Lok Sabha Question No. 211 (STARRED), answered on 2018-12-26
Subject: Judges to Population Ratio
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: SHARAD TRIPATHI, (ADV.) JOICE GEORGE

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

## MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

## LOK SABHA

## STARRED QUESTION NO. †*211

TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, 26 TH  DECEMBER, 2018.

Judges to Population Ratio

## †*211. SHRI SHARAD TRIPATHI:

## ADV. JOICE GEORGE:

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

- (a) whether any norms have been laid down regarding the ratio of the number of Judges to the total population of the country and if so, the details thereof along with the present ratio in this regard;
- (b) whether the ratio of Judges vis-avis population is very low in our country in comparison to the developed countries and if so, the
- details thereof;
- (c) the details of the present per judge average endorsement ratio of cases and for the last three years along with the steps taken by the Government to ensure effective functioning of judicial system for the quick disposal of pending cases;
- (d)  whether  as  a  result  of  low  judge  to  population  ratio,  scores  of cases heard every day lead to a large number of  adjournments, transfer of cases from one judge to another and increasingly long queues of people waiting outside courtrooms having less chance of their cases being heard and if so, the details thereof; and
- (e)  whether  the  Government  has  noted  that  delays  in  courts  cost India's  economy  trillions  of  rupees  every  year  and  if  so,  the details thereof ?

## 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.  †*211FOR  ANSWER ON 26 TH  DECEMBER, 2018.

## 1. Judge-population ratio:

1.1 In  the  case  of  Imtiyaz  Ahmed versus State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and others,  the  Supreme  Court  had  asked  the  Law  Commission  of  India  to evolve  a  method  for  scientific  assessment  of  the  number  of  additional courts required to clear the backlog of cases.  In 245 th report (2014), the Law  Commission  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,  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, is more pragmatic and useful.

1.2 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  in  the  long  term,  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.

1.3 As  per  the  direction  of  the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  its  Order dated  02.01.2017,  the  Department  of  Justice  has  forwarded  a  copy  of interim report of the NCMS Committee to all the State Governments and High  Courts  to  enable  them  to  take  follow  up  action  to  determine  the required Strength of district and subordinate judiciary.

## 2. Steps taken by the Government to ensure effective functioning of judicial system for the quick disposal of pending cases:

The Government is 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  subordinate  judiciary  more  efficient  are  as follows:

- (i) Improving infrastructure for Judicial Officers of District and Subordinate  Courts :  As  on  date,  Rs.6,623.87  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, 3,179.57 crores (which are 48% 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  18,731  as  on  date  and  number  of residential  units  has  increased  from  10,211  as  on  30.06.2014  to 16,539 as on date under this scheme.  In addition, 2,906 court halls and  1,754  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 :  Number  of  computerised District & Subordinate courts has increased from 13,672 to 16,755 registering  an  increase  of  3,083  during  2014  to  2018.    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  10.80  crore cases including more than three crore pending cases and more than 7.91 crore orders / judgments are 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 (JSC)  in  all  computerised  courts,  eCourts  Mobile  App,  email service,  SMS  push  &  pull  services.    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 judicial officers in District and Subordinate Courts : During May  2014  -  November  2018,  25  Judges  were  appointed  in Supreme Court; 423 new Judges were appointed and 362 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             |
| 30.09.2018 | 22,644                | 17,509             |

Minister  of  Law  &  Justice  vide  letter  dated  14 th August, 2018  has  written  to  the  Chief  Justices  of  High  Courts  and  Chief Ministers of States to monitor the status of vacancies in the district and subordinate courts regularly and to ensure proper coordination with the State Public Service Commission so that the examination and  the  interviews  are  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  time schedule  prescribed  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Malik  Mazhar Sultan case.

- (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 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 is done to expedite 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,  708  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. Judicial Officers in District and Subordinate Courts.

(viii) A  series  of  meetings  were  held  with  Registrars  General  of  all High Courts and Law Secretaries of all State Governments / UTs through Video Conferencing in the month of January, 2018, July, 2018  and  November,  2018  to  follow  up  on  filling  up  posts  of The Department of Justice  has  hosted  a  web-portal  on  its  website  for reporting and monitoring of sanctioned and working strength, and vacancies  of  Judicial  Officers  of  District  and  Subordinate  Courts on monthly basis.

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

## ELEVENTH POSITION IN THE ADMITTED LIST

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

## (NOTE FOR SUPPLEMENTARIES)

LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. *211 ASKED BY SHRI SHRI SHARAD TRIPATH AND ADV. JOICE GEORGE, HON'BLE  MEMBERS  OF  PARLIAMENT,  TO  BE  ANSWERED ON 26 TH DECEMBER, 2018 REGARDING 'JUDGES TO POPULATION RATIO'.

## INDEX

|   Sr. No. | Topic / Subject / Issue                                                                                  | Page no.   |
|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|
|         1 | Reply of the Lok Sabha Starred Question No.*211                                                          | 1-8        |
|         2 | Judge - Population Ratio                                                                                 | 9          |
|         3 | 120 th Report of the Law Commission of India                                                             | 9-         |
|         4 | 245 th Report of the Law Commission                                                                      | 10-12      |
|         5 | Pendency of Cases in the Hon'ble Supreme Court                                                           | 12         |
|         6 | Pendency of Cases in the Hon'ble High Courts                                                             | 12         |
|         7 | Pendency of Cases in District and Subordinate Courts                                                     | 13         |
|         8 | Important Legislative Amendments for Expeditious Disposal of Cases                                       | 14-17      |
|         9 | Reforms Implemented under Enforcing Contract Parameter                                                   | 18-22      |
|        10 | Sanctioned Strength / Working Strength and Vacancies in District and Subordinate Courts as on 30.09.2018 | 23         |
|        11 | Central Recruitment Mechanism                                                                            | 24         |
|        12 | All India Judicial Service - Number of High Courts / State Governments in favaour or against.            | 25-28      |
|        13 | Authorities conducting examination for Judicial Officers                                                 | 29-30      |
|        14 | Malik Mazhar Sultan Case                                                                                 | 31         |
|        15 | Imtiyaz Ahmed Case                                                                                       | 32-33      |
|        16 | Progress of eCourts Project                                                                              | 34-38      |
|        17 | Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Development of Infrastructure Facilities                                  | 39-40      |
|        18 | Special Fast Track Courts                                                                                | 41-42      |
|        19 | Gram Nyayalayas                                                                                          | 43         |
|        20 | Special Court for Lawmakers                                                                              | 44-45      |
|        21 | Cases disposed by Lok Adalat during last 3 years                                                         | 46         |
|        22 | Grants release / expenditure incurred during last 5 years by NALSA                                       | 47         |
|        23 | Access to Justice - Government of India and UNDP (SAJI)                                                  | 48-49      |
|        24 | Access to Justice-North Easters and Jammu &Kashmir                                                       | 50-51      |
|        25 | Tele-Law Service                                                                                         | 52         |
|        26 | Nyaya Mitra                                                                                              | 53         |
|        27 | Pro Bono Legal Services                                                                                  | 54         |
|        28 | Bio-data on the Hon'ble Member of Parliament                                                             | 55-56      |

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

## ELEVENTH POSITION IN THE ADMITTED LIST

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

## (NOTE FOR SUPPLEMENTARIES)

LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. *211 ASKED BY SHRI SHRI SHARAD TRIPATH AND ADV. JOICE GEORGE, HON'BLE  MEMBERS  OF  PARLIAMENT,  TO  BE  ANSWERED ON 26 TH DECEMBER, 2018 REGARDING 'JUDGES TO POPULATION RATIO'.PURPORT OF THE QUESTION:

## †*211. SHRI SHARAD TRIPATHI: ADV. JOICE GEORGE:

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

- (a) whether any norms have been laid down regarding the ratio of the number of Judges to the total population of the country and if so, the details thereof along with the present ratio in this regard;
- (b) whether the ratio of Judges vis-avis population is very low in our country in comparison to the developed countries and if so, the
- details thereof;
- (c) the details of the present per judge average endorsement ratio of cases and for the last three years along with the steps taken by the Government to ensure effective functioning of judicial system for the quick disposal of pending cases;
- (d)  whether  as  a  result  of  low  judge  to  population  ratio,  scores  of cases  heard  every  day  lead  to  a  large  number  of  adjournments, transfer of cases from one judge to another and increasingly long queues of people waiting outside courtrooms having less chance of their cases being heard and if so, the details thereof; and
- (e)  whether  the  Government  has  noted  that  delays  in  courts  cost India's economy trillions of rupees every year and if so, the details thereof ?

