Showing posts with label Judicial Reforms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judicial Reforms. Show all posts

Thursday, July 4, 2024

Healthy, constructive criticism welcome… Judges not super humans, do commit mistakes: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Healthy, constructive criticism welcome… Judges not super humans, do commit mistakes: Punjab and Haryana High Court

To read more, go to the following link:

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/judicial-officer-allegations-punjab-and-haryana-high-court-9431715/ 

Source: The Indian Express

Monday, March 1, 2021

Law News and Updates 02-03-2021

 Source: M&J Services - The Eclectic Law Bookstore. 

-----

2021 to be exceptionally busy, says Cyril Shroff

https://tinyurl.com/yccknsmv

Source: India Business Law Journal

-----

How Covid pandemic hit the justice system

https://tinyurl.com/ybjf5zoo

Source: Hindustan Times

-----

Mumbai: Overcrowding in court irks Bombay HC judge, warns of not taking up any case for hearing

https://tinyurl.com/y7grdobz

Source: Free Press Journal

-----

Charges by estranged spouse affecting other’s career amounts to mental cruelty: Supreme Court

https://tinyurl.com/yazj6dqo

Source: The Hindu

-----

Law and judiciary: More sloganeering, less vision

https://tinyurl.com/y8p97g3g

Source: Free Press Journal

-----

Disclaimer: Law News and Updates sources material from the public domain. Readers are advised to exercise their discretion and cross-check on the authenticity of the same. Law News and Updates will not be responsible for any consequences arising out of the use of the said material.

Saturday, May 23, 2020

Era of virtual courts

Source: Telangana Today (online)

To read this article online, go to the link: https://telanganatoday.com/era-of-virtual-courts

Application of IT must become a key element of judicial reforms in India which has over 3 crore pending cases

Virtual courts may well become an integral part of Indian judiciary as it braces up to adopt new technologies to guide the justice delivery system in the time of coronavirus pandemic. Under the prevailing circumstances of physical distancing, the judiciary is opting for virtual modes to ensure timely delivery of justice. The Supreme Court has issued a new standard operating procedure that facilitates e-filing and virtual hearing and has also set up a helpline to assist advocates in submitting the petitions. The apex court has been holding courts through video conferencing since March 25 due to the nationwide lockdown and had suspended the entry of advocates and other staff in view of the need to maintain physical distancing. The timing of sitting of the virtual courts is notified in the respective cause lists, which is published well in advance. These are timely developments to utilise the advances in the information and communications technology to deliver justice at a crucial time and under unprecedented circumstances. It must be pointed out that many countries had embraced virtual technologies long ago for speedy and hassle-free delivery of justice. The video and audio-enabled hearings save significant court costs in terms of building, staff, infrastructure and transportation for all the parties.
The apex court’s plan to work out some kind of a mixed model of virtual and actual courts is a welcome development. There is a need to boost the infrastructure required for seamless functioning of virtual courts like robust internet connectivity, installation of large screens and error-free web applications to enable smooth videoconferencing. Reforms to reduce the burden on Indian courts have been long overdue. The coronavirus pandemic has only accentuated the urgency to use technology to find solutions that minimise physical contact and provide an affordable form of access to justice. Chief Justice of India SA Bobde has spoken about the potential of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence to help streamline the processes. The application of information technology must become one of the key elements of the judicial reforms in a country which has over three crore pending cases at various levels. Affordable technology-led solutions for easier resolution is an idea whose time has come. Technology startups engaged in innovative solutions can play a crucial role in harnessing the unlimited potential of technology to connect stakeholders in the justice delivery system and in finding solutions that are affordable and efficient. One of the key areas where these startups can disrupt the status quo is through technology-augmented solutions in remote dispute resolution. Online Dispute Resolution has the potential to become a game changer by erasing physical barriers and significantly reducing the cost of litigation.

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

Supreme Court embraces AI to deliver 21st century process reforms

Source: Observer Research Foundation
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/supreme-court-embraces-ai-to-deliver-21st-century-process-reforms-66417/

-- Gautam Chikermane (Vice President, ORF)

