People of the country have immense faith in the judiciary and access to the judicial system is equally important as the delivery of justice for any society. As per the last prison statistics, under-trial prisoners comprise about 76 per cent of the total prison inmates in the country. This issue of sensitivity has to be dealt with expeditiously as they have remained neglected for a long.
In India, we have a pendency of cases which is more than 4.25 crores whereas the number of judges is very less, which is only 19.66 judges per million. Especially in criminal cases 80 per cent of cases are pending in the lower court. District Legal Service Authority (DLSA) is providing legal services or legal help to the person who can’t afford it, who cannot pay the fees of the advocate due to illiteracy and poverty, etc. Article 39A of the Constitution provides equal justice and free legal aid which is clubbed by Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of Kishore Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh, honourable Supreme Court stated that this is part of Article 21 because this relates to the liberty and life of the accused persons.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
Section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) has similar provisions which provide for free legal aid at the district level. Under the supervision of the district judge who is the chairperson of the district legal aid committee, it is the duty of the district judge to provide free legal aid either when demanded by the accused, or also when there is no representation of any lawyer, it is the duty of the district judge to provide free legal aid as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bajiban Salambhai Chauhan versus Uttar Pradesh State Road Transportation Corporation (UPSRTC) in 1990.
Today we are faced with crores of cases at the district level, lakhs of cases at the high court level and of course a good sizeable number of cases at the Supreme Court level. There are many reasons for the accumulation of such a big chunk of cases, one being the lack of infrastructure which includes the lack of judges.
Justice is required in the life of a person to such a level as salt is necessary for the vegetable. So, the delivery of justice should be in such an atmosphere and such a way that it reaches the last man in the street. We will have to look not only into infrastructure development but how judges are to be appointed, the strength of the judges has to be increased and the manner of the justice delivery system. Another important factor for increasing cases is the awareness amongst the people of their rights. Second thing is, to some extent there is a need of enhancing the competency of the court cases management as well as disposal of the cases. The third factor apart from the infrastructure and judges is the adoption of
technology.
First of all, the appointment of the judges takes a lot of time, so there must be a procedure to start the process well in advance as courts are aware of the retirement dates of judges.
The UPSC for example knows how many vacancies will arise in the next year; hence they start the process without waiting for retirement. A systematic procedure is required for the judiciary on regular basis. Today around 66 per cent of the judges are appointed directly to the high court and 33 per cent i.e. one-third are promoted through the lower judiciary. Under the directive principles of State policy, there should be an All India Judicial Services, had there been such services the delays in the appointment of judges would have been taken care of.
All India Judicial Service (IJS) like the IPS and IAS, IJS would certainly make a big impact in reducing the pendency but till the time IJS is formed, we certainly can appoint ad hoc Judges and adopt the virtual mode of hearings. This will certainly have a big impact on reducing the pendency of the cases which are mostly at the district level. E-courts through the virtual mode have been very successful during the pandemic.
The lack of judges could be solved temporarily by appointing ad hoc judges. There is also a parallel view taken by experts that the Magistrate and the Supreme Court Judges should retire at the same age. So, the age should be uniform i.e. about 65 years which will make way for reducing the pendency and there will be not much requirement to appoint ad hoc judges.
If we can adopt the latest technology and can bring the management system in court cases management then definitely, we could bring down the pendency of cases under the supervision of high courts and Supreme Court through their internal mechanism so that every judge could be put to task and responsibility can be fixed as far as the quality and the quantity are concerned. As discussed, there are many things like E-courts, and Lok Adalats available to us which can expedite the justice delivery system. The scope and the jurisdiction of Lok Adalats should be increased within the system itself and within the available means.
This vast topic emerges each time the government or the judiciary speaks about some kind of reforms that need to be brought about but it’s the only hope we have that this judicial system will improve and that the common man will not have to suffer anymore.
(The author is an advocate by profession)