## Reply to the above question:

- 1.
- Judge-population ratio:
- 1.1 In  the  case  of  Imtiyaz  Ahmed versus State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and others,  the  Supreme  Court  had  asked  the  Law  Commission  of  India  to

evolve  a  method  for  scientific  assessment  of  the  number  of  additional courts required to clear the backlog of cases.  In 245 th report (2014), the Law  Commission  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,  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, is more pragmatic and useful.

1.2 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  in  the  long  term,  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.

- 1.3 As  per  the  direction  of  the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  its  Order dated  02.01.2017,  the  Department  of  Justice  has  forwarded  a  copy  of interim report of the NCMS Committee to all the State Governments and High  Courts  to  enable  them  to  take  follow  up  action  to  determine  the required Strength of district and subordinate judiciary.

## 2. Steps taken by the Government to ensure effective functioning of judicial system for the quick disposal of pending cases:

The Government is 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  subordinate  judiciary  more  efficient  are  as follows:

- (i) Improving  infrastructure  for  Judicial  Officers  of  District  and Subordinate  Courts :  As  on  date,  Rs.6,623.87  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,  3,179.57  crores  (which  are  48%  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 18,731 as on date and number of residential units has  increased  from  10,211  as  on  30.06.2014  to  16,539  as  on  date under this scheme.  In addition, 2,906 court halls and 1,754 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 :  Number of computerised District & Subordinate courts has increased from 13,672 to 16,755 registering an increase of 3,083 during 2014 to 2018.  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  10.80  crore  cases  including  more  than  three crore pending cases and more than 7.91 crore orders / judgments are 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  (JSC)  in  all  computerised  courts,  eCourts Mobile  App,  email  service,  SMS  push  &  pull  services.    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 judicial officers in District and Subordinate Courts :  During May 2014 - November 2018, 25 Judges were appointed in Supreme Court; 423  new  Judges  were  appointed  and  362  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             |
| 30.09.2018 | 22,644                | 17,509             |

Minister of Law & Justice vide letter dated 14 th August, 2018 has written to the Chief Justices of High Courts and Chief Ministers of States to  monitor  the  status  of  vacancies  in  the  district  and  subordinate  courts regularly and to ensure proper coordination with the State Public Service Commission so that the examination and the interviews are conducted in accordance with the time schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Malik Mazhar Sultan case.

- (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 by the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015 is done to expedite  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, 708 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.
- (viii) A series of meetings were held with Registrars General of all High Courts and Law Secretaries of all State Governments / UTs through Video Conferencing in the month of January, 2018, July, 2018 and November, 2018 to follow up on filling up posts of Judicial Officers in  District  and  Subordinate  Courts.  The  Department  of  Justice  has hosted a web-portal on its website for reporting and monitoring of

sanctioned and working strength, and vacancies of Judicial Officers of District and Subordinate Courts on monthly basis.

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

Based  on  the  Population  as  per  Census  2011  and  sanctioned strength of Judges / Judicial Officers in Supreme Court, High Courts and District & Subordinate Courts, the judge - population ratio in the country works  out  to  be  around 19.63  Judges  /  Judicial  Officers  per  million population as calculated below:

| Population based on Census 2011                                                                            | 121,01,93,422   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
| Sectioned Strength of Judges of Supreme Court as on 17.12.2018                                             | 31              |
| Sanctioned Strength of Judges of High Court as on 17.12.2018                                               | 1,079           |
| Sanctioned Strength of Judges of District and Subordinate Courts as on 30.09.2018                          | 22,644          |
| Total                                                                                                      | 23,754          |
| Population Per Judge as per Sanction Strength                                                              | 50,947          |
| Judge-Population Ratio (As per sanctioned Strength) i.e. (Judges per one million (Ten lakh) of population) | 19.63           |

## 120 th Report of the Law Commission of India:-

The  Law  Commission,  in  its  120 th report  submitted  in  1987, examined the problem of understaffing of judiciary and recommended 50 Judges per million of population gradually in five years ( and should not exceed ten years )  instead  of  10.5.    The  Commission  also  recommended that  by  the  year  2000,  India  should  command  at  least  the  ratio  that  the U.S.  commanded in 1981 i.e .107  Judges  per  one  million  of  population. The present requirement of number of judges is much greater, looking to the  spate  of  litigation,  population  explosion  and  other  factors.    The inadequate judge strength is a major cause of delay in disposal of cases.

## Judge Population Ratio (120 th Report of Law Commission of 1987):-

|   Sr. No. | Country       |   Judges per one million of population |
|-----------|---------------|----------------------------------------|
|         1 | United States |                                  107   |
|         2 | Canada        |                                   75.2 |
|         3 | England       |                                   50.9 |
|         4 | Australia     |                                   41.6 |
|         5 | India         |                                   10.5 |

## 245 th Report of the Law Commission:(Methods for determining adequate requirement of Judicial Officers)

In February 2012, the Supreme Court issued directions in the case of Imtiyaz  Ahmad  v.  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh 1 requesting  the  Law Commission  of  India  to  give  its  recommendations  with  regard  to  the measures to be taken in terms of creating additional courts and other allied matters, including providing a rational and scientific definition of ' arrears '  and  ' delay '.    The  Law  Commission  examined  these  issues  in detail and submitted its recommendations to the Supreme Court through its 245 th report titled ' Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (Wo)manpower '.    The  Law  Commission  has  examined  the  different methodologies for computing adequacy of judge strength and found that the commonly  used  judge-population  ratio  was  NOT  an  appropriate metric .  This was based on the finding that there is no objective number by reference to which the adequacy of the judge to population ratio of a State  can  be  determined.    The  filings  per  capita  are  associated  with economic  and  social  conditions  and  these  vary  substantially  across different States.  In the words of the Law Commission - ' the justice needs of  different  societies  thus  vary,  and  no  universal  standard  can  be prescribed in this regard '.

After  considering  the  judge-population  ratio  and  several  other methods such  as the  judge-filing  ratio,  the  ideal  case  load  method  and time-based methods, the Law  Commission  found the 'RATE  OF DISPOSAL METHOD' to be the most pragmatic and useful option in the  present  scenario. The  formula  for  determining  appropriate  judicial strength using the rate of disposal method involves the following steps:

1 Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Ors , AIR 2012 SC 642.

-  An assessment of  the  present  efficiency  levels  of  the  subordinate judiciary in different States, being the current rate at which judges dispose cases.
-  Using  the  rate  of  disposal  per  judge  to  determine  the  number  of judges  that  would  be  required  to  ensure  a  breakeven  situation  where  the  number  of  disposals  equals  the  number  of  new  cases being instituted.
-  Using  the  rate  of  disposal  per  judge  for  assessing  the  number  of judges that would be required to dispose of the backlog of cases. For the purposes of its calculations, the Law Commission defined backlog to mean cases that have been pending for more than one year.    It,  however,  noted  that  this  time  period  can  be  modified  to suit the needs of different courts.

