Lok Sabha Question No. 283 (STARRED), answered on 2017-03-22
Subject: Speedy Disposal of Cases
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: SANJAY JAISWAL, MOHAMMAD SALIM

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

## LOK SABHA

## STARRED QUESTION NO. *283

## TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, 22 ND  MARCH, 2017

## Speedy Disposal of Cases

## *283. DR SANJAY JAISWAL: SHRI MOHD. SALIM:

## Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

- (a) the details of the average disposal of cases by a High Court Judge in a day;
- (b)  whether  on  an  average,  57  to  80  percent  cases  have  taken  10  to15  years  to  be disposed of in High Courts;
- (c) if so, the reasons for such inordinate delay and the system put in place for timely disposal of cases;
- (d)  whether  the  Government  has  taken  any  concrete  action  plan  to  improve  the disposal of the cases and efficacy of the system; and
- (e) if so, the details thereof along with the success achieved as a result thereof so far?

## ANSWER

## MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD)

- (a) to (e): A Statement is laid on the Table of the House.

## STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) TO (e) of LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. *283 FOR ANSWER ON 22 ND  MARCH, 2017.

(a) to (e): The average time taken for disposal of cases depends on several factors such as category  of  the  case such  as civil  or  criminal,  complexity  of  the  circumstances  and  facts involved, nature and availability of evidences, co-operation of various stake-holders viz . bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants besides the availability of physical infrastructure, supporting court staff and applicable rules and procedures.  Hence,  average disposal of cases differs from case to case and from High Court to High Court.  It may not be practicable  to  compare  the  time  taken for  disposal  of  cases  by  various  High  Courts  in  the country due to involvement of several factors.  The courts operate in different environment on account of difference in availability of infrastructure facilities, use of technology, number of availability of Judges, docket ratio, provisions of substantive laws and procedures in courts.

The Government does not maintain data on average disposal of cases per judge and the average time taken for disposal.  However, as per Court News, Supreme Court during the period of the year from 01 st October, 2015 to 30 th September, 2016, 15.86 lakh cases were disposed by the High Court having working strength of 597 Judges as on 30.09.2016, which works out as average disposal of 2,657 cases by a High Court Judge during this period.

Disposal  of cases  pending  in  courts  is  within the domain  of  Judiciary.    The Government has adopted a co-ordinated approach to assist judiciary for phased liquidation of arrears and pendency in judicial systems, which, inter-alia ,  involves better infrastructure for courts including computerisation, increase in strength of judicial officers / judges, policy and legislative  measures  in  the  areas  prone  to  excessive  litigation  and  emphasis  on  human resource development.

During the Joint Conference of Chief Ministers of States and Chief Justices of the High Courts held at New Delhi in April 2015, reduction of pendency and backlog of cases in courts emerged as an area which required focused attention at the  High  Court  level.    The  Chief Justices of the High Courts in the Conference held on 03 rd and 04 th April 2015 have resolved that each High Court shall establish an Arrears Committee, which would go into the factors responsible for the delays and prepare an action plan to clear the backlog of cases pending for more than five years.  It was further resolved in the Conference of Chief Justices of the High  Courts  held  in  April,  2016,  that  in  order  to  ensure  expeditious  disposal  of  cases pertaining to women, marginalized segments, senior citizens and differently-abled, steps be taken to (a) prioritize the disposal of cases falling in these categories within the existing court system; (b) an endeavour be made to revisit the cadre strength of subordinate courts and, where  necessary,  create  additional  courts  to  deal  with  such  cases.    As  per  information available, Arrears Committees have been set up by the High Courts.

In addition, following steps have also been taken by the Government in the matter.

- (i) The  sanctioned  strength  of  Judges  of  High  Courts  has  been  increased  from  906 judges in June 2014 to 1079 judges in May, 2016.
- (ii) The sanctioned strength of the subordinate judiciary has been increased from 20,174 at the end of 2014 to 21,374 in September, 2016.
- (iii) The filling of vacancies of Judges / Judicial officers in Districts and Subordinate Courts is  within  the  domain  of  the  State  Governments  and  the  High  Courts  concerned. However, Government takes up the matter with the High Courts from time to time to fill up the vacancies of Judges / Judicial Officers of District and Subordinate Courts.
- (iv) In  May  2015, a communication was addressed to the Chief Justices of High Courts requesting  them  to  apprise  the  action  being  taken  to  make  the  recruitment  process more broad based to fill  up  the  existing  vacancies  of  judicial  officers  /  judges  at  all levels in the District and Subordinate Courts to enable the Government to take a view on the need for formation of All India Judicial Service.     Most of the High Courts have indicated  that  the  recruitment  process  which  is  in  their  domain  for  vacancies  in subordinate judiciary at all levels has been expedited in terms of the resolution passed in the Conference of Chief Justices held in New Delhi in April 2015.  The selections for the various posts in subordinate judiciary are being conducted by State Governments / High Courts in consonance with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan case Vs UP Public Service Commission.
- (v) All  State  Governments  have  notified  the  State  Litigation  Policies  so  as  to  reduce Government Litigations.  National Litigation Policy is on the anvil.
- (vi) Promotion of Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  (ADR)  mechanism  is  a  key  strategy  for reducing delays and pendency in courts.
- (vii) National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) is a key tool for access to justice for poor people  in  India,  under  the  overall  supervision  of  the  Chief  Justice  of  India  as  the Patron-in Chief.  It  organised  the  National Lok  Adalat  in  February,  2017.    6.39  lakh pending cases and 2.95 cases at the pre-litigation stage were disposed.
- (viii) 1175 obsolete laws have been repealed.
- (ix) Recently, the Government has launched a nation-wide drive to reduce the number of cases pending in courts by curtaining the Government litigations.    The  Government has written to all Ministers of Central Ministries and Chief Ministers of States to launch