A transformation is underway in India’s court system. Led by the highest judiciary, this efficiency-inducing change in processes of courts such as filing, submitting extra material, payments of fees, verification practices or submissions has the potential to end the pain points of citizens while dealing with the court system. While the system needed cleansing for decades, the matrix of change that has come following the COVID19 crisis is not merely revolutionary but worthy of emulation by governments (Union and States) in their process reforms across policing, healthcare, and other public services on the one hand and registrations, compliances and filings for businesses on the other.
From 15 May 2020, the Supreme Court has shifted to a new system of filing, while guidelines for High Courts and District Courts have been drafted, circulated but not yet implemented. Once all courts are plugged into this filing system powered by artificial intelligence and other technologies, India’s courts will be able to focus more on arguing for and delivering justice than on filings and paperwork.
Using a common base of technology, a process matrix design, and leading from the front by the Supreme Court, this is an ongoing creative disruption in India’s justice system. This system uses electronic filing (e-filing) as a process tool and artificial intelligence as a reference support infrastructure, both underlined by efficiency, transparency and access to every user of court-delivery services. In other words, India’s courts are ushering in a new future-ready justice dispensation system for a 21st century India.
It also shows that the courts are in tune with and working towards developing a new filing architecture that’s in tune with a modern India. On the technological front, this is a future has already happened. COVID19 tipped the scales and pulled back the timeline. Led by Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Chairman of the Supreme Court’s eCommittee that has ushered in these process reforms and Chief Justice of India Sharad A. Bobde under whose leadership they have been sealed, India’s courts are now plugged into this future.
Two documents, “e-Filing – User Manual” for the Supreme Court and “A Step by Step Guide for Efiling for High Courts and District Courts of India” define the details of what can be termed as process reforms in the judicial system. The driving force behind these changes are “TEST values” – Trust, Empathy, Sustainability and Transparency. While the acronym is interesting, it will be tested by time. Of the four transparency in judicial processes is here, sustainability will need to be seen over the years, empathy is too fuzzy an idea for process reforms, while trust in the system will have to be earned.
The system enables electronic filing of legal papers for civil and criminal cases across courts. This will promote paperless filing and processing, while creating time and cost saving efficiencies. The system can be used by any Advocate-on-Record enrolled to practice in the Supreme Court of India or any or Party-in-Person litigant registered with the e-filing system. For High Courts and District Courts, the system is targeted at advocates, to whom the idea is being sold as a “Digital Era Advocate”. Some High Courts, such as the Delhi High Court has allowed Party-in-Person, while others are watching in the wings.
Four key features define this system. First, the system enables 24/7 filing. Members of the bar do not have to file their cases during court hours; they can do so from home at any time, on any day. Second, it enables online communication of defects and scrutiny of matters that are filed. The system has time slots for raising the defects and seeking rectification. Third, e-payment of court fees. And fourth, introducing the digital signature for all filing-related conversations.
All four required lawyers or their clerks to stand in lines, over several counters, often standing on the knife-edge of case and process timeslots, causing delays through serial hearings in the dispensation of justice. With the new system all these are gone. Finally, for those who are not in tune with technology, the Registry Service will hand-hold them by engaging data entry operators in the Supreme Court, a system that could be used by High Courts and District Courts as and when they follow.
The artificial intelligence infrastructure on which this process speeding rests will now play a big role in the organisation of courts, categorisation of matters, process automation. It will also enable extraction of information at the rate of 1 million words per minute and can be used for the purpose of deciding a case. There is visible enthusiasm around these changes at the top. “If we had this system when the Ayodhya matter was being heard, I don’t know how fast we could have dealt with it,” Bobde said while releasing the document. “Records of thousands and thousands of pages, information from that could be extracted in a minute.”
In January 2020, around 1 lakh cases comprising approximately 26.84 lakh pages were transmitted from district courts to High Courts in India. This waste will now end and from the clients’ side, the reduction of paperwork will cut cost. The process behind the change has been tested – during the lockdown period, there were 820 matters and 552 documents filed via e-filing in the Patna High Court alone. Further, if matters are introduced in courts through e-filings, and a case is decided by trial court, the appellate court can access the entire record of the trial court along with the appeal.
The lockdown can be seen as a practice session, a compulsory training to prepare for a new working environment. Along with hearings through video-conferencing, this process reform will go a long way in sharpening the justice system, tightening costs and reducing the financial burden of justice on citizens. But it is not that all cases can or will be heard on video. Some will have to be heard in congregation.
There will be the usual protests. Clerks, for instance, will need to upgrade their skills. Thus far, their job was akin to courier firms – carting cases, taking photocopies, paying fees, and suchlike. With the entire system now online and available to every Advocate-on-Record at a tap, these skills have lost their purpose. Clerks will now have to upgrade, adapt, add value to themselves and become executive assistants. The entire bulk photocopying infrastructure and filing of paper books in courts will need to find new sources of revenue. This huge number of staff undertaking these tasks will have to embed itself into the new system – being part government servants their jobs are secure even if their tasks may change. As far as petty rent-seeking and bribery goes, it will hopefully end.
If we hear cries against this proposal, we only need to lean on the towers of history. For every change, leave alone a reform, there have been doomsday pictures painted by incumbents. When banks were computerised in the 1980s, banking unions raised a big hue and cry saying computerisation will displace jobs. But finally they upgraded themselves and settled into related jobs. As with every new system, the e-filing infrastructure too will face glitches. But those seeking a U-turn at the first challenge are going to be disappointed. While problems, as and when they come up, will be ironed out, there is no going back on this step, according to Bobde.
It is clear that riding these process reforms, India can expect speedier justice. And if that happens, the clogging of cases in courts could end. This will particularly help those with fewer resources – poor citizens, small and medium enterprises, low-cost contractual breaches, property disputes. The courts may see fewer people, as lawyers and litigants may not have to be physically present there.
And while the future direction of the court systems is clear, the past need not stand on an archaic platform. The Supreme Court should initiate a simultaneous process under which the process of digitising, in machine-readable form, should be initiated for old cases. This may take time, it may need resources. But it will complete the circle of justice the Supreme Court intends to draw.
A big challenge may come from judges themselves. The transition to reading and engaging with e-documents from paper ones, for instance, may not be as easy as planned. Referring multiple pages across varying courts will need the judges to adapt and learn new skills too. But the decisive and irreversible action combined with the efficiency-inducing intention of the change being clear, the benefits are likely to override these costs and inconveniences.
The returns from this initiative should be visible in the short-term, while outcomes such as reduced pendency should follow in the medium- to long-term timespan. While the transition could take some time before it stabilises, the vision of, and path to, paperless, efficient, AI-driven, technology-supported courts has been ushered in and action plan drawn up. With full credit and kudos to the Supreme Court for this initiative, the nation watches closely how the new system shapes up, and in turn shapes the justice system to serve a 21st century India.