The Supreme Court, in its order dated 1 st May, 2014, had issued notice  to  13  States 2 and  12  High  Courts 3 asking  them  to  file  their responses to the Law Commission's report including the method adopted by the Commission for determining the need for creating new courts and the time frame within which they would be able to achieve the target.  It has also asked High Courts to examine location of the additional courts and the available infrastructure that would be required.  In the same order the Court has also asked the Law  Commission to formalize its recommendations with regard to the remaining States.

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

2 Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Haryana, Punjab, Maharashtra, Sikkim and Uttarakhand

3 High  Courts  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  Bihar,  Delhi,  Gujarat,  Himachal  Pradesh,  Jammu  and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab and Haryana, Bombay and Uttarakhand

to  the  Supreme  Court  in  March,  2016.    The  report, inter-alia ,  observes that  in  the  long  term,  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.  As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 02.01.2017, the Department of Justice has forwarded a copy of interim report of the NCMS Committee to all the State Governments and High Courts to enable them to take follow up action to determine the required Strength of district and subordinate judiciary.

## (i) Pendency of Cases in the Hon'ble Supreme Court

| Year             | Institution   | Disposal   | Pendency   |
|------------------|---------------|------------|------------|
| 2009             | 77,151        | 71,179     | 55,791     |
| 2010             | 78,280        | 79,509     | 54,562     |
| 2011             | 77,090        | 73,133     | 58,519     |
| 2012             | 76,917        | 68,744     | 66,692     |
| 2013             | 76,742        | 77,085     | 66,349     |
| 2014             | 89,164        | 92,722     | 62,791     |
| 2015             | 78,444        | 82,092     | 59,272     |
| 2016             | 79,246        | 75979      | 62,537     |
| 2017             | 56104         | 63,053     | 55,588     |
| As on 30.04.2017 |               |            | 60,745     |
| As on 14.07.2017 |               |            | 58,438     |
| As on 31.07.2017 |               |            | 58,254     |
| As on 30.07.2018 |               |            | 54,996     |
| As on 01.12.2018 |               |            | 56,994     |

## (ii) Pendency of Cases in the Hon'ble High Courts

|   Year | Institution   | Disposal   | Pendency   |
|--------|---------------|------------|------------|
|   2009 | 17,79,482     | 15,93,369  | 40,60,709  |
|   2010 | 18,64,975     | 16,77,863  | 42,49,344  |
|   2011 | 19,47,009     | 17,84,282  | 43,22,198  |
|   2012 | 19,07,033     | 17,86,170  | 44,34,191  |
|   2013 | 20,16,338     | 17,72,917  | 44,62,705  |
|   2014 | 18,23,031     | 17,34,542  | 41,53,957  |
|   2015 | 16,88,449     | 15,80,911  | 38,70,373  |
|   2016 | 16,91,830     | 15,39,315  | 40,15,147  |

| As on 31.03.2017   | 40,63,293   |
|--------------------|-------------|
| As on 20.12.2018   | 49,22,671   |

(iii) Pendency of Cases in District and Subordinate Courts

|   Year | Institution   | Disposal    | Pendency    |
|--------|---------------|-------------|-------------|
|   2009 | 1,69,65,198   | 1,60,98,779 | 2,72,75,953 |
|   2010 | 1,80,04,311   | 1,76,59,558 | 2,77,51,181 |
|   2011 | 1,79,78,676   | 1,85,96,866 | 2,69,86,307 |
|   2012 | 1,81,49,248   | 1,81,97,153 | 2,68,89,203 |
|   2013 | 1,86,78,542   | 1,87,83,546 | 2,68,38,861 |
|   2014 | 1,89,57,097   | 1,90,19,658 | 2,64,88,405 |
|   2015 | 1,85,58,178   | 1,78,97,555 | 2,70,19,955 |
|   2016 | 1,91,42,647   | 1,80,28,672 | 2,74,97,436 |
|   2017 |               |             | 2,61,24,130 |
|   2018 |               |             | 2,92,10,715 |

## IMPORTANT LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS FOR EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES

1. Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 : With a view to address  the  issue  of  undue  delay  in  final  resolution  of  cheque dishonour  cases  so  as  to  provide  relief  to  payees  of  dishonoured cheques  and  to  discourage  frivolous  and  unnecessary  litigation which  would  save  time  and  money,  the  Negotiable  Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018 was enacted on 2nd August, 2018 so as to:
- a. Empower the Court to order payment of interim compensation  of  upto  20%  of  the  cheque  amount,  by  the drawer of the cheque to the complainant, in cases where the accused does not plead guilty in a summary trial or summons case.
- b. Empower the appellate court to direct deposit of a minimum of  20%  of  cheque  amount  in  appeal  by  the  drawer  against conviction, within a period of sixty days. This amount can be released  to  the  complainant  and  has  to  be  returned  to  the accused if the appeal is allowed.
2. Commercial  Courts,  Commercial  Division  and  Commercial Appellate  Division  of  High  Courts  (Amendment)  Act,  2018 enacted on 20th August, 2018:
- a. Constitute  commercial  courts  at  the  district  level  in  States where the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
- b. Specified value reduced from Rs 1 crore to Rs 3 lakhs and in
7. States  where  the  High  Courts  have  ordinary  original  civil jurisdiction, the maximum  pecuniary  jurisdiction  of the district courts shall be specified by the High Courts.
- c. Introduction of pre-institution mediation and settlement mechanism  introduced  for  all  commercial  cases.  Mediation shall be conducted  through  authorities  under  the  Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
- d. Case  Management  Hearing  (Pre-Trial  Conference):  Order XV A of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 15 (4) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides for case management hearings in commercial cases including transferred suit or application.

## 3. Specific  Relief  (Amendment)  Act,  2018  enacted  on  1 st August, 2018:

- a. Specific performance of contracts has been made the rule by curbing the discretionary power of courts.
- b. Substitute performance of contracts by third parties has been encouraged.
- c. Granting  of  injunctions  by  courts  in  disputes  relating  to infrastructure contracts are minimised.
4. Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2018 : Passed by Lok Sabha on 10 th August, 2018 and pending for consideration and passing before Rajya Sabha. It seeks to amend the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 so as to:

- a. Establish an independent body called the Arbitration Council of  India  (ACI)  for  the  promotion  of  arbitration,  mediation, conciliation and other alternative dispute redressal mechanisms.  Its  functions  include:  (i)  framing  policies  for grading  arbitral  institutions  and  accrediting  arbitrators,  (ii) making policies for the establishment, operation and maintenance of uniform professional standards for all alternate  dispute  redressal  matters,  and  (iii)  maintaining  a depository of arbitral awards (judgments) made in India and abroad.
- b. Empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to designate arbitral institutions,  which  parties  can  approach  for  the appointment of arbitrators, in case of disagreement between the parties on appointment of an arbitrator. Hitherto, in such cases  the  parties  could  request  the  Supreme  Court,  or  the concerned High Court, or any person or institution designated  by  such  Court,  to  appoint  an  arbitrator.  For international  commercial  arbitration,  appointments  will  be made by the institution designated by the Supreme Court. For domestic  arbitration,  appointments  will  be  made  by  the institution designated by the concerned High Court.
- c. Provide that the written claim and the defence to the claim in

an  arbitration  proceeding  should  be  completed  within  six months from the date the arbitrator receives the appointment. *****

## Reforms Implemented under the Enforcing Contract Parameter

## 1. Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment)  Act, 2018 enacted on 20th August, 2018:

- a. Constitute commercial courts at the district level in States where the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
- b. Specified value reduced from Rs 1 crore to Rs 3 lakhs and in States  where  the  High  Courts  have  ordinary  original  civil jurisdiction, the maximum pecuniary jurisdiction of the district courts shall be specified by the High Courts.
- c. Introduction of pre-institution mediation and settlement mechanism introduced for all commercial cases. Mediation shall be  conducted  through  authorities  under  the  Legal  Services Authorities Act, 1987.
- d. Case Management Hearing (Pre-Trial Conference): Order XV A of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  and  Section  15  (4)  of  the Commercial  Courts  Act,  2015  provides  for  case  management hearings  in  commercial  cases  including  transferred  suit  or application.

