Lok Sabha Question No. 1594 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2021-02-10
Subject: Pending Court Cases
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: Thalikkottai Rajuthevar Baalu

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

## LOK SABHA

## UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1594

## TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 10 th  FEBRUARY, 2021

## PENDING COURT CASES

1594. SHRI T. R. BAALU

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

- (a) whether the increase in the number of courts was insufficient to address the backlog of cases;
- (b) if so, the remedial steps taken by the Government in this regard;
- (c) the measures being taken by the Government in this direction considering the fact that access to justice can also be increased by managing the duration of cases more effectively?

## ANSWER MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE, COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD)

(a) to (c): 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  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  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 1080  from  the  year  2014  to  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.

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