conducted as expeditiously as possible and once examination of witnesses has commenced, hearings should be conducted on a day to day basis. However, no time frames have been set for the overall conduct of the trial, except in cases covered under Sections 376 to 376D, which should, as far as possible, be completed within 2 month from the date of commencement of examination of witnesses.
On the judicial side, setting of mandatory time limits was attempted by the Supreme Court in a series of cases. Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 33; Common Cause (II), (1996) 6 SCC 775; Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507; Raj Deo Sharma (II), (1999) 7 SCC 604. However, in 2002 a seven judge bench of the Court in P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 held that mandatory time limits could not be prescribed by the Court.9 Though the Court was not in favour of mandatory time limits, it did not find problematic the use of time frames as guidelines for the Court. The prescription of such non-binding, directory guidelines has been a common means of defining normal time frames and evaluating delay, both in India and abroad.10 In India, previous Law Commissions and various Governmental Committees have suggested various directory time frames both as guidelines to Courts for the timely disposal of cases, and as standards by which delay in the system can be measured.11 However, all these suggestions are based on ad-hoc prescriptions rather than grounded in empirical analysis and observation. And thus the concern raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imtiyaz Ahmad, viz., of providing "a rationale and scientific definition of 'arrears' and 'delay' demands deeper study and rigorosity in terms of data.
9. Ibid. As per the Court It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in Common Cause (I), Raj Deo Sharma (I) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal Courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause Case (I), Raj Deo Sharma case (I) and (II). At the most the periods of time prescribed in those decisions can be taken by the Courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking into consideration the several relevant factors as pointed out in A.R. Antulay's case and decide whether the trial or proceedings have become so inordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any Court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the Court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused.
10. See e.g., National Centre For State Courts, Model Time Standards For State Trial Court 3 (2011). These Model Standards for US State Trial Courts were approved in August 2011 by the (US) Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA); (US) Conference of Chief Justices; American Bar Association House of Delegates (ABA); and, The (US) National Association for Court Management.
11. As far back as 1958, the 14th Report of Law Commission of India recognized that time lags between institution and disposal are necessary to complete the various stages of a Court based dispute resolution process, and that "the time so taken will depend on several factors, such as, the nature of the suit, the number of parties and witnesses, the competence of the pressing officers and so forth. We must not forget that however similar the facts of two cases may be, every case is entitled to individual attention for its satisfactory disposal and any "mass production methods" or "assembly line techniques" in the disposal of cases would be utterly incompatible with a sound administration of justice." However, the Commission also recognized that even with these caveats it would still be possible to determine "limits of time within which judicial proceedings of various classes should�be normally brought to a conclusion in the Courts in which they are instituted." Based on this reasoning, the Commission provided a listing of time frames for different types of cases. Law Commission of India, 14th Report: Reform of Judicial Administration, vol. 1, p. 130 (1958).
This method was reiterated by the Law Commission in its 77th, 79th, and 230th Reports in 1979, 1979 and 2009, respectively. See Law Commission of India, 77th Report on Delay And Arrears In Trial Courts (1979); Law Commission of India, 79th Report on Delay and Arrears in High Courts and other Appellate Courts 9-10 (1979); Law Commission of India, 230th Report on Reforms in Judiciary Some Suggestions 1.61 (2009).
More recently, the Malimath Committee recommended the use of a 2 year time frame as the norm by which delay and arrears in the system should be measured. Ministry of Law, Government of India, Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System (Malimath Committee p. 164 ¶ 13.3 (2003).
Case specific time-tables are used as timeliness standards, delay reduction methods, and yardsticks for measuring delays in the system in various jurisdictions around the world, including U.S.,12 U.K.,13 and Canada.14 In India the Supreme Court has also recently advocated the use of case-specific time tables for the timely disposal of cases, in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi., (2011) 8 SCC 249. As per the Court,
12. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 16; American Bar Association, Standards Relating to Trial Courts (1992), ¶ 2.51 ("Case Management"),
13. Part 3 of the UK Criminal Procedure Rules, 2012 requires case specific management and scheduling by the judge in non-binding consultation with the parties. See also Woolf Committee Report on Civil Justice Reform (on requiring judges to establish and adhere to case specific timetables at the beginning of case proceedings).
14. See, e.g., Rule 77, Rules of Civil Procedure (Ontario). See generally Law Commission of India, Consultation Paper on Case Management, http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/adr_conf/casemgmt%20draft% 20rules.pdf
As a staple part of systematic case management strategies, such timetables provide clear time frames for dispute resolution, define litigant expectations of timeliness, and thus impact the litigant experience of delay. They allow the judge flexibility to take into account the specific aspects of an individual case in framing a time schedule for that case. When accompanied by general time frame guidelines, the possibility of abuse of the power by setting long time frames can be avoided
The Normative Assessment Approach requires state level studies to determine optimal time frames. High Courts are best placed to take into account state level concerns and circumstances in determining adequate time standards. Within the frame work of these time standards, individual Subordinate Court Judges can set time frames for individual cases. For this system to work, a strong monitoring frame work would be required, whereby the timeliness of the caseload of individual judges can be supervised by High Courts. Annual reporting of disposal and timeliness data will also ensure public scrutiny and add another layer of accountability towards timeliness goals and standards.
As a beginning however, the Normative Assessment Approach requires extensive and sustained study over a period of time in order to provide a rational and scientific definition of delays and arrears. In the meantime, in the absence of such time frames, and for the purposes of the study of adequate judicial strength in India's Subordinate Judiciary, the Commission has examined the current patterns of institution, disposal and pendency, to address the question of whether more judicial resources are required (and where they should be targeted) in order to clear the current pendency and prevent the accumulation of backlog in the future.
16. See Annexure I and II.
Further, the multiplicity of approaches in tabulating data make a cross-comparison between different High Courts problematic. For example, in the High Courts of Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh, interlocutory applications are not counted separately. In Punjab and Haryana, Jharkhand and West Bengal, the practice of counting or not counting differs from district to district. Similarly, while Karnataka does not count traffic and police challans as part of the institution, disposal and pendency figures, most other High Courts do. Given this variance, in the Commission's view a cross-comparison of States for making pan-India recommendations especially in view of the data currently available may not be very appropriate.
Besides gaining access to appropriate data from all High Courts, a major challenge was determining its accuracy. Potential errors could be seen upon close scrutiny of the data. For example, data received from the Delhi High Court indicates that in 2010, -40054 Negotiable Instrument Act, matters were instituted in the Delhi Subordinate Courts and 111517 were disposed of. Since a negative number of institutions is patently impossible, this number appears to have been inserted to balance the backlog tally and make up for a previous mistake in the number of pending negotiable instrument act matters.17 It is not known how many other errors like this have not occurred. Also, such adjusting of the statistics to get a correct backlog tally then misrepresents the number of institutions in a given year, distorting the overall institution rate.