## 2. Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 enacted on 1 st August, 2018

- a. Specific  performance  of  contracts  has  been  made  the  rule  by curbing the discretionary power of courts.
- b. Substitute  performance  of  contracts  by  third  parties  has  been

encouraged.

- c. Granting of injunctions by courts in disputes relating to infrastructure contracts are minimised.

## 3. Assigning New Cases to Judges randomly through an automated system

-  Software  under  Case  Information  System  3.0  under  the  eCourts Mission  has  been  launched  on  14 th August,  2018  and  has  been positioned for use in subordinate courts.

## 4. Electronic filing of Cases

-  Launched on 14th August, 2018.
-  Online registration of lawyers and litigants can be done.
-  Lawyers/litigants can file cases from any part of India to any court on registration.

## 5. Electronic Service of Summons - National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes (NSTEP)

-  Launched on 14th August, 2018.
-  Enables real-time status updates and tracking of summons.
-  Tracks  geographical  co-ordinates  of  the  process  server  at  the moment of serving.

## 6. Electronic  case  management  tools  within  subordinate  courts  for use by the Judges

-  Access laws, regulations and case-law
-  Automatic generation of hearing schedule for all cases on Judges Docket
-  Send notifications to lawyers
-  Track status of a case in judge's docket
-  View and manage case documents (briefs, motions)
-  Assistance with judgment writing
-  Semi-automatic generation of court orders, and
-  View court orders and judgments in a particular case.

## 7. Electronic  case  management  tools  within  subordinate  courts  for use by the Lawyers

-  Access laws, regulations and case-law
-  Access forms to be submitted to the court
-  Receive notifications
-  Track the status of a given case
-  View and manage case documents (briefs, motions)
-  File briefs and documents with the Court, and
-  Access court orders and decisions on a given case.

## 8. Regular Awareness Campaigns & Stakeholders Consultations to spread awareness about the initiatives and reforms undertaken

-  5 meetings of Task Force held in 2017 and 3 meetings held in 2018 under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Justice). 8th meeting of the Task Force was held on 28th November, 2018 and the High Courts of  Delhi  and  Bombay  were  requested  to  take  steps  for  setting  up
- Commercial Courts at district level and ensure Electronic Case and Court Management Tools for Judges and Lawyers.
-  6  meetings  held  in  2017  and  7  meetings  held  in  2018  to  apprise lawyers, judges, and other stakeholders of Delhi about the available case management tools.
-  1  meeting  held  in  2017  and  2  meetings  held  in  2018  to  apprise lawyers, judges, advocates and other stakeholders of Mumbai about the available case management tools.
-  Awareness  Campaigns  specifically  for  lawyers  /  advocates  in association  with  the  Bar  Associations  are  conducted  in  the  Delhi District Court & Mumbai City Civil Courts.

## 9. Designate 16 courts in Mumbai & 75 courts in Delhi to deal with cases of commercial nature

-  16 Courts have been designated as commercial courts in Mumbai City Civil Courts by the High Court of Bombay.
-  High  Court  of  Delhi  has  notified  75  District/Additional  District Judge's courts as commercial courts of which 74 are functional.

## 10. Publications and IEC material under eCourts :

- a. User Manual for eFiling procedure for High Courts and District Courts,
- b. User Manual on ePay,
- c. User Manual on NSTEP,
- d. Brochure on eCourts Services,
- e. Brochure on ePay,
- f. Brochure on NSTEP,
- g. 2 Pamphlets on eCourts Services (bilingual),
- h. User Manual for CIS 3.0
9. ***********

## Sanctioned Strength / Working Strength and vacancies in Subordinate Courts as on 30.09.2018

| Sr. No.   | Name of State / UT           |   Total Sanctioned Strength as on 30.09.2018 |   Total Working Strength as on 30.09.2018 |   Total Vacancy as on 30.09.2018 |
|-----------|------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
| 1         | Andaman &Nicobar Islands     |                                           11 |                                        11 |                                0 |
| 2         | Andhra Pradesh and Telangana |                                          987 |                                       890 |                               97 |
| 3         | Arunachal Pradesh            |                                           30 |                                        25 |                                5 |
| 4         | Assam                        |                                          430 |                                       383 |                               47 |
| 5         | Bihar                        |                                         1845 |                                      1223 |                              622 |
| 6         | Chandigarh                   |                                           30 |                                        30 |                                0 |
| 7         | Chhattisgarh                 |                                          452 |                                       397 |                               55 |
| 8         | Daman and Diu                |                                            4 |                                         4 |                                0 |
| 9         | Dadra and Nagar Haveli       |                                            3 |                                         3 |                                0 |
| 10        | Delhi                        |                                          799 |                                       541 |                              258 |
| 11        | Goa                          |                                           50 |                                        42 |                                8 |
| 12        | Gujarat                      |                                         1506 |                                      1150 |                              356 |
| 13        | Haryana                      |                                          651 |                                       489 |                              162 |
| 14        | Himachal Pradesh             |                                          159 |                                       149 |                               10 |
| 15        | Jammu &Kashmir               |                                          310 |                                       224 |                               86 |
| 16        | Jharkhand                    |                                          676 |                                       460 |                              216 |
| 17        | Karnataka                    |                                         1307 |                                      1076 |                              231 |
| 18        | Kerala*                      |                                          496 |                                       433 |                               63 |
| 19        | Lakshadweep*                 |                                            3 |                                         3 |                                0 |
| 20        | Madhya Pradesh               |                                         1872 |                                      1361 |                              511 |
| 21        | Maharashtra                  |                                         2011 |                                      1844 |                              167 |
| 22        | Manipur                      |                                           55 |                                        40 |                               15 |
| 23        | Meghalaya                    |                                           97 |                                        39 |                               58 |
| 24        | Mizoram                      |                                           67 |                                        46 |                               21 |
| 25        | Nagaland                     |                                           33 |                                        26 |                                7 |
| 26        | Orissa                       |                                          911 |                                       755 |                              156 |
| 27        | Puducherry                   |                                           26 |                                        19 |                                7 |
| 28        | Punjab                       |                                          674 |                                       530 |                              144 |
| 29        | Rajasthan                    |                                         1337 |                                      1108 |                              229 |
| 30        | Sikkim                       |                                           23 |                                        19 |                                4 |
| 31        | Tamilnadu*                   |                                         1143 |                                       905 |                              238 |
| 32        | Tripura                      |                                          115 |                                        75 |                               40 |
| 33        | Uttar Pradesh                |                                         3225 |                                      2037 |                             1188 |
| 34        | Uttarakhand                  |                                          293 |                                       234 |                               59 |
| 35        | West Bengal                  |                                         1013 |                                       938 |                               75 |
| Total     | Total                        |                                        22644 |                                     17509 |                             5135 |

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

## Central Recruitment Mechanism :

-  The appointment of Judges and Judicial Officers in the District and Subordinate Courts falls within the domain of the High Courts and State Governments concerned in which the Central Government has no role.
-  In  order  to  facilitate  regular  filling  up  of  these  vacancies  in  a smooth and time-bound manner, the Department of Justice vide its letter  dated  28 th April,  2017  suggested  certain  options  to  the Hon'ble Supreme Court for creation of a Central Selection Mechanism.
-  The Hon'ble Supreme Court suo motu converted the Government's suggestions into a writ petition on 09 th May, 2017 and directed all State Governments  (including  Union  Territories) to file their responses and suggestions by way of affidavits.
-  The above matter is subjudice at present.