Thursday, January 2, 2020

To deter rapes, cases of heinous nature should be expedited all the way through different levels of the judiciary

Source: Times of India dated 02.01.2020

-- Arunav Kaul (Works in the area of judicial reform at Daksh)


The recent cases of rape and sexual harassment have shocked the conscience of the country. And the cry to set up more fast-track courts that can swiftly deal with these cases has been growing. In July 2019, the Centre had proposed a plan to set up 1,023 fast-track special courts (FTSCs) that would specifically deal with pending cases of rape and cases under the Protection of Children Against Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act. As of March 31, 2018, there were 1,66,882 cases of rape and Pocso Act pending in trial courts across the country.
Government has recently released a detailed plan laying out the implementation framework for the FTSCs scheme: states and UTs were given a cutoff date of December 31, 2019, within which they needed to communicate their concurrence for coming on board. Post the launch, FTSCs would be initially set up for a period of one year subject to further approval.
Delay in disposal of cases is an issue of serious concern not just at the subordinate court level but at different appellate levels of the judiciary. But a lot of the government initiatives to fasttrack cases in courts have primarily been focussed around the subordinate courts. To reduce delays, it is important that reforms should be introduced not only in subordinate courts but in high courts as well as in the Supreme Court.
As per a reply submitted in Rajya Sabha in June 2019, close to 43 lakh cases are pending in HCs with nearly 8 lakh cases pending for more than a decade. Criminal cases arising from lower courts form a huge proportion in HCs too. As per the recent SC annual report, as of June 30, 2018, there were close to 7.5 lakh criminal appeals and criminal revision cases that were pending in HCs. Allahabad HC topped the chart followed by the Madhya Pradesh HC and the Punjab and Haryana HC.
A similar trend can be seen even in the SC. Daksh’s study of the SC cases between January and November 2018 revealed that most number of judgments pertained to criminal matters, with cases taking 4.6 years on an average to get disposed. Hence, it is imperative that focus should be shifted towards all the tiers of the judiciary. To render complete justice cases of certain nature should be fast-tracked all the way up till the SC and until the final execution of the punishment.
It must be noted that in the Nirbhaya case, the trial in the subordinate court was completed swiftly within 8 months and in the Delhi HC within a span of 6 months. However, it took the SC nearly 3 years to deliver the final verdict. And even though the apex court confirmed the death sentence in 2017, none of the convicts has been hanged till date. If the intention behind capital punishment is to deter future crimes, then why is there an inordinate delay in execution of the sentences? With delay being caused both from the judicial and the executive front, such deterrence is difficult to achieve.
Another important measure that government needs to undertake is to make FTCs permanent in all the states. The non-permanent nature of the FTCs has been a persistent issue. The scheme was first introduced by the Centre in 2000 and FTCs continued functioning in different states supported by the central funding until 2011. Between 2000 and 2011, Rs 870 crore were released by the Centre towards the scheme. Post 2011, a lot of states abolished FTCs and as of March 2019, there were only 581 FTCs functioning in the country.
A baseline survey conducted by a research centre at the National Law University, Delhi revealed that FTCs are facing several issues, ranging from poor infrastructure to lack of proper manpower. Even under the current plan for FTSCs, it is clear that the scheme will be in operation only for a temporary period of time. Judges are required to specifically target the 1,66,882 pending cases of rape and Pocso Act. The remaining cases are expected to be dealt either by FTCs that would be established under the 15th Finance Commission from 2020-25 or any other FTCs that the states/UTs establish.
Government and judiciary need to adopt not a short-term plan but a longterm framework such as permanently establishing FTCs and ensuring that cases of heinous nature are expedited all the way through different levels of the judiciary. The three key players, that is the state government, central government and judiciary need to come together to bring concrete changes to the system. These reforms should be formulated with the objective of addressing systemic and deep-entrenched issues, and leave a long-lasting impact on the system.

