Lok Sabha Question No. 2653 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2021-08-04
Subject: Pending Court Cases
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: Malook Nagar

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

## MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

## LOK SABHA

## UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. † 2653

## TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 04 th  AUGUST, 2021

## PENDING COURT CASES

## † 2653. SHRI MALOOK NAGAR:

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

- (a) the policy framed by the Government to clear the backlog of higher number of pending cases in the country as compared to the world;
- (b)  whether  the  Government  propose  to  formulate  any  policy  to  address  the major reasons of pendency cases in the country like shortage of courts in India,
- lesser number of sanctioned posts of judges and filling up the vacant posts etc. ;
- (c)  the  various  steps  being  taken  by  the  Government  to  check  corruption  in judiciary; and
- (d)  whether  the  Government  propose  to  formulate  any  policy  with  regard  to framing of strict laws or to bring some substantial changes into the earliers laws in order to strictly check the increasing grusome crimes and to maintain law and order situation in the country?

## ANSWER MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI KIREN RIJIJU)

(a)  &  (b):    Disposal  of  cases  pending  in  various  courts  is  within  the  domain  of judiciary.  Timely disposal of cases in courts depends on several factors which, interalia , include availability of adequate  number  of judges and judicial officers, supporting court staff and physical infrastructure, complexity of facts involved, nature of  evidence, co-operation of stake holders viz .  bar,  investigation  agencies,  witnesses and litigants and proper application of rules and procedures.

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 geographical 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 the ' Rate of Disposal ' method i.e. 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 to be more pragmatic and useful.

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.

The  cadre  strength  of  Judges  in  Supreme  Court  was  raised  from  30  to  33 excluding the Chief Justice of India in the year 2019 and in the High Courts from 906 to  1098  from  the  year  2014  to  2021.  The  cadre  strength  of  Judges  in  District  and Subordinate Courts has increased from 19,518 in 2014 to 24,365 in July, 2021.  The new  courts  at  District  and  below  District  /  Subordinate  (Tehsil  /  Taluka)  level  are established  by  the  respective  State  Governments  in  consultation  with  the  concerned High Courts, as per their need and resources.  Central Government has no role in the matter. In Malik Mazhar case, the Supreme Court, through a judicial order has devised a process and time-frame for filling up vacancies in the Subordinate Judiciary in a time bound manner.

The Union Government is committed to speedy disposal of cases and reduction in  pendency  of  cases  to  improve  access  to  justice  in  line  with  the  mandate  under Article 39A of the Constitution. The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, established by the Union Government, has adopted many  strategic initiatives,  including  improving  infrastructure  for  Judicial  Officers  of  District  and Subordinate Courts, leveraging Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for better  justice  delivery,  filling  up  of  vacant  positions  of  Judges  in  High  Courts  and Supreme Court, reduction in pendency through follow up by Arrears Committees at District,  High  Court  and  Supreme  Court  level,  emphasis  on  Alternate  Dispute Resolution (ADR) and initiatives to fast track special type of cases etc.

(c):  The  issue  of  checking  corruption  in  the  judiciary  is  to  be  addressed  by  the judiciary itself, as it is an independent organ under the Indian Constitution. Accountability  in  higher  judiciary  is  maintained  through  ' in-house  procedure ', adopted by the Supreme Court in Full Court meeting held on 7 th May, 1997.  As per the  ' In-house procedure ',  Chief  Justice  of  India  is  competent  to  receive  complaints against the conduct of the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justices of the High Courts.  Similarly, the Chief Justices of the High Courts are competent to receive complaints against the conduct of High Court Judges.  Further, as per Article 235 of the  Constitution  of  India,  the  control  over  District  Courts  and  Courts  subordinate thereto vests in the High Court.

Complaints  and  representations  regarding  allegation  of  corruption  received  are dealt with by the Chief Justice of India or to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, as the case may be, for appropriate action. Similarly, complaints/

representations against member of Subordinate Judiciary received are forwarded to the Registrar General of the concerned High Court, for appropriate action.

(d): Existing criminal laws have adequate provisions to check various kind of crimes and maintain law and order.  However, amendments to criminal law is a continuous process.

*****