How many High Courts are in favour of constitution of AIJS and how many High Courts are not in favour of constitution of AIJS or has reservation on this issue.

## Answer:

## High Courts in favour of constitution of AIJS

- (i) Sikkim

- (ii) Tripura

2

High Courts, which are NOT in favaour of constitution of AIJS

- (i) Andhra Pradesh

- (ii) Bombay

- (iii) Delhi

- (iv) Gujarat

- (v) Karnataka

- (vi) Kerala

- (vii) Madhya Pradesh

- (viii) Madras

- (ix) Manipur

- (x) Patna

- (xi) Punjab and Haryana

11

High Courts, which want changes in the proposal

- (i) Allahabad (changes in age & qualifications)

- (ii) Chhattisgarh (15% of total vacancies from the Bar)

- (iii) Himachal Pradesh (selection in consonance with recommendations of Shetty Commission)

6

| (iv)Meghalaya (Officers of AIJS are given option for elevation to High Courts of three States) (v) Orissa (promotion to HJS to be included in AIJS) (vi)Uttarakhand (Changes in age, induction level, recruitment body, qualifications, allocation to States, Quota, Training)   |                                                             |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| High Courts, which has intimated that the proposal is consideration                                                                                                                                                                                                              | pending                                                     |
| (i) Jharkhand (ii) Rajasthan                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | 2                                                           |
| High Courts, which did not respond on constitution of AIJS.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      | High Courts, which did not respond on constitution of AIJS. |
| (i) Jammu & Kashmir - 42 nd Amendment is not applicable to J &K. (ii) Calcutta (iii)Gauhati                                                                                                                                                                                      | 3                                                           |
| Total                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            | 24                                                          |

High Courts which want control over the officers of AIJS as per Article 235 of the Constitution of India.

- (i) Allahabad
- (ii) Kerala

## How many States are in favour of constitution of AIJS and how many

## States are not in favour of constitution of AIJS?

## Answer:

| States in favour of constitution of AIJS                                                                                                                                                           | States in favour of constitution of AIJS                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) Haryana (proposal seems to be justified) (ii) Mizoram                                                                                                                                          | 2                                                        |
| States, which are NOT in favaour of constitution of AIJS                                                                                                                                           | States, which are NOT in favaour of constitution of AIJS |
| (i) Arunachal Pradesh (ii) Himachal Pradesh (iii) Karnataka (iv) Madhya Pradesh (v) Maharashtra (vi) Meghalaya (vii) Nagaland                                                                      | 8                                                        |
| States, which want changes in the proposal                                                                                                                                                         | States, which want changes in the proposal               |
| (i) Bihar (wants major changes) (ii) Chhattisgarh (only 15% vacancies of ADJ filled through AIJS) (iii)Manipur (wants certain changes) (iv)Orissa (wants changes in the proposals) (v) Uttarakhand | 5                                                        |

<!-- image -->

| States, which did not respond on constitution of AIJS.                                                                                                                       |   States, which did not respond on constitution of AIJS. |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| (i) Tripura (ii) Goa (iii) Gujarat (iv) Jharkhand (v) Rajasthan (vi) Tamil Nadu (vii) Assam (viii)Andhra Pradesh (ix) Kerala (x) Sikkim (xi) Uttar Pradesh (xii) West Bengal |                                                       13 |
| State Government of J & K has mentioned that the 42 nd Amendment is not applicable to the State of J &K.                                                                     |                                                        1 |

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

## Statement  on  Authority  conducting  selection  for  appointment  of Judicial Officers/Judges to State Higher Judicial Services and Lower State Judicial Services:

|   Sr. No. | Name of State     | Higher Judicial Service   | Lower Judicial Service                                                |
|-----------|-------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         1 | Andhra Pradesh    | High Court                | High Court                                                            |
|         2 | Arunachal Pradesh | High Court of Gauhati     | 50% by High Court of Gauhati & 50% by State Public Service Commission |
|         3 | Assam             | High Court                | High Court                                                            |
|         4 | Bihar             | High Court                | State Public Service Commission                                       |
|         5 | Chhattisgarh      | High Court                | State Public Service Commission                                       |
|         6 | Delhi             | High Court                | High Court                                                            |
|         7 | Goa               | High Court of Bombay      | High Court of Bombay                                                  |
|         8 | Gujarat           | High Court                | High Court                                                            |
|         9 | Haryana           | High Court                | State Public Service Commission                                       |
|        10 | Himachal Pradesh  | High Court                | State Public Service Commission                                       |
|        11 | Jammu& Kashmir    | High Court                | State Public Service Commission                                       |
|        12 | Jharkhand         | High Court                | State Public Service Commission                                       |
|        13 | Karnataka         | High Court                | High Court                                                            |

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

|   14 | Kerala         | High Court   | High Court                      |
|------|----------------|--------------|---------------------------------|
|   15 | Madhya Pradesh | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   16 | Maharashtra    | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   17 | Manipur        | High Court   | High Court                      |
|   18 | Meghalaya      | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   19 | Mizoram        | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   20 | Nagaland       | High Court   | High Court                      |
|   21 | Orissa         | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   22 | Punjab         | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   23 | Rajasthan      | High Court   | High Court                      |
|   24 | Sikkim         | High Court   | High Court                      |
|   25 | Tamil Nadu     | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   26 | Tripura        | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   27 | Uttar Pradesh  | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   28 | Uttarakhand    | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |
|   29 | West Bengal    | High Court   | State Public Service Commission |

## Malik Mazhar Sultan Case

## Time  Bound  Filling  up  of  Vacancies  in  District  and  Subordinate Courts.

-  As per the Constitution, the selection and appointment of judges in subordinate  courts  is  the  responsibility  of  State  Governments  and the High Courts concerned.
-  The Supreme Court, through a judicial order in Malik Mazhar case, has devised a process and time frame to be followed for the filling up of vacancies in subordinate judiciary.
-  This order of January 2007 by the Supreme Court stipulates that the process  for  recruitment  of  judges  in  the  subordinate  courts  would commence  on  31 st March  of  a  calendar  year  and  end  by  31 st October of the same year.
-  The Supreme Court has permitted State Governments / High Courts for variations in the time schedule in case of any difficulty based on the  peculiar  geographical  and  climatic  conditions  in  the  State  or other relevant conditions.

## Imtiyaz Ahmed Case

In the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Supreme  Court  had  asked  the  Law  Commission  of  India  to  evolve  a method  for  scientific  assessment  of  the  number  of  additional  courts required  to  clear  the  backlog  of  cases.    In  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,  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, is more pragmatic and useful.  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  in  the  long  term,  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.  As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 02.01.2017, the Department of Justice has forwarded a copy of interim report of the NCMS Committee to all the State Governments and High Courts to enable them to take follow up action to determine the required Strength of district and subordinate judiciary.

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

## Progress of eCourts Project

## Phase - I (2011-2015) :

1. Government  implementing  the  e-Courts  Mission  Mode  Project throughout the country for Information and Communication Technology enablement of district and subordinate courts.
2. Amount released - Rs. 251 crores
3. The  target  of  computerisation  of  14,249  district  and  subordinate courts was achieved.
4. Out  of  these,  LAN  was  installed  at  13,643  courts,  hardware provided  in  13,436  courts  and  software  was  installed  in  13,672 courts.
5. Laptops  were  provided  to  14,309  judicial  officers  and  change management exercise completed in all High Courts.
6. Over 14,000 Judicial Officers were trained in the use of UBUNTULinux Operating System.
7. More  than  4000  court  staff  were  trained  in  Case  Information System (CIS) as System Administrators.
8. Video Conferencing facility was operationalised between 488 court complexes and 342 corresponding jails.

## Phase - II (2015-2019) :

1. Rs. 1,084.71 crore released till date.
2. Computerisation of 16,755 district and subordinate courts completed [computer hardware, Local Area Network (LAN), and

installation of standard application software in district and subordinate courts].

