Lok Sabha Question No. 1704 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2019-02-13
Subject: Cases Pending in M.P. High Court
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: LAXMI NARAYAN YADAV

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

## LOK SABHA

## UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. †1704

## TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 13 TH  FEBRUARY, 2019.

## Cases Pending in M.P. High Court

## †1704. SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN YADAV:

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

- (a) the details of number of cases pending in Madhya Pradesh High Court at present along with the number of cases pending for 15 years;
- (b) whether the pendency of legal cases has prevented people from getting justice in Madhya Pradesh;
- (c) if so, the reaction of the Government in this regard;
- (d) the number of judges working in Madhya Pradesh High Court during each of the last three years;
- (e) whether the need for increase in number of courts has been felt; and
- (f) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken in this regard so far?

## ANSWER MINISTER OF STATE FOR LAW AND JUSTICE AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS (SHRI P. P. CHAUDHARY)

(a): As per data available on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), 3,34,727 cases were pending  in  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Courts  as  on  08.02.2019,  out  of  which  61,679  cases were  10  -  20  years  old.    NJDG  does  not  provide  the  number  of  cases  pending  for  15 years.

(b) & (c) : Timely disposal of cases in courts depends on several factors which, inter-alia , include  availability  of  adequate  number  of  judges,  supporting  court  staff  and  physical infrastructure,  complexity  of  facts  involved,  nature  of  evidence,  co-operation  of  stake holders viz. bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants and proper application of rules and procedures.  No time frame has been prescribed for disposal of various kinds of cases by the respective courts.

The Government is, however, fully committed to speedy disposal of cases. The Government has taken several initiatives to  provide an  ecosystem for faster  disposal of cases  by  the  judiciary.    The  National  Mission  for  Justice  Delivery  and  Legal  Reforms established  by  the  Government  has  adopted  a  coordinated  approach  for  phased liquidation  of  arrears  and  pendency  in  judicial  administration  through  various  strategic initiatives, including improving infrastructure for courts, leveraging Information and Communication  Technology  (ICT)  for  better  justice  delivery,  and  filling  up  of  vacant positions of Judges in High Courts and Supreme Court.  The major achievements during the  last  four  years  under  various  initiatives  to  make  the  functioning  of  judiciary  more efficient are as follows:

- (i)  Improving infrastructure for Judicial Officers of District and Subordinate Courts: As on date,  Rs.6,670.12  crores  have  been  released  since  the  inception  of  the  Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for Judiciary in 1993-94.  Out of this, 3,225.82 crores (which are 48.36% of the total amount released till date) have been released to the States and UTs since April, 2014.  The number of court  halls  has  increased  from  15,818  as  on  30.06.2014  to  18,796  as  on  date  and number of residential units has increased from 10,211 as on 30.06.2014 to 16,652 as on date under this scheme.  In addition, 2,925 court halls and 1,756 residential units are  under  construction.    The  Central  Government  has  approved  continuation  of  the Scheme beyond the 12 th Five Year Plan period i.e. from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2020 with an estimated additional outlay of Rs.3,320 crore.
- (ii)  Leveraging  Information  and  Communication  Technology  (ICT)  for  improved  justice delivery:  Government  has  been  implementing  the  e-Courts  Mission  Mode  Project throughout the country for Information and Communication Technology enablement of district and subordinate courts.  Number of computerised District & Subordinate courts has increased from 13,672 to 16,845 registering an increase of 3,173 during 2014 to 2018.    New  and  user-friendly  version  of  Case  Information  Software  developed  and deployed at all the computerized District and Subordinate Courts.  QR Code facility has been  made operational in the software, which enables checking of current status of the case.    National  Judicial  Data  Grid  (NJDG)  provides  citizens  with  online  information about  case  filings,  case  status  and  electronic  copies  of  orders  and  judgments  from district  and  subordinate  courts  that  have  already  been  computerized.    Information regarding  10.97  crore  cases  is    available  on  this  portal.    eCourts  services  such  as details of case registration, cause list, case status, daily orders & final judgments are available  to  litigants  and  advocates  through  eCourts  web  portal,  Judicial  Service Centres  (JSCs)  in  all  computerised  courts,  eCourts  Mobile  App,  email  service,  SMS

push & pull services.   Information Kiosks have been setup at all computerized court complexes for disseminating judicial information related to cause lists and other case related information to the lawyers and litigants.  eCourts Project has been consistently amongst the top 5 Mission Mode Projects of country.

## (iii)  :  Filling  up  of  vacant  positions  in  Supreme  Court,  High  Courts  and  District  and Subordinate Courts:

From 01.01.2014  to  31.12.2018,  27  Judges  were  appointed  in  Supreme  Court. 446 new Judges were appointed and 379 Additional Judges were made permanent in the High Courts.  Sanctioned strength of Judges of High Courts has been increased from 906 in  May,  2014 to 1079 currently.  Sanctioned and working strength of Judicial Officers in District and Subordinate Courts has been increased as follows:

| As on      | Sanctioned Strength   | Working Strength   |
|------------|-----------------------|--------------------|
| 31.12.2013 | 19,518                | 15,115             |
| 31.12.2018 | 22,833                | 17,701             |

