Lok Sabha Question No. 953 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2022-07-22
Subject: Analysis of Pendency of Cases in Courts
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: Diya Kumari

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

## MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

## LOK SABHA

## UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 953 TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 22 ND  JULY, 2022

## ANALYSIS OF PENDENCY OF CASES IN COURTS

## 953. MS. DIYA KUMARI:

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

- (a) whether the Government has conducted or proposes to conduct a district- wise or a State-wise analysis on the causes of high pendency of cases in the courts of India, if so, the details thereof;
- (b) whether the Government has taken note of infrastructural challenges of various courts of India, adding onto the pendency of cases, if so, the details of the steps being taken to improve the infrastructure of the courts; and
- (c) whether the Government has taken/proposes to take steps to increase the intake of judicial officers to address pendency, if so, the details thereof?

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

(a): Disposal  of  cases  pending  in  various  courts  is  within  the  domain  of  judiciary. Timely disposal of  cases  in  courts  depends  on  several  factors  which, inter-alia ,  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 1108 from the year 2014 to 2022. The cadre strength of Judges in District and Subordinate Courts has increased  from  19,518  in  2014  to  24,631  in  July,  2022.  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.

(b): The primary responsibility  of  development  of  infrastructure  facilities  for  judiciary rests with the State Governments. To augment the resources of the State Governments, the Union Government has been implementing a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Development  of  Infrastructure  Facilities  in  district  and  subordinate  courts  by  providing financial assistance to State Governments / UTs in the prescribed fund sharing pattern. The scheme is being implemented since 1993-94. It covers the construction of court buildings and residential accommodations for judicial officers of district and subordinate judiciary. As  per  the  data  made  available  by  the  High  Courts,  as  on  30.06.2022,  there  are  20993 Courts  Halls  and  18502  Residential  Units  are  available  for  Judges/Judicial  Officers covering District &  Subordinate  Courts  against  the  Sanctioned  Strength  of  24623 Judges/Judicial Officers of District & Subordinate Courts. The scheme has been extended from  2021-22  to  2025-26  with  a  budgetary  outlay  of  Rs.  9,000  crore  including  central share of Rs. 5,307 crore. Besides the construction of court halls and residential quarters, the scheme now also covers the construction of lawyers' halls, digital computer rooms and toilet  complexes  in  the  district  and  subordinate  courts.    The  release  of  funds  under  the scheme are released after the state government fulfilling the conditions as per the extant guidelines  of  the  scheme.  The  release  in  respect  of  a  State  is  subject  to  the  budgetary allocation made under the scheme. Funds amounting to Rs. 982.00 crore, 593.00 and Rs. 770.44 crore were allocated at RE stage during the Financial Years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22  respectively  under  the  Centrally  Sponsored  Scheme  for  the  Development  of Infrastructure Facilities for Judiciary.

(c): Filling  up  of  vacancies  in  the  High  Courts  is  a  continuous,  integrated  and collaborative process between the Executive and the Judiciary. It requires consultation and approval from various Constitutional Authorities both at the State and Centre level.  While every effort is made to fill up the existing vacancies expeditiously, vacancies of Judges in High  Courts  do  keep  on  arising  on  account  of  retirement,  resignation  or  elevation  of Judges and also due to increase in the strength of Judges.

Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the administrative control over the members of district and subordinate judiciary in the States vest with the concerned High Court.  Further,  in  exercise  of  powers  conferred  under  proviso  to  Article  309  read  with Articles 233 and 234 of the constitution, the respective State Government, in consultation with the High Court, frames the Rules and Regulations regarding the issue of appointment, promotion, reservations and retirement of Judicial Officers in the State Judicial Service. Hence, in so far as recruitment of judicial officers in the States is concerned, respective High Courts do it in certain States, whereas the High Courts do it in consultation with the State Public Service Commissions in other States.

The Union Government does not have a role under the Constitution in the selection and appointment of judicial officers in District/ subordinate judiciary. The Supreme Court, in its orders of 04 th January, 2007 in Malik Mazhar case, has devised a process and time frame  to  be  followed  for  the  filling  up  of  vacancies  in  subordinate  judiciary  which stipulates  that  the  process  for  recruitment  of  judges  in  the  subordinate  courts  would commence on 31st March of a calendar year and end by 31st 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.

Further, in compliance of the above directions of the Supreme Court, Department of Justice forwarded a copy of the Malik Mazhar judgement to Registrars General of all High Courts  for  necessary  action.  Department  of  Justice  is  writing  from  time  to  time  to Registrars General of all High Courts to expedite the filling up of vacancies in subordinate judiciary mandated by Malik Mazhar case.

******