3. The details of computerised district and subordinate courts under various High Courts are as under:
4. New  and  user-friendly  version  of  Case  Information  Software developed  and  deployed  at  all  the  computerized  District  and Subordinate Courts.
5. QR Code facility made operational in the software, which enables to check current status of the case.
6. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) for District & Subordinate Courts  created  as  an  online  platform  which  provides  information relating  to  judicial  proceedings/decisions  of  16,755  computerized district and subordinate courts of the country.
7. The portal provides online information to litigants such as details of case  registration,  cause  list,  case  status,  daily  orders,  and  final judgments.
8. Currently litigants can access case status information in respect of over 10.80 crore cases and more than 7.82 crore orders / judgments.
9. Litigant centric information can be obtained through the website of the eCourts portal by accessing using the URL: https://ecourts.gov.in.
10. Case  information  is  thus  available  speedily  to  the  petitioners  and respondents.
11. The  eCourts  portal  and  National  Judicial  Data  Grid  (NJDG)  also serve as tools of efficient court and case management for judiciary which aids in disposal of pending cases.
12. Judicial  Service  Centres  (JSC)  established  at  all  computerized subordinate courts to serve as a single window for filing petitions and applications by litigants/ lawyers, and for obtaining information on ongoing cases and copies of orders and judgments etc.
13. ECourts mobile app with the facility of QR Code was launched on 22.07.2017 for use of litigants and lawyers. Services under different captions  viz.  Search  by  CNR,  Case  Status,  Cause  List  and  My Cases are available on this application, which is available on both Google Play and Apple Store.
14. Furthermore,  the  facility  of  providing  case  information  services through  SMS  has  also  been  implemented  and  the  process  of disseminating system-generated SMSs is operational.
15. The  case  details  can  also  be  obtained  by  sending  unique  CNR number (Case Number Record) to a mobile number through SMS. Cause  lists,  judgements,  case  status  etc.  can  be  received  in  the litigants' mailbox on registration of email address.
16. 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.
17. eFiling  application  to  enable  the  advocates,  petitioners-in-person, etc.,  to  file  their  cases  on-line  (at  any  time)  has  been  launched  in August, 2018.
18. About 163.53 crore electronic transactions have been recorded for eCourts through eTaal portal.
19. The eCourts transactions have thus emerged as one of the topmost accessed services of the Government of India.

|   S. No. | Name of the High Court   | No. of computerised subordinate courts   |
|----------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|        1 | Allahabad                | 2072                                     |
|        2 | Andhra Pradesh           | 1078                                     |
|        3 | Bombay                   | 2079                                     |
|        4 | Calcutta                 | 811                                      |
|        5 | Chhattisgarh             | 357                                      |
|        6 | Delhi                    | 427                                      |
|        7 | Gauhati                  | 496                                      |
|        8 | Gujarat                  | 1108                                     |
|        9 | Himachal Pradesh         | 119                                      |
|       10 | Madhya Pradesh           | 1203                                     |
|       11 | Jammu And Kashmir        | 218                                      |
|       12 | Jharkhand                | 351                                      |
|       13 | Rajasthan                | 1,094                                    |
|       14 | Karnataka                | 897                                      |
|       15 | Kerala                   | 486                                      |
|       16 | Madras                   | 1032                                     |

| S. No.   | Name of the High Court   | No. of computerised subordinate courts   |
|----------|--------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| 17.      | Orissa                   | 534                                      |
| 18.      | Patna                    | 1025                                     |
| 19.      | Punjab And Haryana       | 1018                                     |
| 20.      | Sikkim                   | 19                                       |
| 21.      | Uttarakhand              | 186                                      |
| 22.      | Tripura                  | 69                                       |
| 23.      | Manipur                  | 37                                       |
| 24.      | Meghalaya                | 39                                       |
|          | Total                    | 16,755                                   |

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

## Progress of CSS for Judicial Infrastructure (as on 20.12.2018)

## Centrally Sponsored Scheme

|   S No | Information                                       | Status                    |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|
|      1 | Total amount released since 1993-94.              | Rs. 6,623 crore           |
|      2 | Amount released since April, 2014.                | Rs. 3,179 crore           |
|      3 | BE 2017-18.                                       | Rs. 621.20 crore          |
|      4 | RE 2017-18.                                       | Rs. 621.21 crore          |
|      5 | Expenditure.                                      | Rs. 621.21 crore          |
|      6 | Number of Court Halls available in 2014.          | 15,625                    |
|      7 | Number of Court Halls available as on date.       | 18,731                    |
|      8 | Number of Court Halls under construction.         | 2,906                     |
|      9 | Number of Residential Units available in 2014.    | 13,532                    |
|     10 | Number of Residential Units available as on date. | 16,539                    |
|     11 | Number of Residential Units under construction.   | 1,754                     |
|     12 | Amount of UC pending upto 2015-16.                | Rs. 50.93 crore.          |
|     13 | Amount of unspent balance for 2016-17.            | Rs. 36.01 crore.          |
|     14 | Amount of unspent balance for 2017-18.            | Rs. 105.35 crore.         |
|     15 | Amount of total unspent balance as on date.       | Rs. 192.30 crore.         |
|     16 | Online monitoring System.                         | Web-portal and Mobile app |

|    |                          | is launched on 11.06.2018. Trainings were conducted on 12.06.2018, 13.07.2018, 14.08.2018 and 17.11.2018 (North-East). VC with nodal officers was held on 10.10.2018 and also in November, 2018. 23 States conducted training at user level. 16 States appointed Nodal Officer, Surveyors and Moderators. 25 States started entering details and 19 States started geo-   |
|----|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 17 | Norms and Specifications | Revised Guidelines and Norms and specification approved on 10.05.2018. Revised Guidelines alongwith Norms and Specifications are uploaded on website and circulated to State / UT for compliance.                                                                                                                                                                         |

## Special Fast Track Courts

| Name of the States/UTs    | Number of Fast Track Courts   |
|---------------------------|-------------------------------|
| Andhra Pradesh, Telangana | 59                            |
| Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, | 3                             |
| Nagaland, Mizoram         |                               |
| Bihar                     | 48                            |
| Chhattisgarh              | 23                            |
| Delhi                     | 14                            |
| Goa                       | 2                             |
| Gujarat                   | 0                             |
| Haryana                   | 0                             |
| Himachal Pradesh          | 0                             |
| Jammu &Kashmir            | 0                             |
| Jharkhand                 | 0                             |
| Karnataka                 | 0                             |
| Kerala                    | 0                             |
| Madhya Pradesh            | 0                             |
| Maharashtra               | 100                           |
| Manipur                   | 4                             |
| Meghalaya                 | 0                             |
| Odisha                    | 0                             |
| Punjab                    | 0                             |
| Puducherry                | 0                             |

| Rajasthan     |   0 |
|---------------|-----|
| Sikkim        |   2 |
| Tamil Nadu    |  72 |
| Tripura       |   3 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 286 |
| Uttarakhand   |   4 |
| West Bengal   |  88 |
| Total         | 708 |

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

## Status of Gram Nyayalayas notified and operationalised by State

## Governments

| Sl. No.   | State       |   Notified |   Functional |
|-----------|-------------|------------|--------------|
| 1         | MP          |         89 |           89 |
| 2         | Rajasthan   |         45 |           45 |
| 3         | Karnataka   |          2 |            0 |
| 4         | Orissa      |         22 |           14 |
| 5         | Maharashtra |         39 |           24 |
| 6         | Jharkhand   |          6 |            1 |
| 7         | Goa         |          2 |            0 |
| 8         | Punjab      |          2 |            1 |
| 9         | Haryana     |          2 |            2 |
| 10        | UP          |        104 |            4 |
| 11        | Kerala      |         30 |           30 |
| Total     |             |        343 |          210 |

