Bar & Bench News Network
At the National Law Day celebration, Chief Justice of India S. H. Kapadia made his point very clear regarding the pendency of cases in the Supreme Court. CJI said that the issues relating to pendency and arrears of cases have not been projected properly giving a “totally wrong impression that there have been millions of cases pending”.
While emphasising on the existence of Rule of Law and Separation of Power in a democratic country like India, he stated that every institution is ridden with certain deficiencies. These deficiencies have to be rejuvenated for an institution to survive and that can be done only with public support and faith in that particular institution.
According to Justice Kapadia, to discard any system on the basis of a bad name is unjustified and the Status Report which was released on the same day proves the point that Judiciary has not failed in its endeavour to perform its duties and functions in accordance to the spirit of the Constitution.
He reiterated his point that in most cases it is the judges who are blamed for the pending of cases but that is not what should be done. He said, “there is a need to highlight that all the stakeholders are accountable for maintaining and achieving standards of Court Excellence. The executive including the police and the Bar have an important role to play in expeditious disposal of cases”.
Supporting his argument with the published Status Report, he stated that 74 percent of the cases pending in High court and subordinate courts are less than five years old. While he did not deny that there is a backlog of cases, however, it is not as big as is sought to be projected. According to the Status Report released for the first time, there are a total of 56,383 cases pending as recorded on November 1, 2011. Out of the total pending cases, there are 32,080 admission matters (miscellaneous), out of which 6,037 are complete in which all the preliminaries are completed and are ready for hearing and 26, 043 are incomplete in which the preliminaries not completed. The preliminaries that are not complete include process fee not paid, notice yet not served, pleadings not completed, notice of lodgement of appeal not served, statement of case not filed etc.
On the other hand, there are 24,303 regular hearing matters out of which 10,407 are ready in which all the preliminaries are completed after admission and 13,896 are not ready in which preliminaries are still not complete.
CJI said that the delay in the disposal of the matters was because of these preliminaries not being completed like failure to remove the defects and objections by the advocates.
It can be summarised by saying that out of 56,383 pending cases, 39,939 (71 percent) are not ready due to preliminaries not completed and 16,444 are ready (29 percent) and hence the arrears in ready matters are only 8710 cases. The Report also shows that on average (two years) 710 days are taken to make matters complete.
The Report also points out the rate of disposal in the Supreme Court. Between May 2008 to April 2009, 61,850 cases were disposed of and there was prominent increase in the rate of disposal between May 2010 to April 2011, during which 79, 621 cases were disposed of.
Moreover the Report has also published the disposal of cases on a five year basis between (December 31, 2005- December 31, 2010). In the Supreme Court, high court and subordinate courts, out of 11.16 crore pending cases, 10.77 crore were disposed of.
CJI in the report has pointed out the cases falling under the Negotiable Instruments Act have been increasing and as per the available data there are 35 lakh cases pending in the subordinate courts and the reason for low disposal was incomplete service of summons in those cases.
The CJI has come out with a suggestion that courts dealing with the NIA matters should be provided assistance of police station in the courts itself like other criminal cases.
The Report also shows that the Government has increased the budget under various schemes in an effort to reduce pendency of cases. The budget for court infrastructure has been increased along with the budget for E-Courts. It’s markedly evident that the Government is doing its best in order to solve the problems of pending cases.
Describing the focus of the Judiciary to be expeditious disposal of 26 percent of cases which are more than five years old, CJI has proposed the initiative of “Five plus free” by the year 2012. According to CJI, the whole solution to the problem of backlog of cases could be found by appointment of Working Committee on Arrears and Court Management.
While agreeing Judicial Accountability is an integral part of the system at present, he advocated for a balanced approach towards Judicial Independence. He clearly stated that Judges don’t mind a studied fair criticism. However, he advised the Bar ‘do not dismantle an Institution without showing how to build a better one’.
|
- 1. "All are responsible for the delay in the justice delivery system of our country. Take the case of sukhram, ex-minister. Are the Judges not responsible for delay in finalization? The common man lose faith in the justice delivery system in our country. This is not good for the future of the country.". J.Venkat, Tamilnadu
- 2. "From CJI Kapadia’s saying : “only judges are not to be blamed for backlog of cases”, it appears that he probably had never got any personal experience of being either a plaintiff or a respondent in any court case. In civil cases unnecessary long dates are given by the judges that keep the cases adjourned for years together. This makes frivolous case petitioners happy and powerful in tormenting the respondents. There was a fine of Rs. 3000 only if the case was ultimately found to be bogus. No jail term. But now Supreme Court has done something good by enhancing the fine to Rs. 1 Lakh for filing a frivolous civil case. In criminal cases the clerk dealing with the files acts as de facto magistrate or judge by himself giving unduly long dates to the accused after extracting currency notes from their pockets. There is hardly any control by the presiding officer on such ‘baabus’. Next, U/s 482 it is very easy for the accused to get stay orders from the high court. Although the stay order generally happens to be time-bound, say for about a month or so, but once obtained it becomes a permanent stay order. The accused never takes the trouble to get the stay order extended further, but the lower court takes no notice of this anomaly. Astonishingly, the court asks the aggrieved informant to take the onus of getting the stay order of the accused vacated. This is great injustice, and big lacuna of Indian law. Why the judges are not given sufficient training to proceed the case further if a HC stay order taken by the accused is not got extended further by the accused himself. In this context, the 19th century English novelist Anthony Hope had said : “A Book,” I observed, “might be written on the injustice of the just.” Every one says “delay of justice is injustice”, but I say that in Indian courts a point has come at which even justice has become injustice.". Dr. Gurdeep Singh, (Unknown City?)
Related Stories
- Guwahati High Court appoints contract judges to handle backlog
- Judges Spill - Cases piling up
- Re-upped Round up: July 7: Special and Constitutional Bench, GNLU students help reduce backlog in Gujarat High Court, ASG Amarjit Singh Chandhiok backs private firm, Nariman on Judges Appointment
- Trademark Registry to recruit 40 Joint Registrars through the contract route to beat the backlog: 1 lakh trademark cases pending
- Pending Litigations – 2009-10: 3.13 crore cases, 3054 Judges required
- Q2 Report of the Supreme Court: Pending cases increase by 1 percent and Judges vacancies increase by 7 percent
- ITAT considering establishing e-courts; Use of IT to clear backlog of cases in smaller cities
Other News
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
- SC to hear petition challenging appointment of sitting AP High Court judge; Petition alleges deliberate concealment of pending criminal investigation at the time of enrollment
- Linklaters Managing Associate Pranav Sharma to rejoin Amarchand Mangaldas as Partner
- Re-Upped Round up May 17
- Recruitment Tracker: Luthra top recruiter followed by Amarchand and AZB for NALSAR Class of 2012
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)










