Importance of Judicial Reforms in India

Author: Raj Ubed, Government law college, Mumbai

This report reflects the structural and functional issues of the system, such as case backlogs, corruption, and a lack of accountability. It conducts a thorough examination of the Indian legal system, highlighting the pressing need for extensive judicial reforms. It suggests strengthening case management systems, increasing legal aid services, establishing an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, and conducting evaluations to increase judicial accountability. The study concludes that, in addition to accelerating judicial administration, these important changes are required to rebuild public confidence in the judiciary’s capacity to provide justice fairly and effectively.

Indian Judiciary, Judicial Reforms, Case Backlog, Judicial Accountability, Judicial Appointments, Comparative Analysis, Justice Delivery.

The apex court of India, the Supreme Court, was established in Delhi on January 26, 1950, the day India celebrates Constitution Day because the Indian Constitution came into force. The Supreme Court was initially supposed to have a Chief Justice and seven puisne judges under the original 1950 Constitution; Parliament was to decide how many more. The Supreme Court only uses English for its proceedings. Article 145 of the Indian Constitution establishes the Apex Court Rules, 1966, which govern the Supreme Court’s operations. According to Part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution of India, the highest court in India is the apex court of the land. India has 28 states but 29 High Courts, as some states share a common high court.

Article 141 of the Indian Constitution states that all courts in India must abide by the rulings and directives of the Indian Supreme Court by precedent. The jurisdiction of the courts includes states, union territories, or a collaboration of both. Article 214 of the Indian Constitution, under Part 4, Chapter 5, establishes and empowers high courts. District courts in India are subject to the state governments, which can create district courts based on the population and caseload of the district. Justice is administered at the district level, and all district courts fall under the jurisdiction of the High Court of the respective state. The term "Metropolitan Session Judge" is used for the district judge overseeing a court in a city recognized as a "Metropolitan area" by the state government. District courts handle both criminal and civil cases.

Judges and the judicial system should be neutral and unaffected by outside forces in a democracy. This ensures that those who appear in court and the public have confidence that their cases will be adjudicated fairly and legally. Each year, thousands of citizens turn to civil justice courts to seek resolution of various legal issues like domestic abuse, broken families, medical treatment, housing, or job concerns. Spurious influences may come from many quarters, including legislative or executive departments, personal litigants, pressure groups, the press, self-interest, or other judges. Each year, the World Justice Project collects data on public and expert perceptions of the effectiveness and independence of the criminal and civil justice systems. The analysis shows a distinct link between perceptions of court independence and the belief that courts are effective. Before civil justice services can be provided, these decisions must be effectively enforced. In 2016, citizens and justice experts viewed their civil justice system as very successful and above the government.

Unresolved Cases: Millions of cases are still pending in courts. For example, even though it takes the Delhi High Court an average of roughly five minutes to decide each case, it may take 466 years to finish all of them. Nearly half of all outstanding cases are police challans, traffic challans, and bounced checks. The Indian government acknowledges a 40% deficit in judicial staff. The basic goal of the legal system has been undermined by the enormous volume of cases still pending in the Supreme Court and various lower courts. Justice is effectively denied when it is postponed. Due to disparities in the compensation of talented young attorneys, the judiciary is no longer drawing in the best legal talent. The system must enhance the working conditions of its judges, especially those in trial courts, to attract individuals of the proper caliber to the judicial cadre. The judiciary’s reputation has been damaged in recent years by controversies involving a lack of integrity.

Insufficient Infrastructure: The study’s main conclusions in India refer to the extreme overcrowding in courtrooms, which are overloaded with case files and old records, leaving little room for people. The Law Ministry’s assessment, made public on July 8, claimed that as a result of the courtroom’s restricted space, parties, advocates, and litigators must stand. District judges, advocates, and supporting administrative staff faced infrastructure challenges in the study, which was carried out across 20 district courts from 10 states, encompassing two districts each from the North, South, West, Central, and East regions, including the north-eastern regions of India. The report highlighted the deficient condition of judicial IT infrastructure, stating that only 45% of judicial officers polled had electronic display facilities, and 20% were still working on installations. About 32.7% of judicial officers said their district court complex did not have video conferencing facilities in jail. Remarkably, over 39% of judges stated that their courtrooms lacked fire protection apparatus, suggesting a possible safety risk. Furthermore, the efficiency of procedures is impacted because 29.3% of judicial officers lack an Ahlmad chamber, necessary for court clerks. Inadequate furniture also jeopardizes comfort and functionality; 36.3% of judicial officials concur that their courtrooms lack sufficient seating and necessary furniture. District court support staff deal with serious infrastructure problems as well. Many employees may not have access to basic facilities like shared restrooms and common areas. According to the survey, 73.7% of all support personnel lack attached restrooms, while just staff have communal areas.