**********

## Special Courts for Lawmakers:

The Supreme Court of India in its Order dated the 01 st November, 2017 had directed the Union Government to prepare a scheme for setting up of Courts exclusively to deal with criminal cases involving political persons on the lines of Fast Track Courts (FTCs) which were set up by the Central Government  for  a  period  of  five  years  and  extended  further,  which Scheme  has  now  been  discontinued.    A  Scheme  for  setting  up  Special Courts to dispose of all the criminal cases involving political persons in a period of one year was  submitted before the Supreme  Court  for implementation.    The  Supreme  Court  of  India vide its  Order  dated 14.12.2017 has directed the Union Government to proportionately allocate the  amount  to  be  incurred  to  the  different  states  in  which  the  proposed Special Courts are planned to be located forthwith and thereafter the State Governments will make necessary arrangements of judicial officers, staff and infrastructure in consultation with the High Courts to ensure that the said  Courts  start  functioning  from  01.03.2018.    Accordingly,  following amount has been allocated for Special Courts for Lawmakers.

| State     |   Amount Sanctioned |   Number of Courts |
|-----------|---------------------|--------------------|
| Telengana |             6500000 |                  1 |
| Tamilnadu |             6500000 |                  1 |
| Karnataka |             6500000 |                  1 |
| Bihar     |             6500000 |                  1 |

| Andhra Pradesh   |   6500000 |   1 |
|------------------|-----------|-----|
| Kerala           |   6500000 |   1 |
| Maharashtra      |   6500000 |   1 |
| Madhya Pradesh   |   6500000 |   1 |
| Uttar Pradesh    |   6500000 |   1 |
| West Bengal      |   6500000 |   1 |
| Delhi            |  13000000 |   2 |
| Total            |  78000000 |  12 |

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

## Cases disposed by Lok Adalat during last three years

## (I) National Lok Adalats

| Year             |   No. of days National Lok Adalats held |   Disposal of Pending Cases (lakh) |   Disposal of Pre- Litigative Cases (lakh) |   Total Disposal (lakh) | Settlement Amount (Rs crore)   |
|------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------|
| 2015             |                                       9 |                              61.58 |                                     163.43 |                  225.01 | 14,551                         |
| 2016             |                                      10 |                              49.77 |                                      55.21 |                  104.98 | 9,164                          |
| 2017             |                                       5 |                              29.28 |                                      24.77 |                   54.05 | 14,958                         |
| 2018 (upto Nov.) |                                       4 |                              20.47 |                                      26.38 |                   46.86 | 11,345                         |

## (II) Regular Lok Adalats

| Year    |   Disposal of Pending Cases (lakh) |   Disposal of Pre-Litigative Cases (lakh) |   Total Disposal (lakh) |   Settlement Amount (Rs crore) |
|---------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------|
| 2016-17 |                               9.65 |                                      7.58 |                   17.23 |                           2443 |
| 2017-18 |                               9.44 |                                      9.84 |                   19.28 |                           2122 |

## (III) Permanent Lok Adalats (PLA)

|   Year | Number of PLA   |   Cases settled | Total settlement Amount (in Rs. crore)   |
|--------|-----------------|-----------------|------------------------------------------|
|    292 | 1,03,559        |          238.97 | 2015-16                                  |
|    271 | 93,555          |          160.83 | 2016-17                                  |
|    289 | 1,24,459        |          247.54 | 2017-18                                  |

(Rs. Crore)

| Year                         |   2014-15 |   2015-16 |   2016-17 |   2017-18 | 2018-19 (upto Nov.)   |
|------------------------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------------------|
| Budget Estimate              |    142    |    145    |    142    |       100 | 80                    |
| Revised Estimate             |    137    |     93.94 |     83.95 |       100 | -                     |
| Grant released / expenditure |     82.65 |     67.97 |     63.67 |       100 | 80                    |

Total: Rs.394 crore.

## Access to Justice  Project - Government of India and UNDP (SAJI)

The above project in partnership with UNDP which started in 2009 came  to  an  end  on  31.12.2017.  The  salient  features  of  the  project  in Phase-I and II are given below

## First Phase of the Project (2009-2012)

-  Budget- INR 30 crore
-  States  -Bihar,  Chhattisgarh,  Jharkhand,  Madhya  Pradesh,  Odisha, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh.

## Key Achievements

-  Creation  of  Justice  Innovation  Fund  for  legal  awareness  in  70 districts across 7 states.
-  Increased legal awareness for 15,00,000 people including 5,00,000 women.
-  Over 3000 Paralegal Volunteers were trained;
-  60  Panel  lawyers  in  Chhattisgarh,  Jharkhand  and  Odisha  trained through a fellowship programme.

## Second Phase of the Project (2012-2017)

-  Budget- INR 30 crore
-  In  Eight  States-  Bihar,  Chhattisgarh,  Jharkhand,  Madhya  Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.

## Key Achievements

-  Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh - Capacity Building of Resource Groups SIRD, NLMA, CSC,community based volunteers, NALSA
-  Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Odisha & Rajasthan Organized Legal awareness campaigns.
-  Maharashtra - Establishment of Socio Legal Cells in Observation Homes for strengthening Juvenile Justice system
-  Odisha & Maharashtra - Establishment of Legal Aid Clinics in law universities.
-  Odisha - Enabling recognition and security of forest rights.
-  Jharkhand & Chhattisgarh - Setting up of Voice Legal Information Kiosks

*****

## ACCESS TO JUSTICE- NORTH EASTERN AND JAMMU &

## KASHMIR

Project  states:  Assam,  Tripura,  Sikkim,  Manipur,  Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram and Jammu and Kashmir.

## Phase I (2012-17)

-  Budget Rs. 30 crore
-  Collaboration with National Literacy Mission Authority: provided legal literacy to 7 lakh adults in Assam, Tripura, Sikkim, Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.
-  Collaboration with CSC e-Governance Services India Ltd: benefitting 2 lakh people at panchayat level in the project states.
-  Capacity Building through NGOs.:  Training  to 2 lakh panel lawyers,  para  legal  volunteers,  Preraks,  CSOs  through  its  various programs  in  the states  of  Assam,  Tripura,  Sikkim,  Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Jammu & Kashmir.
-  Synergy between tribal justice system and regular justice system: In Nagaland sensitization programs were held for Gaon  Buras, Dobashis, and Village Council Members.
-  Setting up of 46 Legal aid Clinics in Nagaland.
-  Information, Education and Communication  materials developed in 16 local  dialects  of  North  Eastern  States  including  documentaries on local legislations.

## Phase II (2017-20)

-  Budget Rs. 46 crore
-  Capacity  Building  of  Panchayati  Raj  functionaries  through  State Institute  of  Rural  Development  in  Tripura,  Meghalaya,  Manipur and Nagaland.
-  Legal  Aid  clinics  with  State  Legal  Services  Authority  in  Tripura, Manipur, Mizoram, Jammu & Kashmir.
-  Establishing  legal  aid  clinics  for  juveniles  in  Srinagar  by  central University of Kashmir.
-  Legal literacy in Assam and Sikkim through State Resource center, Assam.

*****

## TELE-LAW SERVICE

-  Collaboration  between  Department  of  Justice,  CSC,  SLSA  under the aegis of NALSA
-  Legal  aid  and  advice  through  video  conferencing  and  telephone facilities  at  the  CSC  to  the  marginalized  communities  by  SLSA  / CSC Panel lawyers
-  To  increase the flow of cases for Pre-Litigation advice  and consultation
-  1800 CSCs in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, North -Eastern states and J&K
-  TELE-LAW can be accessed at http://www.tele-law.in/
-  As on date, advice enabled in 42530 cases (marginalized persons : 15120 - women, 3522 - SCs and 5323 - STs)
-  Cases relate, inter alia, to criminal matters, family and matrimonial disputes and land/property disputes.
-  A  monitoring  dashboard  has  been  designed  to  strengthen  the scheme.