17. At the end of 2009 there were 416700 pending, while at the end of 2010 there were 265129.
Similarly, the data on institution, disposal and pendency for many High Courts did not tally from year to year.18 There were also inconsistencies between data sources. In some cases, the data received in response to the first Questionnaire (Annexure I) and the second Questionnaire (Annexure II) did not match. However, given these errors and unexplained inconsistencies, the Commission approached these data with caution used only for a broad trends analysis, in order to understand general and approximate patterns.
18. For example, the Pendency (PN) in any given year (N) should be equal to Pendency in the Previous Year (PN-1) + Institution in N (IN) - Disposal in N (DN). This formula can be represented as: (PN) = (PN-1) + IN - DN.
However, in the absence of any uniformity in data collection presently and certain lack of quality of data of various High Courts, the Commission strongly recommends that urgent steps be taken to evolve uniform data collection and data management methods. Such steps, if taken in earnest, would ensure transparency and more importantly facilitate policy prescriptions for the judicial system. At this stage, a caveat may be added, that so far as the present work is concerned, it relies largely on the latest information supplied by the High Courts.
Annexure III provides the data on institution, disposal, pendency and judge strength for the period 2002-2012 for the higher judicial service category. The data shows that overall, institution, disposal and pendency have all been on the rise in this category in the last decade. The following chart illustrates this trend:
Figure 1: Institution, Disposal, Pendency in the Higher Judicial Service, 2002-2012.
Annexure IV provides data on institution, disposal, pendency and judge strength for the period 2002-2012 for the Subordinate Judicial Service category. The data shows that while the annual rate of institution, disposal and pendency has increased overall in the 2002-2012 period, in the last few years, pendency has been on a decline whereas institution and disposal are largely constant. The following chart maps this data:
Figure 2: Institution, Disposal, Pendency in the Subordinate Judicial Service, 2002-2012.
The following figures 3 and 4 show the Backlog Creation Rate for the period 2002-12. Backlog Creation Rate is the ratio of institution to disposal in any given year. If the ratio is greater than 1, this implies that more cases are being instituted than are being disposed of. If the ratio is less than one, then more cases are being disposed of, than are being instituted. A number less than 1, therefore, indicates that the judicial system is being able to handle new institutions.
Figure 3: Backlog Creation Rate (Institution/Disposal) for the Higher Judicial Service, 2002-2012.
Figure 4: Backlog Creation Rate (Institution/Disposal) for the Subordinate Judicial Service, 2002-2012.
As the figures above indicate, the Higher Judicial Service is disposing of fewer cases than are being instituted. As such, it is adding to the backlog of cases in the system. On the other hand, in the Subordinate Judicial Service, the disposal rate is higher than the institution, implying that the backlog is being reduced. It should be pointed out here that the backlog creation analysis does not indicate whether the same cases that were filed in a given year were disposed of in that year. Rather, it takes a systemic perspective and looks at how many new cases are coming in, in relation to how many cases are going out. A low backlog creation rate, therefore, indicates that the system as a whole is incapable of dealing with the recurring annual demand for Judicial Services, and is, therefore, in need of additional resources.
As mentioned earlier, the Backlog Creation Rate focuses on the number of cases going in and out of the system in a given year and does not take into account the already backlogged cases that carry forward from year to year.
Figure 5: Pendency Clearance Time for the Higher Judicial Service, 2002-2012.
Figure 6: Pendency Clearance Time for the Subordinate Judicial Service, 2002-2012.
Figures 5 and 6 indicate that overall, for both the Higher Judicial Service and the Subordinate Judicial Service, the time it would take to clear pendency has declined in the 2002-2012 period. This implies that overall, the system is processing cases faster at the end of 2012 than it was in 2002. While these figures do not indicate the types of cases that are being processed through the system, the figures do provide an overall picture of the system and indicate the broad trajectory of the system in the past decade.
19. See Annexure 5. It is to be noted that Karnataka does not include traffic and police challan figures in their overall data on institution, disposal and pendency.
20. Id. Bombay High Court did not provide information on the number of Negotiable Instruments Act matters pending before the subordinate Courts of that High Court. In addition, Kerala High Court provided Negotiable Instrument Act figures only for the cadre of Civil Judge Junior Division. Therefore, the percentage institution and pendency of Negotiable Instrument Act matters has been calculated on the overall institution and pendency figures for the civil judge junior division cadre.
Figure 7: Percentage of traffic/police challans and Negotiable Instrument Act matters in State-wise institution figures for the Subordinate Judicial Service, 2010-2012.
Figure 8: Percentage of traffic/police challans and Negotiable Instrument Act matters in State-wise pendency figures for the Subordinate Judicial Service, end-2012.
21. An additional benefit of hiring recent law graduates for these posts is that presiding over the traffic Court will give these law graduates experience and insight into the working of the judicial system are is likely to be a valuable stepping stone for careers in litigation or the judicial services.
One method commonly advocated for determining how many judges are required in the judicial system is the judge to population ratio, i.e., the number of judges per million persons in the population.22 The Commission finds this method very wanting because there is no objective number by reference to which we can determine whether the judge to population ratio of any State is adequate. It is known that filings per capita vary substantially across geographic units. Filings per capita are associated with economic and social conditions and can vary across India's States by as much as a factor of 50.23 The justice needs of different societies thus vary, and no universal standard can be prescribed in this regard. Therefore, while population might be the appropriate metric to measure the availability of other essential services like health care and nutrition, it is not an appropriate standard for measuring the requirement for Judicial Services.
22. All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 ("Apart from the steps which may be necessary for increasing the efficiency of the judicial officers, we are of the opinion that time has now come for protecting one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakh people to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people); P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578("The root cause for delay in dispensation of justice in our country is poor judge population ratio"); More Judges Needed, states should take initiative, Manmohan Singh says, TIMES OF INDIA, April 7, 2013 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-07/india/38345513_1_three-crore-cases-india-altamas-kabir-judicial-reforms (Prime Minister Manmohan Singh terming the current judge-to-population rate "grossly inadequate"); Law Commission of India, One Hundred Twentieth Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary: A Blueprint (1987) (recommending a five-fold increase in the population-to-judge ratio and that India should have the same judge-to-population ratio by 2000 as the United States had in 1981).
23. See Theodore Eisenberg, Sital Kalantry, and Nick Robinson, Litigation as a Measure of Well-Being, 62(2) Depaul Law Review 247 (2013) (describing the relative civil filing rate for different Indian states and showing that the civil filing rate was higher in states with higher GDP per capita and a higher score on the Human Development Index).
24. See, e.g., Flango, Ostram & Flango, How Do States Determine the Need for Judges?, 17 State Court Journal 3 (1993) (explaining various methods, including the judge to institution/filing ratio as a method that is used in some states in the United States for calculating how many judges need to be appointed in a particular Court).
26. See, e.g., National Court Management Systems: Policy and Action Plan 34 (September 2012), at ¶ 5.3; Resolutions of the Chief Justices' Conference, 2004 (proposing a norm of 500 cases per year for senior judges and 600 cases for junior civil judges and Metropolitan Magistrates).