'special  arrears  clearance  drives'  to  reduce  pending  cases  and  minimize  fresh litigations.

- (x) Based on the proposals received from the High Court Collegium, during the year 2016, 126  fresh  appointment  of  Judges  in  High  Courts  and  131  Additional  Judges  were made permanent, which is the highest number of appointments made in the last 26 years.    In  addition,  the  tenure  of  22  Additional  Judges  of  High  Courts  was  also extended.    Besides,  based  on  the  proposal  received  from  the  Supreme  Court Collegium, 4 judges were appointed in the Supreme Court in 2016.  During the current year (2017), as on date, 5 more Judges has been appointed in Supreme Court, 9 more Judges  have  been  appointed  in  High  Courts  and  16  more  Additional  Judges  have been made permanent.
- (xi) The  14 th Finance  Commission  has  endorsed  the  proposal  to  strengthen  the  judicial system in States which includes, inter-alia, establishing 1800 FTCs for a period of five years for cases of heinous crimes;  cases involving senior citizens, women, children, disabled  and  litigants  affected  with  HIV  AIDS  and  other  terminal  ailments;  and  civil disputes involving land acquisition and property / rent disputes pending for more than five years at a cost of Rs. 4144 crore.  The 14 th Finance Commission has urged State Governments to use the additional fiscal space provided by the Commission in the tax devolution to meet such requirements. The Hon'ble Prime Minister had written to all Chief Ministers on 23 rd April, 2015  followed by reminders from the Hon'ble Minister of Law  &  Justice  to  make  available  the  fund  recommended  by  the  14 th Finance Commission  to  judiciary  from  the  additional  fiscal  space  available  under  the  14 th Finance Commission.
- (xii) As per the resolution adopted in the Joint Conference held in New Delhi on 24 th April, 2016, The Government vide its letter dated 26 th September, 2016 requested the State Governments  to  strengthen  the  institutional  mechanism  between  the  State  and  the Judiciary where the Chief Secretary and his team and 2 or 3 Judges of the High Court to  regularly  meet  and  monitor  utilisation  of  plan  fund  and  timely  completion  of infrastructure  and  eCourts  Mission  Mode  project.    The  States  have  also  been requested  to  assist  Judiciary  in  preparing  perspective  /  annual  plan  for  various activities to be undertaken in the justice sector on account of enhanced devolution of funds to the States under the 14 th Finance Commission.  In addition, the States were requested to provide technical manpower for ICT upgradation.
- (xiii) The Government vide a letter dated 3 Feb 2017, addressed the Chief Justices of the 24 High Courts, raising concerns regarding the increased number of undertrials in jails across the country. The  Government, in underscoring the importance of fair trial for every  accused,  requested  the  High  Court  to  advise  the  district  judiciary  to  ensure

effective  implementation  of  Section  436A  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  and  ensure periodic monitoring of the associated Undertrial Review Committee mechanism.  So far,  two  High  Courts  -  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court  and  Madhya  Pradesh  High Court - have responded to this letter who have assured action on this front.

- (xiv) As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 02.01.2017 in the matter  of  Imtiyaz  Ahmed  Case,  the  Department  of  Justice  has  forwarded  a  copy  of interim  report  of  the  NCMS  (National  Court  Management  System)  Committee  to  all State  Governments  and  High  Courts  to  enable  them  to  take  follow  up  action  to determine the required Judges Strength of district judiciary based on the NCMS report.
- (xv) Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Court  Act,  2015  has  been  notified  on  1 st January,  2016  to  have  a  streamlined procedure for the conduct of cases in the Commercial Division and in the Commercial Court by amending the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for commercial cases so as to improve the efficiency and reduce delays in disposal of commercial cases.
- (xvi) Necessary amendments have been made to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to make the award within 12 months, to resolve the dispute through fast rack procedure, to ensure Neutrality of arbitrators, and to restrict the term 'Public Policy of India' (as a ground for challenging the award)
- (xvii) The  Negotiable  Instruments  (Amendment)  Act  2015  has  been  notified  to  clarify  the jurisdiction where dishonour of cheque cases may be filed and provide for transfer of cases  to  the  appropriate  jurisdiction  and  consolidation  of  multiple  cases  filed  in different courts.

************