## NYAYA MITRA

-  Objectives: To reduce pendency of court cases pending for over 10 years.
-  Covers  227  selected  districts of 16  States that include  Uttar Pradesh,  Bihar,  Maharashtra,  Gujarat,  Rajasthan,  West  Bengal, Odisha, North East States and Jammu & Kashmir.
-  Selected districts with 10 years of cases pending have been sourced from National Judiciary Data Grid (NJDG) database.
-  Retired  judicial  officers  designated  as  'Nyaya  Mitra'  are  engaged for each selected district at the CSC.
-  In the first Phase 15 Nyaya Mitra's have been engaged.
-  District Judges of corresponding Nyaya Mitras have been addressed / consulted over phone to utilize the services of Nyaya Mitras.
-  Nyaya Mitras of Rajasthan, Gujarat and Tripura have been closely working with district judiciary.
-  District  Judges  have  been  requested  to  give  sitting  space  and  to utilize the services for disposal of old cases.

## Pro Bono legal services

-  Department of Justice has created a web based platform (available at doj.gov.in), through which interested lawyers can register themselves to volunteer pro bono services for the under-privileged litigants, and Marginalized individuals can apply for legal aid and advice from the pro bono lawyers.
-  357 advocates from across the country have registered for volunteering  pro  bono  services  and  341  cases  of  marginalized applicants have been assigned to these advocates.
-  The  Department  is  developing  a  mobile  application  which  will facilitate connections between beneficiaries and pro bono lawyers.

## FACTS AT A GLANCE

## DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (As on 21.12.2018)

## 1. Judges in Supreme Court

| Sanctioned Strength as on 17.12.2018   |   31 |
|----------------------------------------|------|
| Working Strength as on 17.12.2018      |   27 |
| Vacancies as on 17.12.2018             |    4 |
| Appointments in 2016                   |    4 |
| Appointments in 2017                   |    5 |
| Appointments in 2018                   |    8 |

2. Judges in High Courts

| Sanctioned Strength as on 17.12.2018   |   1,079 |
|----------------------------------------|---------|
| Working Strength as on 17.12.2018      |     692 |
| Vacancies as on 17.12.2018             |     387 |
| New posts created since 2014           |     173 |
| Appointments in 2016                   |     126 |
| Appointments in 2017                   |     115 |
| Appointments in 2018                   |     108 |
| Addl. Judges made Perm. in 2016        |     131 |
| Addl. Judges made Perm. in 2017        |      31 |
| Addl. Judges made Perm. in 2018        |     115 |

## 3. Judges in District and Subordinate Courts

| Sanctioned Strength                        | 22,644   |
|--------------------------------------------|----------|
| Working Strength                           | 17,509   |
| Vacancies                                  | 5,135    |
| Increase in sanctioned strength since 2014 | 3,126    |
| Increase in working strength since 2014    | 2,394    |
| Judge-Population ratio (Judge / million)   | 19.63    |

4. Pendency in Supreme Court
5. Pendency in 23 High Courts as per NJDG Data

| Pendency of Cases as on 01.12.2018        | 56,994   |
|-------------------------------------------|----------|
| Reduction in pendency of cases since 2014 | 5,797    |

| Pendency of Cases as on 20.12.2018   | 49.22 lakh   |
|--------------------------------------|--------------|

## 6. Pendency in District and Subordinate Courts of States / UTs as per NJDG Data

| Pendency of Cases as on 20.12.2018   | 2.92 crore   |
|--------------------------------------|--------------|

## 7. Judicial Infrastructure

| Court Halls Available                | 18,731   |
|--------------------------------------|----------|
| Court Halls under construction       | 2,906    |
| Total                                | 21,637   |
| Residential Units Available          | 16,539   |
| Residential Units under construction | 1,754    |
| Total                                | 18,293   |

## 8. Financial Assistance for Judicial Infrastructure

| Year                                                 | (Rs. In crore)   |
|------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
| Total sanction of Financial Assistance since 1993-94 | 6,623.87         |
| Total sanction of Financial Assistance since 2014    | 3,179.57 (48 %)  |
| Financial Assistance sanctioned in the year 2017-18. | 621.21           |
| Financial Assistance sanctioned in the year 2018-19. | 523.63           |

## 9. eCourts Project Phase - II

| Computerized Courts                        | 16,755                             |
|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
| Funds approved for Phase - II (2015-19)    | Rs.1,670 crore                     |
| Funds released upto (2018-19)              | Rs.1,084 crore                     |
| Increase in Computerized courts since 2014 | 3,528                              |
| Cases on NJDG                              | 10.80 crore                        |
| Judgments on NJDG                          | 7.91 crore                         |
| Video Conference Facility                  | 488 court complexes and 342 jails. |

## 10. Family Courts

| Functional Family Courts as on 31.12.2017                   | 511         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------|
| Total cases pending in these Family Courts as on 31.12.2017 | 7,13,474    |
| Functional Family Courts as on 30.09.2018                   | 525         |
| Total cases pending in these Family Courts as on 30.09.2018 | 7,61,352    |
| Cases disposed in 2014                                      | 3.30 lakh   |
| Cases disposed in 2015                                      | 4.21 lakh   |
| Cases disposed in 2016                                      | 78 thousand |

## 11. Fast Track Courts

| Functional Fast Track Courts as on 31.12.2017                   | 727       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|-----------|
| Total cases pending in these Fast Track Courts as on 31.12.2017 | 5,70,224  |
| Functional Fast Track Courts as on 30.09.2018                   | 708       |
| Total cases pending in these Fast Track Courts as on 30.09.2018 | 6,45,688  |
| Cases disposed in 2014                                          | 4.61 lakh |
| Cases disposed in 2015                                          | 3.84 lakh |
| Cases disposed in 2016                                          | 8.72akh   |

## 12. Ease of Doing Business

| India's Rank in 2016 (Enforcing Contract Indicator)   |   178 |
|-------------------------------------------------------|-------|
| India's Rank in 2017                                  |   172 |
| India's Rank in 2018                                  |   164 |
| India's Rank in 2019                                  |   163 |

## 13. Ease of Doing Business Overall Rank

| India's Rank in 2017                                     | 130 th                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| India's Rank in 2018                                     | 100 th                 |
| India's Rank in 2019                                     | 77 th                  |
|                                                          | (out of 190 economies) |
| Improvement in India's Rank in 2019 with respect to 2017 | 53 Points              |

## 14. Lok Adalat

| Pending cases settled in national Lok Adalat from 2015 till date                                                      | 161.12 lakh   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|
| Pending cases settled in Regular Lok Adalats during 2015-16 to 2017-18                                                | 87.22 lakh    |
| Pre-litigative cases settled in Regular Lok Adalats during 2015-16 to 2017-18                                         | 104.47 lakh   |
| Pre-litigative cases relating to public utility service settled in Permanent Lok Adalats during 2015-16 to June, 2018 | 3.41 lakh     |

## 15. Tele Law Scheme (launched on 20 th April, 2017)

| U.P., Bihar, J&K, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Tripura, Nagaland, Sikkim   | 1800 Gram Panchayats in 11 States   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
| Total of number cases registered by PLVs &VLEs                                                       | 47,793                              |
| Number of cases for which legal advice has been provided                                             | 42,530                              |

## 16. Pro Bono Legal Services (launched in April, 2017)

| Interested lawyers and litigants can register on the website to provide and avail pro-bono legal services as may be required.   |   www.doj.gov.in |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|
| Number of lawyers have registered on the portal                                                                                 |              357 |
| Total number of cases assigned for pro bono assistance                                                                          |              341 |

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