The ideal case load method seems difficult to implement in practice. One is absence of any exhaustive study, one does not find any fixed criteria for determining what the ideal case load should be. Generally, ideal case loads are fixed on an ad hoc basis. To give one illustration, the Law Commission vide letter no. 6(3)/224/2012-LC(LS) dated 28.05.2012 had asked High Courts to provide "reasonable workloads that each category of Courts (DJ, Sr. Civil Judge, Jr. Civil Judge/Magistrate) can bear in order to establish better and speedy access to justice." However, the information received from various High Courts revealed that measurements of ideal case load for each cadre of judge varies widely across states. Thus for instance, the reasonable workload for the Higher Judicial Service was suggested to be 120 in Madhya Pradesh, 500 in Andhra Pradesh, 750 in Jammu and Kashmir and 1000 in Orissa. This wide variation across states is a result, in part, of the lack of a rational basis for determining the ideal case load.27
27. In another example, the Chief Justices' Conference 2004 proposed a norm of 500 cases per year for senior judges and 600 cases for junior civil judges and Metropolitan Magistrates. These figures have been critiqued for not being based on any detailed analytical and empirical assessment. See India Development Foundation, Judicial Impact Assessment: An Approach Paper 72 (2008) available at < http://lawmin.nic.in/doj/justice/judicialimpactassessmentreportvol2.pdf>
Second, different types of cases require different amounts of judicial time. A murder trial is generally likely to consume much more time, for example, than a summary trial in a petty offence. An ideal case load approach that looks only at the number of files before the judge, will treat both cases as equal even though a judge with 500 murder cases is likely to be over-stretched and one with 500 summary trials, under-utilized. To be fruitful, the ideal case load method requires some analysis of the types of cases likely to come up before a judge. Also, there is need to analyze as to the amount of time each type of case normally takes. Such analysis may probably give an idea of what should constitute 'ideal case load' before a judge. However, there is need to be cautious because the existing case mix can change fairly quickly, for instance, through the emergence of new laws and increased rights awareness. For example, The present section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was a result of an amendment in 2002 vide the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002 (55 of 2002). This provision has been wide used and has drastically changed the number and type of cases in the case mix before the Subordinate Judiciary.
28. A good overview of this approach as undertaken in the U.S. federal Courts can be found in Federal Judicial Center, 2003-2004 District Court Case-Weighting: Final Report to the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of The Committee On Judicial Resources of The Judicial Conference of The United States (2005)
In the United States where this approach is followed, the National Centre for State Courts ("NCSC") conducts studies to determine the number of minutes it takes judges to resolve certain cases. Judges are interviewed and are often required to keep time sheets in order to determine the time value of each type of case.29
29. See National Center for State Courts, "The California Judicial Workload Assessment," 2007; National Center for State Courts, "Minnesota Judicial Workload Assessment," 2002; and National Center for State Courts, "North Carolina Superior Court Judicial Workload Assessment," 2001.
(1) The number of cases instituted by Court, district, and type of case
(2) The average bench and non-bench time a judge requires to resolve each type of case within the Court
(3) The amount of time a judge has available to complete case-related work per year
(4) The number of active judges by Court and district
One proxy for time could be units. Since judges are required to complete a certain number of units per month, and one knows the time available per judge for judicial work per month, and can calculate the time value of each unit. One can then determine the time value of each type of case by looking at the number of units allotted to that type of case. This would give the data required in point 2 above. However, two problems arise:
For these reasons, the Commission feels that any approach that uses "unit as a proxy for time" may not be a sound approach. There is no other proxies for time and further no scientific data in this regard is available. The time Based Method as practiced elsewhere may not be applicable or feasible in Indian context.
It may not be out of context to briefly explain what constitutes "Rate of Disposal Method". Under the Rate of Disposal Method, one first looks at the current rate at which judges dispose of cases. Next one determines how many additional judges working at a similar level of efficiency would be required so that the number of disposals equals the number of institutions in any one year time frame. As long as the institution and disposal levels remain as they currently are, the Courts would need these many additional judges to keep pace with new filings in order to ensure that newly instituted cases do not add to the backlog.
30. Though the analysis in this report uses 1 year as the time frame for determining whether a case is backlogged or not, this time period can be modified to suit the needs of different High Courts. The formula for analysis would remain the same.
It has to be noted that in the past the Law Commission and other Committees have suggested that since the judges required to dispose of the backlog are needed only till the backlog is cleared, therefore, short-term ad hoc appointments be made from amongst retired judges, for the purpose of clearing backlog.31 Most recently, the National Vision Statement and Action Plan presented by the Law Minister in October 2009, also recommended that retired judges and eminent lawyers may be appointed as ad hoc judges for a period of one year for dealing with arrears.32 However, as previous experiences with appointing ad hoc judges has shown, there are serious concerns about such appointments, especially the lack of accountability in the functioning and performance of ad-hoc judges, since these are short term appointments.
31. See e.g., Law Commission of India, 77th Report on Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts 35 (1978), at ¶ 9.13. A similar method has been recommended by in Annexure I of the Justice M J Rao Committee on Judicial Impact Assessment, for calculating the adequate Judge strength. Justice M.J. Rao Report, vol.2, (http://doj.gov.in/?q=node/121) Report of the Task Force on Judicial Impact Assessment, p. 49-52. The Justice Malimath Committee recommended the bifurcation of additional judicial strength into permanent judges required to dispose of current filings, and additional ad-hoc judges to deal with arrears. Malimath Committee Report, p. 164. See also Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affair, 85th Report on Law's Delays: Arrears in Courts ¶ 45 (2001) (advocating appointing ad hoc Judges to clear pendency within a three year time frame). See further 14th Law Commission Report, p. 148 (engaging in a similar analysis, the Law Commission recommended the creation of temporary additional Courts for dealing with cases over a year old, and augmenting the strength of the permanent judiciary so that disposals and institutions break even, and there is no new creation of arrears).
32. ¶ 3.2 and ¶ 6.1 (i) Vision Statement presented by the Law Minister to the Chief Justice of India at the National Consultation for Strengthening the Judiciary towards Reducing Pendency and Delays, October 2009.
33. ¶ 6.1, id.
34. See Minutes of the Meeting of the Law/Home Secretaries and Finance Secretaries of States and Registrar Generals of High Courts on May 31, 2013
35. A resolution on doubling the judge strength was passed at the Second Meeting of the Advisory Council of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, chaired by the Union Law Minister, on May 15, 2012. The resolution stated that, "The number of Judges/Courts may be increased to double the present number. But this may be done gradually in a period of 5 years."
