Answer:

Introduction:

The Indian judicial system, burdened with an overwhelming backlog of cases, is confronting a severe crisis of pendency. As of August 2022, the data on the accumulation of cases is staggering, reflecting a deep-rooted problem that hampers the efficacy of justice delivery. Specifically, the Supreme Court has about 71,411 cases pending, the High Courts are grappling with approximately 6 million cases, and the lower courts are dealing with over 41 million cases. This enormous backlog not only strains the judicial infrastructure but also significantly undermines public faith in the legal system’s ability to deliver timely justice.

Body:

Strategies to Reduce Pendency

• Implementing a Three-Adjournment Rule: This rule, which limits the number of adjournments in all cases, aims to expedite proceedings and discourage unnecessary delays.
• Completion Targets for Old Cases: The Law Ministry has set specific targets for the completion of old cases, aiming to clear cases that are decades old within a set timeframe, thus reducing backlog significantly.
• Morning and Evening Courts: Inspired by the models in Gujarat and Punjab, this approach involves holding court sessions in the morning and evening to phase out arrears in high-pendency areas.
• Appointing Court Managers: This involves creating a separate cadre for court management and non-judicial administrative work, allowing judicial officers to focus solely on adjudication.
• Special Arrears Clearance Drives: Encouraging state governments and high courts to undertake special drives to clear backlogs, especially in cases where the government is a party.
• Virtual Hearings: Facilitating virtual hearings to reduce unnecessary adjournments and expedite case proceedings.
• Publishing Average Disposal Times: The Supreme Court and high courts may consider making public the average time taken for the disposal of cases, fostering transparency and accountability.
• Case Management and ICT Utilization: Implementing case flow management and using Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for automated random case allocation and e-filing can streamline processes and reduce delays.
• Awareness of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Promoting ADR methods can help resolve disputes outside of the court, reducing the influx of cases.
• Improving Legal Services Authorities: Expanding the scope of legal advice services provided by legal services authorities to all citizens, focusing on pre-filing stage advice and promoting pre-litigation dispute settlement.
• Government’s Role in Litigation Management: Steps like effective monitoring of cases, reducing unnecessary government litigation, and adopting an alternative mechanism for resolving inter-ministerial disputes can significantly lower the burden on courts.
• Focus on High-Demand Litigations: Prioritizing high-demand cases and withdrawing appeals with low monetary implications or weak merits can streamline the litigation process.

Conclusion:

To surmount the challenge of pendency, a multi-pronged approach is essential. This requires not only infrastructural and procedural reforms but also a cultural shift in litigation practices. The judiciary, along with the government and legal community, must work in tandem to ensure timely justice delivery, upholding the adage ‘Justice Delayed is Justice Denied’.