Policy | We need a paradigm shift in our approach towards justice delivery

Representative Image

At a joint conference of chief ministers and chief justices of high courts in 2016, the then Chief Justice of India TS Thakur literally broke down in front of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, lamenting about India’s overworked judiciary, which he said was fast losing the common man’s trust.

It was the same lament that the incumbent CJI Ranjan Gogoi made on the eve of his assuming office two years later. Delivering the third Ramnath Goenka lecture in New Delhi, Gogoi said, “The judiciary today is not a poor workman who blames his tools, but it is a workman with no tools”.

“Not a reform but a revolution is what it needs, to be able to meet the challenges on the ground and to keep this institution serviceable for a common man and relevant for the nation,” he said, drawing attention to the desperate need to improve justice dispensation.

Now, coming back to Justice Thakur’s poignant moment, Modi, in whose presence the event unfolded, assured the CJI of his government’s resolve to help. However, little was done to rectify the problem. With Modi in his second term, it has to be seen if there will be any real improvement.

India has one of the world’s lowest spendings on the judiciary, with just about 0.01 per cent of its GDP being expended to ensure delivery of justice. The allocations for the law ministry constitute roughly 0.2 per cent of our budget, making it one of the lowest recipients. Comparisons would put us to shame, with the United States spending 4.3 per cent and the United Kingdom 1.4 per cent of their respective budgets.

India also has one of the poorest judges per population ratios. Going by the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court, high courts and the subordinate courts, this rate was 19.78 judges per one million population as of 2018. Given that 40 per cent of the sanctioned strength of judges is lying vacant, one can understand Justice Thakur’s frustration.

According to the latest figures presented in Parliament, there were 4.2 million cases pending in the high courts alone as at the end of January. The National Judicial Data Grid shows over 3 crore cases as pending in the district and subordinate courts. Given that every case involves the denial of justice to someone, this brings out the enormity of trust deficit that is building up in the system.

Consider the case of youth languishing in jail as undertrials: 67 per cent of the prison population in India are undertrials, mostly belonging to the underprivileged classes and 47 per cent of them are in the age of 18-30 years. India is frittering away its demographic dividend by lodging its youth in jails, mostly for petty offences.

If we are to get out of this sorry state of affairs, cases have to be taken up within strictly-followed time frames. Some beginning has been made by introducing new provisions in the criminal and civil procedure codes for stipulating timelines, but much more remains to be done.

An immediate task for Modi 2.0 would be to put in place an efficient process between the judiciary and the executive for filling the vacancies expeditiously. The stand-off between the Supreme Court collegium and the government over the appointment of judges has worsened in recent times. The confrontational approach has to give way to the collaborative. The much-fancied plan for instituting the All India Judicial Service has long been stuck and the government has to get it going. Another proposal for a Central Selection Mechanism for the appointment of judges and judicial officers in the district and subordinate courts has been referred to the states for their review. It is at this level that the problem of pendency has to be attacked most for optimum results.

Our biggest hope of getting out of the rut lies in technology. The eCourts Mission Mode project for computerising and connecting all district and subordinate courts across India has made some progress, but not enough to catch up with the required momentum. Overcoming mental blocks is a bigger hurdle than technological barriers and the government has a serious task cut out for it.

India’s judicial infrastructure cries for immediate attention as there is huge requirement of capacity building. The centrally-sponsored scheme for the development of infrastructure facilities for the judiciary has been in operation for several years and has now been extended to 2020, but release of funds and utilisation are lagging behind. The Centre’s role in this is only to make funds available, but the actual work has to be done by the state governments. This creates a situation where neither side takes ownership of the situation. The arrangement calls for a lot more efficiency.

For all practical purposes, there is an inherent conflict of interest between the judiciary and the executive. It is often the governments that are at the receiving end of court’s actions. Delivery of justice is a function of the State and the government of the day gets little credit for it. The governments get only oblique benefits, in the sense a happier citizenry will be better disposed towards the administration. However this is far too intangible compared to the goodwill a government earns from development, which converts to votes more easily. So governments spend on development than the thankless task of delivering justice. This is a crucial issue that needs change.