At the Chief Justices' and Chief Ministers' Conference, held on April 5-6, 2013, it was resolved that, "[i]n order to narrow down judge-population ratio, the Chief Justices will take requisite steps for creation of new posts of Judicial Officers at all levels with support staff and requisite infrastructure in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of All India Judges' Associations case (2002) 4 S.C.C. 247], Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, (2012) 6 S.C.C. 502 and letter dated 21st February, 2013, written by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India, in order to provide effective, efficient and efficacious dispensation of justice." The decision to double the judge-population ratio was supported by the Prime Minister and the Law Minister in their speeches at the conference. Both assured that the Central Government would assist in securing additional funding for this purpose. See Speech by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, at the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, at http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=94523; Speech by Law Minister Dr. Ashwini Kumar, at the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, April 7, 2013, at http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=51882
At a meeting of the Law/Home Secretaries and Finance Secretaries of States and Registrar Generals of High Courts on May 31, 2013 Shri Anil Gulati, Joint Secretary and Mission Director, Department of Justice, stated that the resolution of the Advisory Council of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, had been endorsed by the Advisory Committee of the National Court Management Systems, and by the Chief Justice of India in his letter addressed to the Chief Justices of High Courts in February, 2013. The representatives of the State Governments and High Courts were asked to draw up proposals regarding the financial implications of the resolution so that the same could be presented to the 14th Finance Commission for provision of adequate funds.
Given the vast resources required to double the existing judge strength, the time that it will take to complete selection and training processes, and the funds and time required to create adequate infrastructure, the Commission is of the opinion that the Rate of Disposal Method should be used to indicate how many judges should be appointed on a priority basis for the interim period. Tables I- XII below, provide data for how many judges need to be hired to dispose of the backlog in one, two, or three years. It is pertinent to note that in R.L. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 968, the Supreme Court had directed that all arrears in the Delhi Subordinate Judiciary should be disposed of within a period of 2 years.
3. An average of the annual institutions before each cadre of judge for the years 2010-12 was taken.37 The average institution was divided by the Average Rate of Disposal per judge for that cadre to give the number of judges required to keep pace with the current filings, and ensure that no new backlog is created. This figure has been described as : The Break Even Number.
37. The use of the average annual institution in the last three years as the basis for analyzing future demand for judicial resources bears explanation. Some High Courts provided us with data on institution, disposal and pendency for the last 10 years, i.e., from 2002-2012. However, we have decided to look at institutions only for the last three years. Given that the demand for judicial resources keeps changing depending on new laws being promulgated, changes in awareness of the law, changes in socio-economic conditions of society, etc, the recent data is a better predictor of what is likely to be the demand for judicial resources in the next plan period, than past data. For example, looking at the Higher Judicial Services in Jharkhand, the 10 year average annual institution from 2002-11 would suggest that we could expect 21452 fresh institutions in 2012. The actual institution was 26665. The difference between the actual institution and the predicted institution was therefore 5213 cases. On the other hand the average institution for the time period 2009-11 for the same cadre was 26996 as against the actual institution of 26665 for 2012. The difference was only 331 cases. The change occurs because the annual institution of cases before the Higher Judicial Services has risen in recent times. A 10 year average data pulls down the average because of the lower institution rates from 10 years ago. The vast changes in the normative field and social context mean that institution rates are not stable over long periods. The use of relatively old data thus becomes an unreliable measure for future forecast. Of course, even with the more recent data, the past demand is no guarantee of the future demand. However, other factors remaining constant, the past demand can be a useful tool for planning for the near future. If other factors change, as for example, new laws are introduced or the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court changes, additional resources would be required.
It is relevant to note that the data shows wide fluctuations in filing figures from one year to another such that no clear trend is discernable. For example, in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, the institution of new cases increased by 18.4% from 2009 to 2010, by 4.3% from 2010 to 2011 and by 11.3 % from 2011 to 2012. In the Delhi Judicial Service the institution of new cases 4.8% from 2009 to 2010, 17% from 2010 to 2011, but fell by 25.2% in 2012. Another example of such fluctuations is seen in the data from Himachal Pradesh. Here in the cadre of Civil Judge Junior Division, the institution of new cases increased by 22.5% in 2010, 1.2% in 2011 and 35% in 2012. Such examples of wide fluctuations in the year on year data are present in almost all High Courts. (See Tables I to X below) For this reason any kind of trend analysis is difficult. Other methods for forecasting the demand for judicial resources like regression analysis have been forgone because the independent variables that affect the number of filings, like new laws coming into force, increase in awareness about laws and the social and economic context are difficult to predict, measure and define.
The average institution is an approximate measure of the likely institution in next few years. It should not be treated as the only yardstick, but should be constantly monitored to ensure that increases in annual institutions culminate in additional recruitment of judges. We have used figures for the last 3 years, i.e., 2010-12 because we have the most comprehensive dataset for this period for the highest number of Courts.
5. The backlog for a particular cadre of judges (defined as all cases pending before that cadre of judges for more than a year) was then divided by the rate of disposal for that type of judge. This gave the number of judges required to clear the backlog within a year. Dividing this number by 2 gives the number of judges required to clear the backlog in 2 years, and so forth. Therefore, the formula for determining the Additional Number of Judges for Breakeven is represented as follows:
ARD = [(D2010/J2010)+(D2011/J2011)+(D2012/J2012)]/3
BEJ = (AI/ARD)-J
D2010, D2011, D2012 = Annual Disposal for that year
J2010, J2011, J2012 = Annual Working Strength of Judges for that year
J = Current Working Strength of Judges
The formula for determining the Number of Judges for disposing of Backlog required to dispose of pending cases within a given time period is:
AJBk = No. of Judges for disposing of Backlog
B = Backlog, defined as the number of cases pending for more than a year.
t = The time frame, in number of years, within which the backlog needs to be cleared.
The method can easily be illustrated with an example. Table I shows the rate of disposal analysis for the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Courts. As this data shows, in 2010 Andhra Pradesh had 129 judges of the Higher Judicial Service who disposed of 109085 cases, at an average of 109085/129 = 845.6 cases per judge. Similarly, in 2011, 139 judges disposed of 111892 cases at an average of 111892/139 = 805 cases per judge; and in 2012, 136 judges disposed of 106997 cases at an average of 106997/136 = 786.7 cases per judge. On average, therefore, judges of the Higher Judicial Service disposed of (845.6+805+786.7)/3 = 812.4 cases per judge per year in this time period. This is the Average Rate of disposal per judge.
Now the average institution per year from 2010-2012 in the Higher Judicial Service cadre is (112209+112710+113250)/3=112723. If each judge is disposing of on average 812.4 cases per year, then the number of judge required to dispose of 112723 cases is 112723/812.4 = 138.7. This is the breakeven number, which implies that if there were 138.7 Higher Judicial Service judges then in any given time period, all new institutions would be disposed of without adding to the backlog. Since currently there are 136 judges of this cadre, there the need is 138.7 - 136=3 (rounding off to the higher number) additional judges to reach the breakeven number. The breakeven number deals with the current institutions.
The following tables apply the rate of Disposal Method to data on institutions, disposals and pendency supplied by 12 High Courts.
Table I:Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Courts
Average Institution
Average Rate of Disposal per Judge
Breakeven No.
