Approach:

Introduction: Show the link between low strength in the courts and the pending cases.

Body: Write about the causes of pendency and measures taken to reduce judicial pendency.

Conclusion: Show delayed justice is similar to justice denied.

Answer:

As per the India Justice Report 2022, as of December 2022, against a sanctioned strength of 1,108 judges, the High Courts were functioning with only 778 judges. The subordinate courts were found functioning with 19,288 judges against a sanctioned strength of 24,631 judges.

Correspondingly, the number of cases pending per judge is rising in most States over last five years while the sanctioned strength has remained more or less the same. At High Court level, Uttar Pradesh has the highest average pendency; cases remain pending for an average of 11.34 years, and in West Bengal for 9.9 years.

The case clearance rate (CCR), or the number of cases disposed of in a year, measured against the number filed in that year remains less than 100% leading to increasing pendency.

"Justice, Delayed: A Study of Judicial Pendency in India" by Daksha Fellowship identifies several causes of pendency in the Indian justice system, including:

1. Insufficient number of judges and court staff, leading to a backlog of cases and delays in scheduling hearings and trials.
2. Procedural complexities and inefficiencies, such as filing delays, adjournments, and frequent changes in lawyers.
3. Inadequate court infrastructure, including outdated technology, lack of physical facilities, and poor maintenance of court premises.
4. Limited access to legal aid and representation for disadvantaged groups, resulting in a disproportionate burden on the courts and delaying the resolution of cases.
5. Inconsistencies in judicial practices and standards, leading to delays in case disposal and a lack of predictability in the outcome of cases.
6. Impediments to alternative forms of dispute resolution, such as arbitration and mediation, including challenges to the enforceability of arbitration agreements, concerns about the independence and impartiality of arbitrators, and legal provisions such as mandatory reporting and liens.

Measures to reduce judicial pendency:

1. Increasing the number of judges by increasing the sanctioned strength, filling up of vacancies, resolving the tussle between executive and judiciary regarding judicial appointments and collegium system reforms.
2. "Case Management of Civil Cases in the Indian Judiciary" by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy proposes a case management framework that prioritizes early resolution and proactive judicial intervention.
3. The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms launched in 2011 suggests measures such as court automation, human resource development, and legal aid.
4. The eCourts Project initiated in 2007 aims to computerize court processes and services across the country, with the ultimate goal of creating a centralized case information system and reducing pendency.
5. The Supreme Court of India has issued various guidelines such as setting time limits for disposing of cases, adopting alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and promoting judicial accountability and transparency.
6. NITI Aayog has suggested the implementation of a judicial performance index to check delays in trials and address the issue of pendency.
7. The "Nyaya Vikas" initiative launched by the Maharashtra government aims to address pending cases in the state by increasing the number of courts, judges, and support staff, as well as improving physical infrastructure and case management practices.

Other solutions include improving court management, electronic case filing, increasing funding and resources for the justice system, promoting legal literacy and awareness, expanding the use of technology, e-ADR, and gram nyayalayas, and enhancing coordination and collaboration among stakeholders.

Judicial pendency needs to be dealt with on a war footing else the maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” will unfortunately depict the state of affairs of the Indian jurisprudence.