- (iv) Reduction  in  Pendency  through  /  follow  up  by  Arrears  Committees:  Further,  in pursuance  of  resolution  passed  in  Chief  Justices'  Conference  held  in  April,  2015, Arrears Committees have been set up in 24 High Courts to clear cases pending for more than five years.  Arrears Committees have been set up under District Judges too.    Arrears  Committee  has  been  constituted  in  the  Supreme  Court  to  formulate steps to reduce pendency of cases in High Courts and District Courts.
- (v) Nyaya Mitra Scheme: In order to reduce cases pending in courts for over 10 years, the  Government  launched  the  Nyaya  Mitra  Scheme  in  April  2017.    Under  the Scheme,  retired  judicial  officers  are  engaged  and  designated  as  ' Nyaya  Mitra '  to facilitate expeditious disposal of the cases pending over 10 years.  In the first Phase, 15 Nyaya Mitra have been engaged in 15 Districts of Rajasthan, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Tripura.
- (vi) Emphasis on Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR): Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 has been enacted on 20 th August, 2018 whereby mandatory pre-Institution mediation

mechanism has been introduced for settlement of commercial disputes. Amendment to  the  Arbitration  and Conciliation Act, 1996  has been made by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015  for expediting the speedy resolution of disputes by  prescribing  timelines.  The  Arbitration  and  Conciliation  (Amendment)  Bill,  2018 passed by the Lok Sabha on 10.08.2018 seeks to set up Arbitration Council of India (ACI)  to inter-alia grade  arbitral  institutions,  accredit  arbitrators  and  impart  training and award certificate in the ADR field.

- (vii)  Initiatives to Fast Track Special Type of Cases: The Fourteenth Finance Commission endorsed the proposal of the Government to strengthen the judicial system in States which included, inter-alia , establishing Fast Track Courts for cases of heinous crimes; cases involving senior citizens, women, children etc ., and urged the State Governments to use the additional fiscal space provided in the form of enhanced tax devolution form 32% to 42% to meet such requirements.  At present, 731 such Fast Track Courts are functioning across the country. To fast track criminal cases involving elected  MPs  /  MLAs,  twelve  (12)  Special  Courts  have  been  set  up  in  eleven  (11) States  (Andhra  Pradesh,  Telangana,  Kerala,  Karnataka,  Tamil  Nadu,  Maharashtra, Madhya  Pradesh,  Uttar  Pradesh,  Bihar,  West  Bengal  and  NCT  of  Delhi)  and proportionate  funds  have  been  released  to  these  States  by  the  Government.  The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 has been enacted on 11.08.2018 to amend the Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012.
- (d)  :  Sanctioned  /  working  strength  and  vacancies  of  Judges  in  Madhya  Pradesh  High Court during the last three years and current year are given below:

| As on      |   Sanctioned Strength |   Working Strength |   Vacancies as per the Sanctioned Strength. |
|------------|-----------------------|--------------------|---------------------------------------------|
| 01.01.2016 |                    53 |                 30 |                                          23 |
| 01.01.2017 |                    53 |                 39 |                                          14 |
| 01.01.2018 |                    53 |                 34 |                                          19 |
| 01.01.2019 |                    53 |                 35 |                                          18 |

(e) & (f) : In its 245 th report (2014), the Law Commission has observed that filing of cases per  capita varies  substantially  across  geographic  units  as  filings  are  associated  with economic and social conditions of the population.  As such the Law Commission did not consider the judge population ratio to be a scientific criterion for determining the adequacy of the judge strength in the country.  The Law Commission found that in the absence of complete  and  scientific  approach  to  data  collection  across  various  High  Courts  in  the country,  the  ' Rate  of  Disposal '  method  is  more  pragmatic  and  useful    to  calculate  the number of additional judges required to clear the backlog of cases as well as to ensure that new backlog is not created. In  May,  2014,  the  Supreme  Court  asked  the  State  Governments  and  the  High Courts to file  their  response  to  the  recommendations made by the Law Commission. In August  2014,  the  Supreme  Court  asked  the  National  Court  Management  System Committee  (NCMS  Committee)  to  examine  the  recommendations  made  by  the  Law Commission and to furnish its recommendations in this regard. NCMS Committee submitted its report to the Supreme Court in March, 2016.  The report, inter-alia , observes that the clearance of backlog is not the sole or central basis for determining the judge strength and that the judge strength of the subordinate courts will have  to  be  assessed  by  a  scientific  method  to  determine  the  total  number  of  ' Judicial Hours ' required for disposing of the case load of each court. In the interim, the Committee has  proposed  a  ' weighted '  disposal  approach  i.e.  disposal  weighted  by  the  nature  and complexity of cases in local conditions. The  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  considered  the  aforesaid  reports  of  the  Law Commission and the NCMS Committee  and directed in its Order dated 02.01.2017 inter alia,  that  the  NCMS  Committee  shall  formulate  a  scientific  method  for  determining  the basis for computing the required judge strength of the district judiciary; that in the interim, the  judge  strength  shall  be  computed  for  each  state  in  accordance  with  the  approach indicated by the NCMS Committee; that the interim report of the NCMS Committee shall be forwarded by the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts and Chief Secretaries of all states so as to enable them to take follow up action to determine the required judge strength of the district judiciary / courts based on the said report.

***********