Additional no. of Judges required to Breakeven
No. of cases pending > 1 yr. on 31.12.2012
No. of Judges required for clearing backlog in
112646.7
341492.3
Table II: Bihar Subordinate Courts
67591.7
166794.7
Table III: Delhi Subordinate Courts
72041.0
141602.3
Table IV: Gujarat Subordinate Courts
151550.3
421581.7
Table V: Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts
121178.0
Table VI: Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service
39214.7
146882.7
Table VII: Jharkhand Subordinate Courts
Table VIII: Karnataka Subordinate Courts
141349.7
545049.7
Table IX: Kerala Subordinate Courts
147377.3
764986.3
Table X: Punjab Subordinate Courts
274536.7
Haryana Subordinate Courts
103383.0
272591.7
Chandigarh Subordinate Courts
Table XI : Sikkim Subordinate Courts
Table XII : Uttarakhand Subordinate Courts
123139.0
In light of foregoing, the number of Additional Subordinate Court Judges to be appointed by these High Courts is as follows:
Table XIII : Additional Number of Judges Required
Additional no. of Judges for Breakeven
No. of Judges to clear blocking in:
Vacancies (Dec.' 12)
Sanctioned Strength (Dec.' 12)
Total Number of judges required
Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 44 to 124 judges in the higher judicial service and 247 to 779 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Bihar Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 360 to 978 judges in the higher judicial service and 1788 to 5035 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Delhi Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 25 to 93 judges in the higher judicial service and 0 to 78 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Gujarat Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 54 to 224 judges in the higher judicial service and 449 to 1677 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 3 to 9 judges in the higher judicial service and 38 to 80 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Jammu and Kashmir Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 14 to 36 judges in the higher judicial service and 19 to 63 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Jharkhand Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 82 to 210 judges in the higher judicial service and 198 to 580 judges in the Subordinate judicial service.
Karnataka Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 72 to 170 judges in the higher judicial service and 250 to 688 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Kerala Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 36 to 120 judges in the higher judicial service and 82 to 196 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Punjab Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 22 to 53 judges in the higher judicial service and 6 to 160 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Haryana Pradesh Subordinate Courts
Need for an additional 17 to 54 judges in the higher judicial service and 16 to 159 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Need for an additional 3 to 6 judges in the higher judicial service and 0 to 4 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Sikkim Subordinate Judiciary
Need for an additional 3 judges in the higher judicial service and 0 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
Uttarakhand Subordinate Judiciary
Need for an additional 2 to 16 judges in the higher judicial service and 29 to 82 judges in the subordinate judicial service.
1. Appointment of judges on a priority basis: As this data indicates, the situation is indeed grim, and is getting worse by the moment. In all states, there is a significant backlog of cases which requires a massive influx of judicial resources even if one takes a 3 year time frame for clearing backlog. Bihar, for example, requires an additional 1624 judges to clear backlog in three years. The problem of backlogs is compounded by the fact that in some states, Courts are unable to even keep pace with the new filings, thus adding to the already huge backlog. As the data shows, even where the Courts are breaking even, the system is severely backlogged and requires urgent intervention.38 Given the large number of judges required to clear backlog and the time it will take to complete selection and training processes, the Law Commission recommends that the recruitment of new judges should, therefore, focus, as a matter of priority, on the number of judges required to breakeven, and to dispose of the backlog in a 3 year time frame. This has to be dealt with on a priority basis, otherwise the already severe problem of backlogs will only get worse.
38. Where the additional number of judges required to breakeven is in the negative, this implies that disposal is higher than institution in such Courts. In these cases, the number of judges over and above the breakeven number, can be deployed for disposing of the backlog. The number of additional judges required to dispose of the backlog should be proportionately reduced.
4. Periodic Needs Assessment for the Judiciary: The present work is based on analysis of institution, disposal and pendency data for the time period 2010-12. Institution and disposal trends can and will change over time. New laws, greater awareness of rights, changing social circumstances, and even the reduction of judicial delay are likely to lead to an increase in the number of cases being instituted. At the same time, better infrastructure, more support staff, access to time-saving technology and better training are likely to increase the efficiency levels (and hence, rate of disposal) of judges. Since the method of calculating Additional number of Judges depends on these figures, the Law Commission recommends that the trend of institutions and disposals should be constantly monitored by the High Courts, in order to meet the evolving needs of the judiciary. Using the formula provided above, judge strength should be increased periodically, particularly when institution rates start climbing over disposal rates. The Commission also recommends that in order to engage in this analysis, High Courts should put in place reliable and regular data collection and management systems.
5. Efficient Deployment of Judicial Resources: The Commission recognizes that apart from increasing the judge strength, there is also need for efficient deployment of the additional judicial resources. While the rate of Disposal Method indicates how many additional judges are required it does not indicate how these additional judicial resources should be allocated (e.g., which Courts, which districts, what types of cases) to best meet the goal of delay reduction. Further, the Commission also recognizes that the most efficient allocation of resources will depend upon various local factors and micro level analyses, for which pan-India recommendations may be inappropriate. Therefore, the Law Commission recommends that once appointments are made, High Courts should make appropriate allocation of judicial work, keeping in mind the following factors:
a. In this report, all cases pending for less than a year have been treated as current cases. All cases pending for more than a year have been categorized as backlogged cases. The Commission recognizes that this division is ad hoc. However, as elaborated earlier in this report, we do not have any established metric for determining when a case can be considered delayed for purpose of counting only delayed cases in the backlogged category. In the absence of this information, a time frame of one year has been taken as the period for considering a case as current or backlogged. It is possible that a Court with high pendency of backlogged cases might have many recently filed pending cases whereas another Court with a relatively lower backlog may have a high proportion of very old pending cases. High Courts should, therefore, allocate more resources for Courts with more old pending matters than those with relatively new case loads.
e. Finally, even if judges of a particular category are disposing of cases at a high rate, this indicates nothing about the quality of decision-making of such judges. The focus of the method is on the quantitative output without compromising the current qualitative standard. However, there might be trade-offs involved between the quantity and the quality of decision-making that the model does not take into account. If some judges are actually compromising on the quality of decision-making and are thus being able to dispose of more cases, the model will recommend a lesser number of additional judges, compared to the additional judges that would be required to dispose of the same number of cases in a more qualitatively sound manner.39 The Commission, therefore, recommends that in allocating the additional judicial resources, High Courts should pay heed to the quality of decision making in the Courts concerned.
39. It is pertinent to note that in its order dated February 1, 2012, in the present case, the Supreme Court noted that "access to justice must not be understood in a purely quantitative dimension. Access to justice in an egalitarian democracy must be understood to mean qualitative access to justice as well. Access to justice is, therefore, much more than improving an individual's access to Courts, or guaranteeing representation. It must be defined in terms of ensuring that legal and judicial outcomes are just and equitable."
In sum, therefore, the rate of Disposal Method described in this report should be seen as giving an approximation of required judicial strength that can then be adjusted and allocated on the basis of other considerations, which can include, but are not limited to: (1) adjustments made for inaccuracies in available data; (2) a particularly large number of cases that have been pending for an excessive period of time which may indicate a need for more judicial resources and (3) relevant feedback about pendency and judicial functioning in the State and particular districts from stakeholders.