Corruption in the Judiciary: Corruption is endemic in Indian courts. Transparency International claims that “delays in the disposal of cases, shortage of judges, and complex procedures, all of which are exacerbated by a lack of judges” contribute to judicial corruption in India. The most alarming development is that corruption has made its way to India’s highest court, the Supreme Court. Noteworthy instances include:

1. Prashant Bhushan, a Supreme Court lawyer and legal activist, claimed in court in December 2009 that half of the previous sixteen to seventeen Chief Justices had been corrupt. Ex-Law Minister Shanti Bhushan reaffirmed Prashant Bhushan’s assertion in November 2010.

2. Campaigns for the impeachment of judges with questionable integrity have been launched and promoted within the higher judiciary.

3. Ex-apex court judge Justice Ram Pal criticized the higher judiciary for what she referred to as the seven sins in November 2011. The sins she listed were: ignoring and disregarding reckless behavior, hypocrisy, total misrepresentation of judicial independence standards, secrecy, lack of transparency in judicial behavior, nepotism, and self-arrogance.

   
   

Funds are being made available to states and UTs. The government should sponsor the development of judicial infrastructure to build courtrooms, judicial officer housing, attorney offices, restroom complexes, and digitalization in courts with computer rooms to improve the quality of life for litigants and attorneys, assisting in the administration of justice. Since the Indian government established the organization for the Development of Infrastructure Facilities for the Judiciary in 1993–1994, a total of Rs. 9755.51 crores has been made available. As of February 28, 2023, the number of courts increased from 15,818 on June 30, 2014, to 21,271.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has also been used to empower district and lower courts under the e-Courts Mission Mode Project. There are currently 18,735 computerized district and lower courts. The majority of court complexes—99.4%—have WAN connectivity. 1,272 corresponding jails and 3,240 court complexes now have video conferencing capabilities. To help lawyers and litigants in need of support with case reports, obtaining judgments or orders, and e-filing capabilities, 689 e-Sewa Kendras have been established in court complexes. In 17 states and UTs, 21 virtual courts have been established. As of January 31, 2023, these courts had resolved over 2.53 million cases and collected over Rs. 359 crore in fines. Phase III of e-courts aims to integrate cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the accessibility, ease, and robustness of justice delivery for all parties involved.

Under the Fourteenth Finance Commission, the Indian government has set up fast-track courts to handle cases involving serious offenses, including those affecting elderly people, women, children, and others. Fast-track courts in India operate for serious crimes, crimes against women and children, and other offenses. As of January 31, 2023, there are ten special courts across nine states and union territories to expedite the resolution of outstanding cases pertaining to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act and rape under the IPC. Twenty-eight states and UTs have joined the program.

Alternative dispute resolution techniques have been strongly encouraged. As a result, on August 20, 2018, the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was amended to require Pre-institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) in business disputes. The Conciliation and Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2015 amended the 1996 Conciliation and Arbitration Act to expedite dispute resolution by establishing deadlines.

The general public has access to Lok Adalat, a significant alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Lok Adalat provides an amicable venue for disputes that are previous cases in court or at the pre-litigation stage. Lok Adalat is considered a civil court under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Lok Adalat decisions are binding on the parties and cannot be challenged in court. Lok Adalat is a short-term organization, usually for one day. On a pre-planned date, National Lok Adalats are organized in all Taluks, Districts, and High Courts.

The e-courts initiative was started in 2005. The project states that all courts, including taluk courts, will be computerized. All district courts were established in accordance with the assignment in 2008, and computers were set up in all district courts in 2010. The backlog case entry process has begun. Each court had two system assistants and one system officer from the IT department. In June 2011, they began providing services to the Supreme Court. Most district court case lists and rulings may be found at http://lobis.nic.in, while all High Court and Supreme Court rulings and cause lists can be found at http://judis.nic.in. A technical staff updates these websites every day. Currently, taluk establishment work is underway. The idea also involves using video conferencing to produce witnesses. Computers will be used for checking case status, previous dates, and all other information. The crew is being trained by this technical workforce.

