Context

• Last month, President Murmu drew attention to a pressing issue within the Indian judicial system: the problem of court delays.
• These delays, which stem from systemic issues like adjournments, numerous appeals, and rising legal costs, pose a significant challenge to the delivery of timely justice in India.
• Addressing these delays requires not only better case management practices but also a deep understanding of the motivations and constraints of all stakeholders involved in the process.

An Analysis of Contributors to Delays in Indian Judiciary

• The Role of Case Management
  • One of the primary contributors to delays in the Indian judiciary is the inefficiency in court scheduling and case management.
  • To streamline court processes, mechanisms like the Case Flow Management Rules were introduced for district and High Courts in the late 2000s.
  • These rules aimed to establish timelines and create more predictable court schedules.
  • However, their inconsistent implementation has limited their impact, resulting in continued delays and frustration for litigants.
  • Effective case management is crucial for maintaining clear timelines, ensuring that documents are filed on time, witnesses are examined efficiently, and hearings are scheduled without unnecessary adjournments.
  • Yet, the reality of implementing such measures is far more complex, as various systemic and behavioural factors influence their efficacy.
• The Role of Lawyers and Litigants in Delays
  • Lawyers also play a crucial role in influencing court scheduling and case management.
  • Often managing multiple cases across different courts on the same day, lawyers make strategic decisions about which cases to attend based on factors such as the likelihood of adjournment or the perceived disposition of a particular judge.
  • This results in frequent adjournments, further compounding delays.
  • The unpredictability of court schedules makes it challenging for lawyers to plan their caseloads effectively, often leading to unnecessary delays.
• Exploitation of Procedural Loopholes
  • Litigants and their attorneys sometimes exploit procedural loopholes to delay proceedings.
  • For instance, obtaining a stay order in civil matters can be seen as a temporary victory for litigants, as it prevents any immediate adverse action.
  • Once a stay is secured, there is often little incentive for the litigant to push for a speedy resolution, contributing to the accumulation of pending cases.
  • This strategic behaviour, combined with the unpredictability of hearings, exacerbates the burden on the judiciary.
• The Scheduling of Witness Testimonies
  • Judges set specific dates for witness testimonies, but the process often becomes unpredictable due to changes in court schedules, adjournments, and procedural delays.
  • This creates significant challenges for witnesses, who must rearrange their lives, make travel plans, and temporarily leave their jobs to appear in court.
  • The lack of a predictable schedule can be financially burdensome and discouraging for witnesses, leading to their reluctance to appear in court and further delaying trials.

A Major Contributor to Delays in Administration of Justice: Challenges in District Judiciary

• Systemic Pressures on Judges
  • Judges in the district judiciary often find themselves burdened by a variety of systemic pressures that affect their ability to manage cases efficiently.
  • A primary challenge is the expectation to dispose of certain cases quickly, especially those where higher courts have issued directives.
  • These cases might involve vulnerable individuals, urgent matters, or cases that have been pending for a long time.
  • The goal of such directives is to ensure timely justice, but they can inadvertently create complications at the district level.
  • For example, when a high court mandates that certain cases must be prioritised, district judges may have to allocate a disproportionate amount of their time and resources to these specific cases.
  • This can lead to delays in other cases that also require attention, creating a bottleneck in the overall system.
• Misaligned Performance Evaluation through the Units System
  • The performance evaluation of judges in the district judiciary is based on a system known as the units system.
  • This system assigns points or units to judges based on the number and type of cases they resolve.
  • Different weights are given to different types of cases, meaning that judges can earn more points by disposing of certain kinds of cases quickly.
  • While this system is intended to incentivise productivity, it has unintended consequences that contribute to judicial delays.
  • Judges, aiming to maximise their unit scores, might prioritize simpler cases that can be resolved quickly.
  • These cases, often requiring less judicial intervention, allow judges to accumulate points more rapidly.
  • As a result, more complex cases, which might involve multiple parties, intricate legal issues, or substantial evidence, tend to be postponed.
  • This creates a situation where simpler cases are prioritised over those that require a more nuanced understanding and judicial attention.
• Directives from Higher Courts
  • Higher courts, including the Supreme Court and various High Courts, often issue directives to the district judiciary to expedite the resolution of specific cases.
  • While these directives are aimed at reducing delays and ensuring justice, they can disrupt the normal functioning of district courts.
  • These directives might come in the form of deadlines for resolving certain categories of cases, such as cases involving under-trial prisoners, family disputes, or land acquisition matters.
  • Though well-intentioned, they can inadvertently create scheduling challenges for district judges.
• Pressure from the Bar and Career Considerations
  • Another challenge that judges face is the influence of the local bar and concerns over career progression.
  • Judges who strictly enforce timelines or limit the granting of adjournments may face resistance from lawyers.
  • Lawyers, especially those with influence in local bar associations, may view such judges as difficult or inflexible, leading to complaints and potentially affecting the judges' career prospects.
  • This can discourage judges from taking a firm stance on managing their dockets efficiently.

Ways Ahead to Address the Issue of Delays

• Addressing the Challenges in the District Judiciary
  • To effectively address these challenges, there is a need for a more balanced and nuanced approach to judicial reforms.
  • A revaluation of the units system could prioritise the quality of case disposal over quantity, allowing judges to focus more on complex cases without being penalised.
  • High courts and the Supreme Court must work in coordination with district courts, ensuring that their directives align with the practical realities at the district level.
  • Additionally, developing a culture that respects judicial discretion and the enforcement of case management rules can empower district judges to manage their dockets more effectively.
• Technology and Data-Driven Solutions
  • Technological solutions hold significant potential for enhancing case management and reducing delays.
  • By implementing real-time updates and tracking timelines, courts can improve transparency and efficiency in scheduling.
  • A data-driven approach can help identify bottlenecks in the system and facilitate targeted reforms.
  • For example, analysing the reasons for frequent adjournments could lead to better scheduling practices and minimise disruptions in court proceedings.

Conclusion

• Court delays in India present a complex challenge that extends beyond procedural inefficiencies.
• While mechanisms like Case Flow Management Rules are important, they must be implemented consistently and complemented by reforms that consider the human side of the system.
• A holistic approach, focusing on the motivations and incentives of judges, lawyers, litigants, and witnesses, is essential for meaningful progress.