Friday, November 29, 2019

Can artificial intelligence help reform Indian courts?

Source: Hindustan Times dated 29.11.2019

-- Ameen Jauhar (Senior Resident Fellow working on judicial reforms at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)

AI can aid judicial reform. But do remain cautious about abuse of big data sets, and biases in technology.

Minority Report was a classic Steven Spielberg sci-fi film. Employing tech-noir, the film exhibited a dystopian plot showcasing the dire pitfalls and consequences of predictive law enforcement. The movie conceived a futuristic technology, mixing psychics and premonitions, to pre-empt crime, with a suspect apprehended using a special department labelled, quite literally, “PreCrime”. Similar themes surrounding the deployment of intelligent machines to aid in law enforcement and criminal justice, which in turn go awry, have consistently featured in popular culture. These seemingly grandiose notions of artificial intelligence (AI) are rapidly finding themselves at play in real life.


The new Chief Justice of India (CJI), SA Bobde, has, in no uncertain terms, expressed the judiciary’s desire not to miss the AI bus. He has talked about the Supreme Court (SC)’s internal group of experts, currently working to determine avenues for deploying AI in our courts. Though the technology is novel, the focus is on the age-old, intergenerational crisis of excessive judicial backlog. With AI, the judiciary wants to experiment and deploy a transformative technology, which supersedes all its earlier efforts of integrating information and communication technologies in courts, under the e-courts project.
AI can potentially create unique technological applications to exponentially improve the efficiency of judges and lawyers. These interventions will go beyond merely identifying case status updates or finding the appropriate orders and judgments. The automation conceived through AI is far more sophisticated, allowing, for instance, judges to determine precise answers to their queries in a bail application, using a case-query tool. Rapid progression in machine learning and natural language processing techniques have opened the floodgates for newer tools.
While all this sounds fascinating, and gives life to hitherto fictional plots, there are considerable challenges underlying the deployment of AI-driven technology in Indian courts. For the judiciary, there are two immediate concerns, which warrant more deliberation and concrete governance frameworks.
First, there is the question regarding the collection and utilisation of big data. Machine learning inherently operates with large data-sets serving as fuel for the engine, informing the algorithm of the various correlations, patterns, and analyses of extensive and meticulous data sets. While the SC recognised the individual’s right to privacy in its landmark Puttaswamy judgment, the contours of this are amorphous. The vacuum of a statutory framework for data collection and protection renders the use of copious data sets susceptible to abuse.
The second issue, needing a finer and more pragmatic appraisal, is the presumed unbiased nature of an AI-driven tool. Among many exponents, there is a seeming consensus that AI in courtrooms can dispel the biases of judges. The problem with this reductionist conclusion is factual inaccuracy. For all its technological superiority, AI today is indeed afflicted by biases. An official report from the Obama presidency’s archives identified different types of biases, from the use of inaccurate, incomplete, or antiquated data sets, to the personal bias of programmers designing AI-driven tools, seeping into the final product. AI is, thus, vulnerable to existing biases, and given the extent of its usage, it has the capacity to perpetuate these systemically, if it is deployed in an unregulated manner.
The question then remains whether AI should be avoided in the courts or are there steps that can ensure the maximisation ofits potential, while minimising the detrimental fallouts. The answer must always be the latter.
To optimise the utility of AI in the Indian judiciary, there are four broad steps that must be taken. One, undoubtedly, the first-generation AI tools, as have been highlighted by the CJI in his media interviews, will prove to be a watershed. However, it is imperative that the process is iterative and incremental, yielding more sophisticated and diversified AI-driven technology for the Indian judiciary.
Two, to undertake this steady expansion, it is critical to facilitate the requisite user feedback through appropriate channels. These feedback loops must be supplemented with periodic, impact evaluation studies.
Three, as the AI industry is rapidly evolving, so must policies and governance frameworks for this technology to remain effective. Given its innate complexity, the use of AI must certainly be experimented only through an evidence-based and research-driven approach, and not through experiential intuition.
Four, a long-term transition into an AI-driven justice system requires all stakeholders to have a firm grasp over its technologies. Therefore, streamlining of training modules and workshops for evolving more sophisticated AI, must be effectuated simultaneous to its deployment in the courts. AI still remains uncharted territory. These steps will ensure its seamless integration and allow future generations to build on this edifice in the coming years.

