Context:
The appointment of a new Chief Justice of India offers an opportunity to address one of the country’s most intractable problems – the administrative bottlenecks choking the judicial system.
Answer:
The Indian judiciary faces a staggering backlog of over 45 million cases, with district courts alone accounting for 85% of these. Delays undermine access to justice, erode public trust, and clog the legal system. While judicial independence safeguards impartiality, accountability is equally vital to address inefficiencies such as administrative bottlenecks and poor case-flow management.
Accountability is as Important as Independence in the Judiciary:
- Ensuring Timely Justice Delivery: Accountability mechanisms ensure that judges adhere to strict timelines, reducing pendency.
- The Zero Pendency Courts project in Delhi revealed that 55% of a judicial officer’s day in the criminal courts is spent on routine administrative tasks, rather than substantive judicial work.
- Reducing Arbitrary Delays: Without accountability, frequent adjournments and inefficient use of court time prevail.
- Nearly 50% of daily listed cases in district courts are adjourned unnecessarily, delaying justice.
- Enhancing Public Confidence: Transparency and accountability in judicial functioning strengthen public trust in the judiciary.
- The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) offers real-time case status updates, promoting transparency.
- Addressing Resource Mismanagement: Accountability ensures optimal use of judicial and administrative resources.
- There is a 27% shortage of non-judicial staff across the country. Some states like Bihar, Rajasthan and Telangana had shortages nearer to 50%.
- Balancing Judicial Independence with Performance: Independence must not shield underperformance. Mechanisms like performance reviews ensure judges meet their responsibilities while preserving impartiality.
- High courts already have supervisory authority to monitor lower courts, but implementation remains weak.
Role of Performance Evaluation Systems in Ensuring Better Judicial Functioning:
- Improved Productivity: Evaluations encourage efficient case disposal and prioritisation of critical cases.
- In 1960s Delhi, magistrates balanced judicial, revenue and law-and-order functions and still disposed of 60 warrant cases monthly under intense scrutiny.
- Identification of High and Low Performers: Categorising judges based on disposal rates helps identify and reward efficient performers while addressing underperformance.
- The Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning (CRP) suggested introducing performance-based reviews for judges reiterating Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna’s recommendations.
- Better Resource Allocation: Evaluation systems help allocate resources like courtrooms and support staff based on performance metrics.
- States with severe staffing shortages, such as Bihar and Rajasthan, could benefit from targeted interventions.
- Enhanced Accountability in Case-Flow Management: Regular assessments ensure adherence to timelines and reduce arbitrary adjournments.
- Promotion of Digitisation: Emphasis on digital tools like e-filing and video conferencing improves efficiency.
- E-courts have expedited proceedings, though many district courts still lack adequate infrastructure.
However, performance evaluation systems can create certain challenges like:
- Risk of Hasty Judgments: Judges may focus on disposing of cases quickly rather than ensuring fair trials and increasing appeals.
- Sensitive cases might be sidelined to prioritise easier ones.
- Overemphasis on Quantitative Metrics: Focusing solely on disposal rates overlooks qualitative aspects like case complexity and fairness.
- Potential for Bias: Performance-based rankings could influence judicial independence, leading to conformity over creativity in decision-making.
- Challenges in Implementation: Lack of trained personnel and resources to monitor and evaluate performance effectively.
Accountability and independence are complementary pillars of judicial excellence. By fostering transparency, enhancing infrastructure, and adopting balanced evaluation mechanisms, India can build a more efficient, fair, and trusted judiciary.
‘+1’ Value Addition:
- Supreme Court guidelines limiting adjournments to a maximum of three per case aim to curb delays.
- Inducting retired officials to handle court administration, as done in the Cataract Blindness Project, can replicate success in judicial management.
- National Law University’s Project 39A emphasises that hasty trials often lead to appeals, increasing pendency.