6. Timely filling of vacancies; increase in age of retirement of the Subordinate Judiciary: As Table XIII indicates, most High Courts have a high vacancy in Subordinate Courts. Additionally, every year many vacancies are created through retirement. It takes time to select and train new judges to replace the retiring ones. In the meantime, the backlog piles up. To deal with this concern, the Commission recommends that in addition to recruiting new judges, the age of retirement of subordinate judges be raised to 62 in order to meet the need for a large number of adequately trained judicial officers. The benefit of increase in the retirement age can be made available to judicial officers in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India.40 Further, the directions of the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 17 SCC 703 regarding the time bound filling of vacancies, needs to be strictly adhered to.
40. In All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, decided on November 13, 1991, AIR 1992 SC 165, the Supreme Court had directed that the age of superannuation be for subordinate Court Judges be raised to 60 years. Modifying this direction in an order dated August 24, 1993, the Court held that
The benefit of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years, shall not be available automatically to all judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system. The benefit will be available to those who, in the opinion of the respective High Courts, have a potential for continued useful service. It is not intended as a windfall for the indolent, the infirm and those of doubtful integrity, reputation and utility. The potential for continued utility shall be assessed and evaluated by appropriate Committees of Judges of the respective High Courts constituted and headed by the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the evaluation shall be made on the basis of the judicial officers' past record of service, character rolls, quality of judgments and other relevant matters.
The High Court should undertake and complete the exercise in case of officers about to attain the age of 58 years well within time by following the procedure for compulsory retirement as laid down in the respective Service Rules applicable to the judicial officers. Those who will not be found fit and eligible by this standard should not be given the benefit of the higher retirement age and should be compulsorily retired at the age of 58 by following the said procedure for compulsory retirement.
The Commission's recommendation in this report is along the same lines, with the exception that we recommend that the service of judges who are about to retire be extended till such time as the vacancy caused by their retirement is filled, subject to a maximum period up to which such extension is possible.
7. Need for system wide judicial reforms: From a litigant's point of view, what matters is not just the timely disposal of his/her case at the trial Court level, but at all levels of the judiciary. Therefore, judicial reform targeted at delay reduction is required not only in the trial Court, but throughout the judicial system. In particular,
c. Other approaches like encouraging Alternative Dispute Resolution methods, where appropriate, can divert cases outside the Court system and lead to an overall reduction in pendency in the judicial system42 Therefore, a piecemeal approach to delay reduction should be eschewed in favour of a systemic perspective.
42. The Law Commission is examining this issue separately and intends to come out with a report on Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.
In conclusion, it would not be wrong to say that at general level and in nutshell, the present report in a way deals with the issue of arrears and delay and problem of judicial (wo)manpower planning - a problem that for quite many years remained ignored. Undermining this, the Law Commission, in its 120th Report: "Manpower Planning in Judiciary: A Blue Print" had observed, "The Commission was of the view that the question of judicial manpower planning had generally been ignored in India's planned development. The developing science of manpower planning has not attracted the attention of policy opinion makers in the field of administration of justice in India. All reorganization proposals are basically patch work, ad-hoc, unsystematic solutions to the problem". Importantly, the report, while confessing its limitations and inability said: "Commission itself is in no position, given the fact of its present structure, to provide this kind of technical analysis only on which sound programme of change can be envisaged. Of course, the Commission has done the next best thing and elicited extensive opinion of those knowledgeable in the field and the general public. But we must admit that, all said and done, this is a very poor substitute for sound scientific analysis." The Commission, thus, while being expressly conscious of limitations inherent in suggesting any scientific method to deal with problem of arrears and delay relied on the judge population ratio method as a way for judicial manpower planning. In making such suggestion, the Commission was inspired by prevalence of such method in few other countries. The Commission in its report recommended that there was strong justification to increase the then existing ratio from 10.5 judges per million to at least 50 judges per million of Indian population. Thus, it is primarily because of non-availability of data and their scientific analysis, that the Commission simply adopted the simple approach of Judge-Population Ratio. In fact, the report had no occasion to analyse strengths, weaknesses and relevance of adopting Judge-Population Ratio method in Indian context especially the context that has its own peculiarities different in many respects from the systems where Judge-Population Ratio method prevail.
However, the present report, while fully realises the frustration expressed by the Commission and consequent failure in making deeper analysis of the problem when submitting 120th Report, is an attempt to deal with the problem somewhat more analytically and scientifically. As the Commission, in the process of preparing the present report and response submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court adopted every possible venue and opportunity that could be thought of for collecting data including through questionnaires and personal interviews and subjecting information thus collected to rigorous analysis adopting various tools of data analysis available in the domain of research methodology.
Analysis of data and information thus made was then examined in light of various methods of judicial (wo)manpower planning practised in many other systems while keeping in view peculiarities of Indian judicial and profession's culture. Adopting this approach, the Commission has finally arrived at making following suggestions and recommendations:
1. That, given the existing availability of data, the Rate of Disposal Method and formulae be followed for calculating adequate judge strength for Subordinate Courts, instead of Judge-Population or Judge-Institution Ratio, Ideal Case Load Method or the Time Based Method.
2. That, data obtained from High Courts indicates that the judicial system is severely backlogged, and is also not being able to keep pace with current filings, thus exacerbating the problem of backlogs. The system requires a massive influx of judicial resources in order to dispose of the backlog and keep pace with current filings. The data indicates the need for taking urgent measures for increasing judge strength in order to ensure timely justice and facilitate access to justice for all sections of society.
43. See Table XIII above.
3. That, in order to meet the need for a large number of appropriately trained Subordinate Court Judges, the age of retirement of Subordinate judges be raised to 62 The benefit of increase in the retirement age be made available to judicial officers in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, order dated August 24, 1993.
4. That special morning and evening Courts be set up for dealing with Traffic/Police Challan cases which constituted 38.7% of institutions and 37.4% of all pending cases in the last three years, before the Subordinate Judicial Services. These Courts should be in addition to the regular Courts so that they can reduce the case load of the regular Courts. In addition, facilities be made available for online payment of fines as well as the payment of fines at designated counters in the Court complex. This measure will further reduce pendency before such Special Courts. Recent law graduates may be appointed for short durations, e.g., 3 years, to preside over these special traffic Courts. These special Courts should only deal with cases involving fines. Cases which may involve imprisonment should be tried before regular Courts in order to ensure fair process.
5. That, adequate provisions be made for staff and infrastructure required for the working of additional Courts. See All India Judges Association v. UOI, (2002) 4 SCC 247 ("We are conscious of the fact that overnight these vacancies cannot be filled. In order to have Additional Judges, not only the post will have to be created but infrastructure required in the form of Additional Court rooms, buildings, staff, etc., would also have to be made available").