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Justice delayed is justice denied

Source: Hindustan Times dated 13.11.2019

Harish Narasappa (Lawyer and Partner at law firm Samvad Partners and Co-founder of DAKSH, a civil society organisation that was involved in the making of the IJR 2019)

Reformation Efficient management of judicial time, scientific listing of cases based on the stage they are at and appointment of full-time judicial administration cadre to provide support to the judiciary can reduce the number of pending cases
Justice is one of civilisation’s foundational goals. It is therefore imperative for the judiciary to perform its duty properly for any society to continue its pursuit of peace, harmony and progress. Unfortunately, the Indian judiciary, despite its many successes, suffers from severe structural problems that prevent it from functioning properly. The judiciary’s travails, specifically those relating to delays and backlog are well documented and don’t need repetition. However, it is only in the last few years that these structural problems have been better understood empirically thanks to the availability of better data.

It is now possible to assess, in a fairly detailed manner, the judiciary on parameters such as budgets, human resources, workload, diversity, infrastructure, and trends over the years. We can also accurately diagnose the pendency and backlog problem not only at district and taluka level but also at court complex levels.
We know, for example, that while pendency is a nationwide problem, it varies vastly from state to state, with the average pendency being anywhere in the range of two years to nine years in the district judiciary, as the India Justice Report 2019 reveals. We need to work on the problems that lead to delay on a daily basis, by increasing certainty of outcome in each hearing and avoiding burdening a judge in a manner that encourages adjournments. On an average, a district judge has about 50-60 cases listed before him each day. It is impossible to meaningfully hear such a high number of matters, and therefore at least 40 of these cases will be adjourned by the judge without any significant movement. This happens every day in each court across the country throughout the year. Naturally, there will be delay and backlogs at the end of the year. It is these daily problems that magnify over time and transform into structural problems crippling the functioning of the institution.
Today, it can take nearly 20 years if a case goes all the way from the subordinate court to the high court and then the Supreme Court. Twenty years means multiple generations of litigants, enormous cost and frustration — a case taking this long to be resolved is symptomatic of an inefficient and ineffective judicial system; any ‘justice’ delivered after a span of 20 years would be bereft of its true meaning. There are many problems that this process creates. First, judges, particularly those in the superior courts are dealing with cases from the previous decade and not today’s pressing issues. Second, the judiciary and the legal system at large, is inherently favouring the illegal actions of one party at the cost of violating the rights of the other. Further, a prolonged legal battle will have the effect of encouraging such illegal actions not only by the parties involved but across society, which in the long term lead to an erosion in the faith of people to get timely justice.
From a larger perspective, judicial delays also lead to uncertainty regarding laws and their application — the ongoing case in the Supreme Court regarding the application of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the determination of compensation thereunder has practically halted land acquisition litigation in the country. Cases related to land acquisition in the subordinate courts remain pending for six years on average and are a category of cases that take the most time to be resolved in court.
How then must the judiciary proceed to ameliorate the effects of delay? Foremost would be to efficiently manage judicial time. Listing an optimal number of cases to be heard on a daily basis is vital to ensuring that judicial time is not spent on unnecessary adjournments and that lawyers are prepared for their cases knowing that they will be heard with certainty. Courts must work towards better case management frameworks to ensure that cases are scientifically listed taking into consideration the stage of the cases and the amount of time they would require to be heard. The Delhi high court recently took the lead on this through a pilot project in the district judiciary; the results of the project show that it is possible to decide cases in a short time frame with better case and judicial time management.
A critical reform required is the need to appoint a full-time judicial administration cadre. Internationally, judicial administration is seen as being ancillary to the work of judges and is carried out by dedicated and specialised personnel to help judges efficiently perform their judicial duties. The establishment of a dedicated and trained cadre to provide support to the judiciary through case management, assistance with budgeting, handling administrative tasks, and ensuring maintenance of court infrastructure will go a long way in enabling the judiciary to focus on the administration of justice. Currently, judicial administration is essentially managed by judges themselves. This is not only unsustainable, but also unfair to judges whose primary skill and responsibility is to decide cases.
The most critical mantra is to embrace technology with vigour. Many of our court rules and processes were conceived of in the 19th century and need a thorough overhaul as they have become a hindrance to the delivery of justice. We should change these processes to meet today’s societal realities, particularly to harness technology in the better delivery of justice.
To implement these reforms requires dedicated and full-time leadership both at the Supreme Court and at each of the high courts.

Monday, November 11, 2019

Fix the legal system, look beyond the apex court

Source: Hindustan Times dated 11.11.2019

-- Arghya Sengupta (Research Director, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. He was a member of the Steering Committee of the India Justice Report)

Improve judicial infrastructure, expand judicial training, and develop an evidence-based approach to reforms

Think of a single, prominent white dot plotted against a black background. Imagine taking a step back and observing the picture. You would not be the only one if you only observed the dot and overlooked the vast expanse of black, though present in comparative spatial abundance. The Supreme Court of India, the white dot in India’s judicial system, is the cynosure of public attention. Specifically, its relationship with the government, judgments in bellwether cases, taking up several public interest litigations and functioning of successive collegiums is the staple diet of front pages of newspapers.


The overlooked expanse is India’s creaking subordinate judiciary, the first and often only point of contact for the common person in the justice system. Overlooking what ails the subordinate judiciary is symptomatic of the natural preoccupation of the legal fraternity to veer towards the sensational rather than the significant. It is an explanatory void that many of us, myself included, have been complicit in creating.
In this context, the India Justice Report, coordinated by the Tata Trusts, a comprehensive survey of the pan-India functioning of the criminal justice system at the grassroots level, marks a radical departure. It ranks each state on the basis of the capacity in the four pillars of the justice system — police, prisons, legal aid and the judiciary. Its goal is simple, as its chief editor Maja Daruwala writes in her introduction, to “stop denying the undeniable, and repair this broken system”. By firmly shining a light on what ails the justice system at its foundations — the police station, the prison, the legal aid cell and the subordinate court — this report is a wake-up call for states and high courts to ensure the effective and humane delivery of justice.
Impediments in this quest, discernible from this report, and other emerging work in this area, are fundamentally threefold. First, the problem of execution.
According to the Vidhi Centre’s recent study, since 1993, the central government has released ~7,460.24 crore to state governments for building new courtrooms and residential complexes. Despite such ample monetary resources being disbursed, shortfalls in judicial infrastructure remain chronic. As a particularly egregious example, 100 district court complexes in the country do not even have toilets for women.
There is thus an urgent need to professionalise the administration of courts and streamline its interface with the government. This must start with appointing a professional CEO in the high court responsible for the administrative management of all district courts and liaising with the government on administrative matters. Management of the justice system is too specialised a function to be left to judges or career bureaucrats alone.
Second is the problem of inadequate judicial training. A mindset needs to be developed within the judicial system that the task of justice delivery has both micro and macro ramifications. Currently, judges are trained solely to deliver justice in the case at hand. While this is laudable, it often entails repeated adjournments, failure to pass costs orders (imposing costs on the losing party to bear legal expenses, a standard practice in courts in most countries) and an excessive obsession with procedure. These practices are oblivious to their knock-on impacts, creating delays and failing to disincentivise the filing of new cases, in the justice system on the whole. How to achieve systemic efficiency without compromising quality of dispute resolution in the individual case needs to be part of the syllabus at every judicial academy in the country.
Third is the problem of lack of evidence. Much judicial reform in this country happens based on anecdote and received wisdom, in lieu of an evidence-based approach. For instance, contrary to public perception, reservation quotas for women are not necessarily the best solution to ensure gender diversity in all subordinate judiciaries. As an illustrative example, the India Justice Report indicates how, despite effectuating affirmative action policies, Bihar only managed to fill up 11.5% of reserved seats for women. The inference is clear — reservation leads to greater diversity only when there are enough well-qualified women to choose from in the first place. Nuanced empirical research of this kind, rather than our intuitions alone, must underlie meaningful reform.
Justice, as the India Justice Report pithily observes, is the “business of us all”. Though much remains to be done, the report has firmly shifted the gaze away from the white dot of the Supreme Court to something that concerns us all — the hitherto neglected expanse of the subordinate judiciary in the backdrop. A journey of a thousand miles, after all, begins with a single step.