1. Civil cases not solved for more than one year: 72.18%

2. Criminal cases not solved for more than one year: 75.48%

3. Total cases not solved for more than one year: 74.69%

The following actions may be taken for judicial reforms and transparency in appointments:

1. In 2009, the Law Commission of India (LCI) suggested that the judicial and executive branches work together to identify the best candidates for appointments. This may be accomplished by combining the judiciary’s expertise with the executive branch’s prevailing viewpoint in the field of precedents.

2. The maximum strength of Supreme Court judges should be increased to reduce the pendency of cases, as recommended by the Law Commission of India. The Supreme Court should be divided into four parts to guarantee prompt justice delivery: Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai. The Constitution Bench will be located in Delhi.

3. To raise the retirement age of Supreme Court and High Court judges by at least five years, constitutional laws must be changed. To stabilize a healthy judge-to-population ratio of 50 per million, more judges are needed.

4. Optimal use of time: LCI (2009) suggested extending court working hours by at least half an hour and reducing vacation time by at least 10 to 15 days.

5. A planned national-level judicial service in India, called the All India Judicial Services (AIJS), seeks to establish a single, centralized system for the hiring and advancement of judicial officers.

6. Judicial Management Cadre: To oversee the administration of the judiciary at all levels, a Judicial Management Cadre may be formed.

7. Ex-Chief Justice of India N V Ramanna suggested the establishment of a National Judicial Infrastructure Authority to standardize and enhance the judicial system.

8. Simplifying procedural laws: By deleting or altering outdated or unworkable legislation, procedural laws can be made simpler to strengthen and clarify substantive laws and speed up the hearing and resolution of cases.

9. Enhance the operation of Fast Track Courts: Two-pronged strategies are required to increase these courts’ human capacity with committed judges and capable personnel while also reorganizing procedures.

10. Establishing an autonomous legal services mechanism: By amending the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1976 appropriately, legal services may be turned over to the government’s executive wing for execution following consultation with the High Court and other pertinent parties.

11. Timely Justice for Undertrials: By giving them enough chances to obtain bail, undertrials can receive justice quickly. “Bail is the norm, whereas jail is an exception," the Supreme Court said.

12. Boost female representation in the judiciary: Former Chief Justice N V Ramana has advocated for 50% female presence in the judiciary. “The inclusion of women as judges and attorneys will significantly enhance the justice system,” he said.

13. Legal Education: Enhancing and requiring bar members to complete an apprenticeship.

14. Research and Training Center: It is possible to create a research and training center to enhance legislation drafting, carry out judicial impact assessments, and instruct government law officers.

15. Prompt Investigation and Prosecution: To guarantee appropriate and prompt investigation and prosecution, the way the police and prosecutorate departments operate should be enhanced.

    
    

The current state of the Indian judiciary requires urgent attention and significant reforms. To achieve a more efficient and inclusive judiciary, it is imperative to address issues of judicial delays, improve the judge-to-population ratio, review outdated legislation and procedural barriers, promote specialization, protect judicial autonomy, ease access to justice, and update technology and infrastructure. Stakeholders, including the judiciary, legal experts, the government, and the general public, must come together and work collaboratively to overcome these challenges to maintain justice and protect individual rights. By recognizing the pressing issues at hand and making concerted efforts to address them, a judiciary distinguished by effectiveness, impartiality, and accountability can be developed, thereby strengthening the essential pillars of India’s democratic system.

1. NCIB, https://www.ncib.in/pdf/judiciary-of-india.pdf (last visited on 5th February 2025)

2. Akshit Tiwari, Reforms Required in Judiciary, Volume 4, Issue 3 of 2024, APIS – 3920 – 0001 (and) ISSN – 2583-2344, 2024

3. Vijiram, https://vajiramandravi.com/quest-upsc-notes/judicial-reforms (last visited on 4th February 2025)

4. National Judicial Data Grid, https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdg_v3/ (last visited on 5th February 2025)