6. That the present work is based on analysis of institution, disposal and pendency figures upto 2012. Needless to say, over time these figures are likely to change, affecting the requirement for additional Courts to keep pace with filings and disposals. The Law Commission does not have sufficient information to predict by how much institution is likely to vary in the coming years.46 Therefore, the High Courts may be required to carry out Periodic Judicial Needs Assessment to monitor the rate of institution and disposal and revise the judge strength periodically, based on institutions, disposals, pendency and vacancy, using the formula given above.
46. See discussion in footnote 38 above.
7. That, in the light of revelation before the Commission about the lack of uniformity in data collection and concerns with the quality of data recorded and provided by High Courts,47 the Commission strongly recommends that High Courts be directed to evolve uniform data collection and data management methods in order to ensure transparency and to facilitate data based policy prescriptions for the judicial system.
47. See Section III. A above.
8. That a systemic perspective, encompassing all levels of the judicial hierarchy, is needed for meaningful judicial reform. Taking measures for the timely disposal of cases at all levels of the judicial system, including by monitoring and increasing judge strength throughout the system; encouraging Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods, where appropriate and more efficient allocation and utilization of resources is required to fulfill the goal of providing timely justice to litigants. In particular, the Commission emphasizes the urgent need to increase judge strength in High Courts to ensure that appeals/revisions from additional cases disposed of by the newly created Subordinate Courts, are dealt with in a timely manner, and that the already heavy backlog in the High Courts is adequately addressed. Therefore, a piecemeal approach to delay reduction should be eschewed in favour of a systemic perspective.
9. That, as the Supreme Court recognized in its order in Imtiyaz Ahmad dated February 1, 2012, the creation of additional Courts is one amongst various measures required to ensure timely justice and facilitate access to justice. The Commission recognizes that apart from increasing judge strength, many other measures have to be undertaken for reducing delays, including the application of good judicial management practices such as putting into place timeliness and performance benchmarks. As discussed earlier in this report, the Commission emphasizes the need for establishing, based on rational criteria, non-mandatory time frames for the resolution of different types of cases.48 Unless judges and litigants have clear expectations of how soon their cases are likely to resolved, there will be little accountability for delays, and systemic problems are likely to increase. Therefore, the Commission seeks to highlight an urgent need to fix rational, non-mandatory time frames for different types of cases, and use such time frames as a basis for setting judge performance standards, litigant expectations, and making more robust policy recommendations for the judiciary.
48. The Commission does not recommend mandatory time-frames for the disposal of cases. The Supreme Court has categorically stated in a seven judge bench decision in P. Ramchandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, that "it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings�. At the most the periods of time prescribed ... can be taken by the Courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking into consideration the several relevant factors as pointed out in A.R. Antulay's case and decide whether the trial or proceedings have become so inordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any Court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the Court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused."
(Former Judge Supreme Court of India)
Tele : 23019465
23384475
Fax 23792745
Dear Chief Justice Madan B. Lokur,
In the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed v. State of U.P. (reported in 2012 (2) SCC 688), Hon'ble Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of India to make an assessment of number of additional Courts required for the Country in order to establish better access. to justice. The relevant part of judgment of the Supreme Court in enclosed herewith for ready reference. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to have data relevant for the purpose of undertaking in-depth study and furnishing a report. The joint Secretary of the Law Commission has addressed a letter to the Registrar-General of your High Court enclosing therewith a performa of information/data required. The copy of proforma is sent herewith for ready reference.
In am thinking of preparing an interim report and placing it before the Court on the next date of hearing i.e., in the first week of August, 2012.
I shall be grateful if you could give instructions to the Registry to compile the data/information on priority basis and pass it on to my office at the earliest, may be within a month or six weeks. It will be helpful if an officer of Register is nominated to coordinate with my office. Perhaps, the Judicial Academy/JTI may also be involved in the task of collating the data and furnishing answers to some of the queries.
[P.V. Reddi]
Hon' ble Sri Justice Madan B. Lokur,
Re: Addl. Court Project
Data as on 31-12-2011 may please be furnished
1. Number of Subordinate Courts of various categories in the State presently functioning (cadre-wise and District-wise) and the sanctioned strength;
(a) Courts of DJs/ADJs/CMMs - regular and Fast-track, Special Courts (for e.g. PC Act cases) Tribunals (Industrial/Labour, Sales-tax etc.), Family Courts.
(c) Junior Civil Judges/Judl. Magistrates of I class (those undergoing training and awaiting posting may be separately given);
(d) Spl. Judl. Magistrates (including Fast-track under the recent Central Scheme).
2. Number of Districts &how many are heavy filing/pendency Districts.
Population of each District.
3. Whether recruitment to Jr. Civil Judges is done by PSC or by High Court?
When was the last recruitment?
Any particular reason for vacancies & any bottlenecks in recruitment?
4. (a) Statement showing the pendency of Civil (including EPs) and Criminal cases in each category of Courts specified above - District-wise.
(b) Classification of such pending cases, for instance,
(i) Civil : Money suits, other types of suits, civil appeals, motor accident compensation cases, land compensation cases, matrimonial disputes, industrial and labour disputes, Execution petitions, others
(ii) (a) Whether I-As (interlocutory applications) are counted against pending matters (as shown in SC Court News)?
(b) Number of I-As for interim relief pending and disposed of during the year may also be furnished.
(c) Criminal : Number of:
Sessions cases in the Courts of Sessions Judges and Asst. Sessions Judges
Cases relating to IPC offences in Magistrates' Courts (offences against women and children including domestic violence cases be separately given).
Cases relating to offences under special enactments, viz., offences under S, 138 N.I-Act, S.Cs & S.Ts (PA Act), Corruption cases, Economic offences, NDPS-S, 125 Cr. P.C. matters
Crl. Appeals & Revisions.
Summary trial cases.
5. Statement showing institution and disposal of Civil and Criminal cases during the preceding three years (i.e. 2009, 2010 and 2011) in each category of Courts (Dt. Judges, Sr. Civil Judges, Jr. Civil Judges/Magistrates, Spl. Courts and Fast-track Courts).
P.N: Break-up of the types of cases (as mentioned in Col.3(b)(i) & 3(c) instituted in and disposed of by each category of Courts may be furnished.
6. Contested and uncontested cases (including settled) disposed of in each District by each category of Courts during 2010 and 2011 (broad classification of the nature of cases in contested/settled matters may be given if possible).
7. Civil and Crl. cases pending for more than (i) 3 years (ii) 5 years as on 31-12-2011.
8. (a) What is the average rate of disposal of Civil cases (all put together) per Judge in the State during the last 2 years. In the alternative, the average rate of disposal in at least three districts (heavy, medium, light pendency District) may be given.
(b) The same information as regards the criminal cases (all categories put together) may be furnished (1) after excluding very petty cases, viz., traffic challans etc. and (2) after including such petty cases.
9. Trend of filing of Civil/Crl. cases in the District? What accounts for the bulk of litigation in the District?
10. (a) The method adopted by the High Court to assess the performance of judicial officers.
