The number of pending cases has escalated significantly. In March 2014, the total number of pending cases across High Courts and district courts was 3.18 crore: High Courts: 44 lakh and district courts 2.73 crore. The total number of pending cases has now risen to 5.33 crore-HC 63 lakh (an increase of 20 lakh in 10 years); district courts 4.70 crore. Effectively, there has been an average increase of 20 lakh new pending cases per year since 2014

Justice Madan Bhimarao Lokur, Chairperson, United Nations Internal Justice Council, and former judge of the Supreme Court, is anguished seeing the rising pendency of litigation and vitals of the justice system getting eroded as also the rule of law’s constitutional life.

Addressing a conference in Mahindra University, Hyderabad, he touched upon various issues, including the current challenges and potential solutions for the justice delivery system in India, which, he maintained, was at the crossroads.

He explained the historical rise and the present situation that is threatening our system.

Justice Lokur said that when the Supreme Court was established, there was minimal work for the judges, but the justice delivery was quick.

The first major case was on freedom of speech and expression, which was filed by journalist Ramesh Thapar in February 1950. He challenged the ban on his publication “Crossroads”, which was decided by a five-judge bench within three months in May, illustrating the quick disposal rate. In those early days.

A 13-judge bench of the Supreme Court decided the Kesavananda Bharati case and laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Constitution in 1973. This doctrine states that the Constitution has essential features (a basic structure) that cannot be completely wiped out by amendments.

According to him, this is one of the greatest gifts the Indian judiciary has given to the world, which, subsequently, was adopted by many countries. However, problems began surfacing after this decision.

The decision was immediately followed by the super-session of three Supreme Court judges. Around this time, there was also talk about having a committed judiciary—one that follows the ideology, principles, or policies of the executive without challenge. Post. Emergency (1975-1977), the election of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that was challenged was set aside by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court.

Privative detention-a dark chapter:

The Supreme Court’s judgment during the Emergency in the A.D.M. Jabalpur case regarding preventive detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) was “perhaps the lowest point” to which the court had gone. Although some judges later stated they were under pressure, the decision went against the citizen. This judgment has since been overruled and is considered a “dark chapter”.

After the Emergency was lifted in 1977, the Supreme Court “bounced back” and gave the nation important gifts, primarily concentrating on access to justice.

The historic evolution of PIL:

This development allowed citizens to approach the Supreme Court without formalities, court fees, or strict procedures, often by sending a letter to the Chief Justice or a senior judge. PIL led to significant changes in various areas:

The Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra (RLEK) in Dehradun sent a letter about limestone quarrying in Mussoorie Hills causing air pollution. The apex court banned quarrying and initiated environmental jurisprudence. A letter from social activist Swami Agnivesh regarding bonded labourers led the Supreme Court to ensure the release of almost 30,000 bonded labourers, giving life to Article 23 (prohibition of begging or forced labour) and Article 21 (right to live a life of dignity) of the Constitution.

The court took up the issue of police blinding crime suspects/convicts with acid based on a newspaper report, leading to medical treatment for the victims. The court entertained a petition by Sheila Barse concerning the inability to look after mentally ill patients, arguing that they also have a right to life under Article 21. This led to establishing a mental hospital in Tezpur, Assam, under court orders. As another part of access to justice, the Supreme Court started Lok Adalats (People’s Courts) to sort out small grievances pending in courts. This was a precursor to mediation and conciliation and has been adopted in some other countries, like in Africa.

Bhopal gas tragedy:

Justice Lokur cites the Bhopal gas tragedy where thousands died, and the victims’ families still suffer from medical issues. Despite 487,000 claims being filed, the US court sent the case back to India (even though the Government of India said the Indian justice system could not handle it), and justice was not effectively delivered.

Pendency affecting independence:

After this tragedy another dangerous tragedy was in the form of pending cases (Pendency): The number of pending cases has escalated significantly. In March 2014, the total number of pending cases across High Courts and district courts was 3.18 crore: High Courts: 44 lakh and district courts 2.73 crore.

The total number of pending cases has now risen to 5.33 crore-HC 63 lakh (an increase of 20 lakh in 10 years); district courts 4.70 crore. Effectively, there has been an average increase of 20 lakh new pending cases per year since 2014.

Another crisis is “vacancies of judges”. In 1987, the Law Commission of India recommended having 50 judges per one million people. Based on the 1987 population of 800 million, India needed 40,000 judges. India currently has only about 22,000 to 23,000 judges. With the current population of 1.4 billion, 70,000 judges are needed based on the Law Commission’s recommendation. Currently, 26 per cent (293 out of 1,122 sanctioned posts) of High Court judge posts are vacant. Vacancies in district courts are around 19-21 per cent, support staff (nearly 4.90 lakh staff would be required for 70,000 judges).

Poor implementation of laws:

Enacted laws and institutions meant to improve the system are poorly implemented: Although there was a recommendation in 1986, the law was enacted 23 years later. The state of Telangana, for example, has zero operational Gram Nyayalayas, despite having sanctioned 55 at one point. In places they exist, pending cases have reached 2.5 lakh. Among family courts, the pending cases have gone up to 12 lakh.

Consumer forums and RTI: Both have huge dependencies. Appeals under the Right to Information (RTI) Act have reached four lakh in pending cases, and some states lack an Information Commission. The core solutions proposed are implementation of laws, introduction of technology, and reforms in judge appointments.

Justice Lokur underscored the implementation of existing laws like the Gram Nyayalas Act, RTI Act, and procedural codes (CPC and CrPC) and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

Using technology and AI: He maintained that adopting E-courts project involved providing computers and laptops to every judge and court, introducing video conferencing units in jails for routine hearings saves huge amounts of money and time.

The distinguished legal luminary said that AI is making its way into the justice system. Towards this, the law and judiciary must be ready to tackle issues arising from AI, such as a driverless car violating a traffic rule. The Collegium System, the best available option, and appointing judges should be scientific and useful after due improvements.

Justice Lokur called for reforms based on the UN recruitment process for tribunal judges for nine vacancies: a) Inviting applications (which is not done in India), b) A written examination (writing a two-hour judgment) to assess legal reasoning (not done in India), c) A detailed, minimum one-hour Interview (not done in India) and d) developing an effective case management system.

He urged students to look into these problems and solutions, take advantage of the existing possibilities (like technology, AI, and clinical education), and contribute to the betterment of the justice delivery system. Hope someone out there will think on thee lines and work out remedial measures and solutions?

(The writer is a ormer Central Information Commissioner, and presently Professor, School of Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad)