Reform of Court Processes and of the Justice Delivery System

In one line

Every reform of Indian court process since 1999 has done one of three things: cut a step, fix a deadline, or move the case out of the court.

The problem

What "arrears" means. A case is in arrears when it has been on the file longer than the time in which the system says it should have been decided. Pendency is the stock; delay is the time each case takes; and the two are related but not the same, because a court can hold a large stock and still decide each case quickly.

The causes, and they are not one thing.

Too few judges. In All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, the Supreme Court recorded that the judge-population ratio was about 10.5 or 13 per ten lakh people, that the 120th Report of the Law Commission and the 85th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee had both recommended FIFTY per ten lakh, and held that an INDEPENDENT AND EFFICIENT JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS ONE OF THE BASIC STRUCTURES of the Constitution, so that a failure to appoint enough judges undermines it. It directed that existing vacancies be filled and the strength raised to FIFTY PER TEN LAKH within FIVE YEARS in a phased manner. That direction is the one hard number in this subject, and it is a judicial number, not a journalistic one.

Vacancies. A sanctioned post that is empty is worse than a post that does not exist, because the work is allotted to it on paper.

Adjournments. The single procedural cause. A case adjourned is a case in which nothing was decided and everybody attended.

Government litigation. The State and its instrumentalities are the largest litigant in India, and appeal as a matter of routine.

Procedure built for a different century. Written statements filed years after summons, evidence recorded question by question in the judge's hand, interlocutory appeals against every order, and a right of appeal that ran to the Letters Patent bench and beyond.

Infrastructure. Court rooms, staff, record rooms and, latterly, bandwidth.

And the appellate ladder itself. Every additional forum multiplies the life of a case.

The amendments of 1999 and 2002

The Code of Civil Procedure was amended by ACT 46 OF 1999 and ACT 22 OF 2002, and the two are taught together because most of the 1999 provisions came into force in 2002 as modified.

Section 89, ADR. Where it appears to the court that there exist elements of a settlement, it shall formulate the terms and refer the parties to ARBITRATION, CONCILIATION, JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT INCLUDING LOK ADALAT, or MEDIATION. That is [Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code], with Afcons.

Order X Rules 1A, 1B and 1C. The machinery of the reference: the court directs the parties to opt for one of the modes, they appear before the forum, and the presiding officer may refer the matter back where he thinks it is not proper for settlement.