Friday, November 8, 2019

How to reform the judicial system

Source: Hindustan Times dated 08.11.2019

Madan Lokur (Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India)

Improve district courts, identify pending cases and encourage case and court management.

The time has come,” the walrus said, “to talk of many things”. One of them is the necessity of reforms in India’s justice delivery system. Over the years, the Law Commission of India’s reports have recommended several reforms. In addition to these, there were reports by Justice GC Rankin (1925), Justice SR Das (1949), and Justice VS Malimath (2003). Civil society organisations have also released reports on the different facets of the justice delivery system. Despite the plethora of such documents, the inefficient justice delivery system has only become more inefficient.


To redress the situation, we need to have a bottom-up approach. The principal problem is with the district courts where lakhs of litigants come into contact with the justice delivery system. Unless the problems of these courts are addressed, other temporary changes and ad hoc reforms at the Supreme Court and high courts will have no bearing on the system, and the average litigant will continue to suffer “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.”
It is time to stop discussing hackneyed issues such as filling up vacancies (how many judges do we really need?), tackling the huge number of pending cases (how do you define pendency?), and establishing special courts or fast-track courts (now special fast-track courts and fast-track special courts) and get on with reforms. Lord Devlin is believed to have said: “If our business methods were as antiquated as our legal system, we would have become a bankrupt nation long back.” How true, in our context.
Here are some suggestions to improve the legal system: First, improve the district courts. A high-level team must visit each district court to ascertain what is lacking in terms of infrastructure and facilities. It would surprise many to know that many court halls and rooms for the registry have not been whitewashed for several years. Broken windows, chairs, shelves and almirahs can be found across most.
Second, identify the number of pending cases and the status of each case. My experience has been that judges know the number of pending cases, but not their status. During a discussion organised by the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, it became clear that a large number of criminal cases are being shown as pending because of inadequate or insufficient responses from the prosecution. With some assistance, such cases can literally be disposed of in a matter of minutes.
Discussions must also be held with district court judges to appreciate the bottlenecks they encounter in their day-to-day functioning and to understand their needs with a view to ease their high-pressure assignment. Some people tend to postpone decisions, but judges cannot afford do so and must decide several requests and cases every day.
Third, case and court management must be encouraged and embedded in the justice delivery system. (Case management is a comprehensive system of management of time and events in a law suit as it proceeds through the justice system, from initiation to resolution).
The Singapore judiciary has successfully implemented case management, and today its achievements are recognised across the world. Our policymakers seem to have an impression that because of the sheer volume of pending cases, it is not possible to devote time to case management. But this is not true. During a lecture delivered at the Delhi Judicial Academy about 15 years ago, a federal judge from the United States who practised case management informed the judges that he started with about 3,000 cases in his jurisdiction and in three years reduced this number to about 300. Perhaps none of the judges in the district courts (other than magistrates) have such a large number of cases on their docket. It is possible, therefore, through effective case management, to reduce the workload to manageable limits.
These are some illustrative suggestions, but there is enough data and research that can be used to change the legal system. However, what is absent is a strong will to change. It is worth recalling from the preface to the Justice Malimath Committee’s report: “Everything has been said already, but as no one listens, we must always begin again.” (Andre Gide). A beginning can be made (again) today, and with the “nudges” suggested by several organisations in the India Justice Report, which was released on November 7 in New Delhi.

Friday, October 18, 2019

The judiciary needs to introspect

Source: Hindustan Times dated 18.10.2019

-- Prashant Jha
The SC is held in the highest regard and must live up to its legacy by making necessary corrections


