The Indian judicial system, despite its robustness and resilience, is often brought to its knees by the crippling issue of pendency. One case in particular stands out as a glaring example of this problem: Partition Case PS 90 of 1951, filed in the Khunti Civil Court in Jharkhand.
The case concerned a partition suit between two brothers, Dashrath Ram Ganju and Shivpriyanath Ganju. After the death of both brothers, the case is now running in the name of Balram Kashyap v. Bhagirathi Ganju.
This case, possibly the oldest case awaiting disposal in the Indian judiciary, has remained unresolved for over seven decades. The case reflects the lack of attention, irregular record-keeping and prolonged delays that have turned the quest for justice into an agonizing waiting game. This is not an isolated case; around 5 crore pending cases are waiting to be resolved across the country.
The Patna High Court had delivered its final judgment in this partition suit back in 1971, directing the Khunti district court to issue the decree. Yet, the case has still not been concluded. The senior civil judge responsible for the case has been unable to issue the final decree in this case till now. Further, the case was not recorded as “pending” for many years, reflecting the flaws in the judicial record-keeping process. It was only after the litigants’ persistent efforts that the case was uploaded on the e-court system, albeit erroneously marked as “disposed”.
This lapse in record keeping raises concerns about the possibility of other cases being similarly misclassified, suggesting that the true extent of pendency within the Indian judiciary may not be accurately known.
The appointment of a Pleader Commissioner in this case on February 11, 2021 brought hope for the litigants. However, the writ to begin the commissioner's work was provided only after a year, on June 4, 2022. After submitting the report on January 17, 2023, the court gave an unusually long period of 45 days for objections, followed by a generous extension of another 35 days, further delaying the resolution.
It is noteworthy that, according to some reports, during the last proceeding, when one of the parties requested a 15-day extension, the judge humorously remarked about potentially granting a date until 2052. While the comment may have been made in jest, it underscores the gravity of the situation and the pervasive issue of delayed justice within the Indian judicial system.
The issue of pendency not only prolongs the suffering of the litigants, but also undermines the very essence of the judiciary system. The principle of “justice delayed is justice denied” rings true in these cases, as delays lead to loss of crucial evidence, fading memories, and the erosion of public trust in the judiciary.
There have been numerous discussions and debates on improving the judicial system. Meanwhile, pendency has now increased to around 5 crore cases. Hence, simply reiterating the same rhetoric does not effectively address the issue at hand.
The case of Balram Kashyap v. Bhagirathi Ganju serves as a stark reminder of the need to prioritize judicial reform. It is imperative to address the systemic issues that contribute to pendency, such as inadequate infrastructure, shortage of judges, inefficient case management and outdated procedural laws. Furthermore, transparency and accountability must be improved within the judiciary, and the implementation of technology can play a pivotal role in expediting case processing.
It remains to be seen when this case will actually find closure, providing long-awaited justice to the litigants involved. As the nation watches, this case serves as a vital reminder of the pressing need for judicial reform and the importance of delivering timely justice for all.
Shreyashi Kashyap is an advocate practicing at the Hyderabad High Court, currently working in the Chambers of Senior Advocate Avinash Desai. Sidharth Kapoor is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court.