(b) The minimum target fixed for a judicial officer cadre-wise in respect of disposal of civil and criminal cases of different categories - (in terms of units or grades) and for achieving the next higher grade (more than the minimum)
11. Number of working days prescribed for judicial work in a year and duration of working time per day.
12. How many Fast-track special Magistrates Courts (morning/evening Courts) and Gram Nyayalayas are functioning? How many cases are transferred to them?
13. What is the reasonable workload that each category of Courts (DJ, Sr. Civil Judge, Jr. Civil Judge/Magistrate) can bear in order to establish better and speedy access to justice?
14. (a) Are there exclusive Courts for dealing with S, 138 N.I-Act cases? How many?
(b) Should all I-As (pre-trial) and bail petitions be allocated to one or two Courts located in cities where a cluster of Courts function?
15. (a) Should there be exclusive Courts for old cases?
(b) Any specific measures taken to prioritize disposal of old cases?
(c) What should be the age of a case (Civil/Criminal) to be treated as 'old' and to fall within the description of 'arrears'?
16. (a) Has there been upward revision of the strength of ministerial staff (including process service staff, record-keepers, typists/stenos) in the recent past?
(b) Is there a need to increase the sanctioned strength of such ministerial staff? If so, what percentage?
P.S.: If the Registry of High Court is not in a position to furnish the data/informations at one stretch, it may be sent in two installments.
F.No. 6(3)224/2012-LC(LS)
HT House, 14th floor, K.G. Marg
Dated : 19.08.2013
Sub : Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. (AIR 2012 SC 642) - Order dated 01.02.2012 - Supreme Court
Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Order dated 01.02.2013 in the above-mentioned matter, the Law Commission of India vide letter D.O. No. 6(3)/224/2012-LC(LS) dated 28.05.2012 had requested certain information from High Courts on institutions, disposals and pendency of cases in subordinate courts. Based on the High Court's responses, an interim report was submitted to the Supreme Court on 03.08.2013. Now certain additional information is required before a final report can be submitted to the Supreme Court at the next hearing in October, 2013. You are, therefore, requested to give instructions to the concerned officials to furnish the information as mentioned in then questionnaire enclosed, in the format, on priority basis and at the latest, within two weeks from the receipt of this letter.
(N.L. Meena)
1. Statement showing institution and disposal figures of all cases (civil and criminal) in 2012 (1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012) for each of the three cadre of Courts:
(a) Higher Judicial Services cadre
(b) Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre
(c) Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre
2. Total pendency of cases (civil and criminal) as on 31.12.2012 for each cadre:
3. Of the total pendency mentioned in response to question 2, the total number of cases before each cadre which have been pending for more than one year as on 31.12.2012.
4. Sanctioned strength of judges working in the Subordinate Courts in the following three cadres as on 31.12.2012:
5. Working strength of judges and the number of vacancies in the cadres of (a) Higher Judicial Services (b) Civil Judge (Senior Division) and (c) Civil Judge (Junior Division) as on 31.12.2012. While calculating the working strength, please exclude those judges who are on deputation to posts where they are not working as Courts.
Please provide the above information (questions 1-5) in the following format:
Institutions from 1.1. 2012 to 31.12.2012
Disposals from 1.1.2012 to 31.12.2012
Total Pendency as on 31.12.2012
Number of cases pending for more than one year as on 31.12.2012
Sanctioned Strength as on 31.12.2012
Working Strength as on 31.12.2012 (excluding deputations)
Vacancies as on 31.12.2012
Civil Judge (Senior Div)
Civil Judge (Junior Div)
6. Whether time frames have been fixed for the trial of cases of different types such as murder, kidnapping, money suits etc?
a. If so, please provide a detailed breakup of the time frame for each kind of case.
b. On what basis are these time frames fixed? Please provide a copy of the appropriate regulation or order pursuant to which the time frames for each type of case have been set.
7. Whether interim/interlocutory applications (IAs) in civil and criminal cases, bail applications, and committal proceedings before a Magistrate, are counted against institutions, disposals, and pendency figures in the data provided in response to question nos. 1 and 2?
8. Whether traffic and police challans are counted against institutions, disposals and pendency figures in the data provided in response to question nos. 1 and 2?
9. Is the practice of counting or not counting IAs, bail applications, committal proceedings and traffic and police challans against institutions, disposals and pendency uniform across all districts?
10. Statement showing institution and disposal figures for all civil and criminal cases for each year of the last ten years (from 2002 to 2012) in each of the three cadre of Courts:
11. Total pendency of cases for all civil and criminal cases as on the last day of each year from 2002-2012 broken down cadre wise as
12. Sanctioned strength of judges working in the Subordinate Courts in the following three cadres for each year from 2002-2012 (as on the last day of each year) :
13. Working strength of judges and the number of vacancies in the cadres of (a) Higher Judicial Services (b) Civil Judge (Senior Division) and (c) Civil Judge (Junior Division) for each year from 2002-2012 (as on the last day of each year). While calculating the working strength, please exclude those judges who are on deputation to posts where they are not working as Courts.
Please provide the above information (questions 10-13) in the following format for each year from 2002-2012:
Total Pendency as on 31.12.20-
Sanctioned Strength as on 31.12.20-
Working Strength as on 31.12.20- (excluding deputations)
Vacancies as on 31.12.20-
14. If the institution, disposal, and pendency figures provided in response to question numbers 10 and 11 include interim/interlocutory/bail applications and committal proceedings, please separately provide the institution, disposal and pendency figures for such interim/interlocutory/bail applications and committal proceedings, for the last ten years for each of the three cadres in the following format:
Institutions of IAs etc
Disposals of IAs etc
Total Pendency of IAs etc as on 31.12.20-
15. (A) Are traffic and police challans included in the institution, disposal, and pendency figures provided for 2002-2012 in response to question no. 10 and 11?
(B) Number of traffic and police challans which were instituted, disposed of, and pending for each year from 2002-2012 in each of the three cadres of Courts.
Please provide the data in the format below:
Information for Challans
Pendency as on 31.12.20--
16. Statement showing institution, disposal, and pendency figures for s. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 matters for each of the last ten years (from 2002 to 2012) provided in the following format:
Information for section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882
Institution, Disposal, Pendency, and Sanctioned Strength in the Higher Judicial Service
Average Institution, Disposal and Pendency of Traffic and Police Challans in 2010-12 as a percentage of Average Total Institution, Disposal and Pendency in 2010-12.
Total Challans/Police Challans (TC/PC)
TC/PC as % of Total
NI Act as % of Total
1703648.7
994420.7
986979.7
549857.3
99473.3
517637.3
120815.3
132916.7
120147.7
135214.7
77463.7
79886.7
489244.7
206005.3
206136.7
34541.7
36098.7
536907.3
554523.3
262370.7
262298.3
46448.7
92309.7
93836.7
209820.7
88642.7
87623.7
6449.3
231160.7
230208.3
493.66667
312657.7
238322.7
134733.7
4762.9.7
491183.7
46361.3
179116.3
55977.3
1017894.7
942048.3
252908.3
54338.7
61695.3
6900194.7
2671488.7
465195.7