It is an irony of Indian democracy that citizens have more faith often in unelected institutions than elected representatives. Surveys have shown that faith in the armed forces and institutions such as the Election Commission often surpasses the faith citizens have in the legislature or the executive. But if there is one institution that has a special place, in both constitutional design as well as popular sentiment, it is the judiciary.
Our founders carefully constructed a system of checks and balances, and separation of powers. Aware of the dangers of populism, and of the temptation of the political leadership to bypass the law, India’s constitution designed a judiciary meant to be truly independent. The institution, to its credit, has lived up to this faith. Even at the most difficult of times, such as the Emergency, during which the role of the Supreme Court (SC) has been legitimately questioned as having aided the subversion of fundamental rights, it is instructive to remember that at least some within the institution sought to uphold the law.
That is why recent events must cause concern to all those who care about the health of Indian democracy and institutional integrity. Four features of the judiciary, particularly the SC’s, recent actions merit attention.
The first is what the legal scholar Gautam Bhatia has termed as “constitutional evasion”. One of the starkest examples of this is the court’s treatment of petitions related to the Centre’s moves on Jammu and Kashmir. At stake here are two issues — the constitutionality of the government’s push in August, endorsed by Parliament, to nullify Article 370, bifurcate the state and make it a Union Territory (UT); and the restrictions and detentions which have affected fundamental rights.
Irrespective of one’s views on the desirability of the government’s decision on the constitutional changes, once the issue reached the court, it was incumbent on the SC to take it up urgently. This is because the issue is time-sensitive. The administrative implications are playing out; the formalisation of the UT status will happen soon. The decision to first put off the issue till October, and then postpone it till November, will almost present the court with a fait accompli. The citizens of the Valley — who enjoy equal rights as citizens elsewhere — have also had to live with (now partially lifted) restrictions. This too is in abeyance in court, though it did ask the government on Wednesday to present reasons for such moves.
Another example of this evasion was during the controversy regarding the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at the end of last year. Once again, one can have distinct views on whether the government’s decision to end the then director Alok Verma’s term before his stipulated term was correct or not. But once he approached the court, the SC sat on the issue till his tenure was about to end, and he would retire. The issue became almost infructuous.
It may be instructive here to look at the example of the United Kingdom Supreme Court, which declared PM Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament as null and void. Lady Brenda Hale, the president of the court, categorically said that the decision to prorogue was “unlawful” because it undermined the Parliament’s role. The hearings continued for three days; the order was delivered in a week; and the legislature was back to doing what it was meant to do.
The second issue is the expansion of the sealed envelope jurisdiction. India’s judicial system is adversarial. One side presents its evidence and arguments, and the other side, which has access to this evidence, then counters it and vice versa. It is then, based on the legal merits of the evidence and arguments offered, that the court takes a considered call. To be sure, the use of sealed envelopes is justified — especially for sensitive information which should not be a part of open record. But over the past few years, in multiple cases, from Rafale to the latest instance of the arrest of P Chidambaram, courts at different levels have accepted evidence in a sealed envelope — with the other side not quite knowing what is being presented. In such cases, even if the court is taking the best decision, it leaves room for doubt.
Unfortunately, this has also coincided with courts, including the apex one, moving away from the usual practice of bail being the norm, and not an exception. Together, sealed envelopes and the emerging notion on bail have only served to threaten and erode the rights of individuals.
The third issue is the collegium. There is substantial literature to suggest that the collegium system in itself has not worked adequately. The SC itself acknowledged this even as it scrapped a suggested alternative, the National Judicial Appointments Commission. The bedrock of judicial independence is appointments without interference from other branches. Even if this system needs reform, it cannot be anyone’s case that the executive wields disproportionate influence. This is so for a simple reason. The judiciary is often sitting in judgement on executive actions; the state is a party to many cases; and both independence and the appearance of independence is crucial. As the retired SC judge Madan Lokur argued persuasively in The Indian Express on Wednesday, the executive’s influence over appointments and postings appears to have increased.
Finally, at the lower levels, the judiciary is succumbing to populism — as seen in the a Muzaffarpur magistrate’s order which enabled an FIR against 49 individuals for merely writing a critical letter to the prime minister. The police has now decided to file a closure report in the face of widespread criticism. But instances of the lower judiciary pursuing what can only be, at best, termed frivolous cases, and at worst, seen as cases which undermine the very fabric of Indian democratic rights, are rampant.
Travel across the country, and it is clear that the SC is held in the highest regard. It is time for the judiciary to make the necessary corrections — attend to urgent cases on an urgent basis; drop the practice of sealed envelopes except in the rarest cases; be independent and be seen as independent in appointments; and set a strong benchmark on issues related to rights in particular. The institution must live up to its legacy.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Friday, May 10, 2019

An unfair process: SC must re-examine procedure to probe allegations against the CJI

Article in the Indian Express dated May 10, 2019 regarding the procedure to probe allegations against the CJI by Rekha Sharma (Former Judge, Delhi High Court)Link to this article:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/39270387

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Deaths of Taslim and Gufran

Article in the Indian Express dated April 2nd, 2019 regarding the Reforms in criminal justice system and Custodial practices by Sana Das (Independent Consultant on Criminal Justice Reforms)Link to this article:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/38150989

Saturday, January 5, 2019

We don't need career judges in India

Article in the Indian Express dated January 5, 2019 regarding the NITI Aayog's proposal for All India Judicial Service by Ameen Jauhar. Link to this article:

http://epaper.indianexpress.com/c/35498728