This article is written by Miss Pooja M and Manikandan D, both are pursuing B.COM LLB in final year from The Tamilnadu Dr. Ambedhkar Law University.

Introduction:

Sir William Gladstone, a politician and a former Prime Minister of United Kingdom, once said, "Justice delayed is justice denied. "This phrase means that the denial of "timely justice" amounts to a "denial of justice" itself. These two are pivotal to each other.

The pendency of cases is a great stumbling block faced by the Indian judiciary. Pendency refers to the non-disposal of cases for a longer period of time in all the judiciary levels, i.e., the supreme court, the high court, and the district or subordinate courts. The disposition of cases from time to time is essential for maintaining the rule of law and providing access to justice; otherwise, it may allude to the accumulation of cases.

The Indian judiciary has numerous courts for different causes and jurisdictions. The role of those courts is not only to apply and interpret the law, but also to decide cases by including relevant facts and then applying those facts to the relevant law. The judiciary has been classified into three rankings. Firstly, it’s the Supreme Court of India, followed by the High Courts and district or subordinate courts. The Subordinate courts are further classified into two courts, i.e., the Civil Court and the Criminal Court.

As we all know, the Indian judicial system is infamous for its lethargic nature. In India, justice is impalpably kept pending or delayed. There are crores and crores of pending cases across all the courts in India. A study conducted by PRS Legislative Research says that there are 4.5 crore unresolved cases across all courts in India, with nearly 9 out of 10 pending cases lingering in lower courts. In fact, in 2019, there were said to be about 3.3 crore pending cases, which means that in the past three years, 23 cases were added every minute to the pendency list in our country. Further, to add fuel to the fire, a major part of the last couple of years has been affected by the major COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to the restricted functioning of courts, which further triggered this disaster of unsettled cases.

The spectrum of causes for delayed justice:

1. Emergence of new tools - As we all know, the government has explicitly enacted some new laws like "Right to Information", "Right to Education", "PIL", etc., where distressed people started to seek the help of the law, which resulted in the furtherance of cases.

2. Limited number of Judges - India does not have a sufficient number of judges. The state government should adapt an effective mechanism to recruit as many judges as possible to deal with particular cases. Until and unless the state takes any action, the count of judges will remain static, and many innocents may remain in jail, while culprits may roam around freely. Moreover, the vacant posts stay still and can be filled in order to curb this eruption of cases. Moreover, there is a quarrel between the judiciary and the executive regarding the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.

In the case of All Indian Judges Association & Ors. Vs. UOI, (1) the apex court observed that the strength of judges should be increased every year by 10 per million people to meet the desired ratio as per the recommendations of the Law Commission in its 120^th Report.

3. Increase in the awareness of rights by citizens – Recent advancements in the law and legal rights have given the common people the courage to approach the courts for justice.

4. Ambiguity in the drafting of laws – Some of the laws tend to be vague and not within the capacity of the knowledge of the common man. Also, many laws date back to the last century, which may not apply to the present fostering society and its people.

5. Inferior judicial quality in lower courts- The Indian judicial system has explicitly failed to attract and make use of smart brains and talented students. The quality of judges in lower courts is not always up to the level that results in appeals in higher courts, which again increases the number of cases. Judges lack specialisation and knowledge, and they have become inefficient and idle.

Hurdles of Indian judiciary(2):

Between the years 2010 and 2020, the pendency of cases across all courts grew by 2.8% annually. As of September 2021, over 4.5 crore cases were pending across all courts in India. Out of these, 87.6% of cases were pending in subordinate courts and 12.3% in the High Courts. If no new cases are filed in the courts, it will take 1.3 years for the supreme court and 3 years for the subordinate court to dispose of all those pending cases.

The increase in pending cases and vacancies in judicial appointments is illustrated in the table below:

Year 1st Jan	HC pendency	Sanctioned HC judges	HC vacancies	DC pendency	DC judges	DC vacancies
2006	3,521,283	726	154	25,654,251	14412	2730
2007	3,654,853	726	115	25,079,618	14679	2722
2008	3,743,060	877	284	25,418,165	15917	3393
2009	3,874,090	886	280	26,409,011	16685	3129
2010	4,060,709	895	265	27,275,953	16880	2785
2011	4,249,344	895	291	27,751,181	16949	2986
2012	4,327,746	895	274	26,986,307	17945	3670
2013	4,436,915	895	281	26,951,461	17715	3362
2014	4,456,232	906	266	26,839,256	19238	4296
2015	4,143,803	982	350	26,488,408	20174	4589
2016	3,849,680	1018	420	27,100,951	20620	4501
2017	4,028,591	079	427	28,248,117	21578	4917
2018	4,243,988	1079	403	28,696,041	22704	5676
2019	4,448,899	1079	389	30,003,895	22999	5045
Today	5,754,457	1080	411	38,153,806	Not available

In the above table, we can understand that one of the main reasons for the pendency of suits is the failure to fill the vacancies of judges throughout all the courts at the right time. So, it can be explicitly seen that the pendency would have been reduced to a great extent if the vacancies were filled.

Pendency and vacancies in the judiciary(3) :

The Indian judiciary faces an immense burden of increasing pendency of cases and a large number of vacancies across all levels. The Supreme Court Collegium recently recommended the appointment of 129 High Court judges as soon as the seven judges of the Supreme Court are appointed. In this regard, the data related to the pendency of cases and vacancies of judges at various levels of the judiciary are elucidated below.

Note: 2021 data for the Supreme Court is as of September 4, 2021. 2021 data for the high courts and subordinate courts is as of September 15, 2021.

· Between 2010 and 2020, pendency across all the courts in India rose by 2.8% annually. By September 15, 2021, more than 4.5 crore cases were pending across all courts in India. Of these, 87.6% of cases were pending in subordinate courts and 12.3% in High Courts.

· Between 2019 and 2020, this pendency situation mounted by 20% in High Courts and 13% in the subordinate courts. Not to forget, in 2020, the normal functioning of courts was restricted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. So, the new cases in 2020 were comparably much lower than in the previous years. However, the pendency increased because the disposal rate was even slower than the rate of new cases.

Case Laws:

1. Samletti Blast Case(4)

Six men were found not guilty by the Rajasthan High Court after they spent 23 years in jail without bail or parole. They were named in multiple cases without any basis, and they have been acquitted in all of them yet no one was held accountable.

2. Nirbhaya Case(5)

In 2012, four men were convicted of gangrape and murdering the victim, but they were hanged only after 7 years of the brutal crime.

3. Ayodhya Case(6)

The oldest case was solved on Nov. 9, 2019, when the constitution bench announced the construction of Ram Mandir at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood in Ayodhya putting an end to centuries of conflict between Hindus and Muslims. The Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the central government to allocate a five-acre plot for Muslims to construct a mosque in Ayodhya.

4. Upphar Cinema case(7)

The case is related to tampering with the evidence in the main fire tragedy case, in which the Ansals were convicted and sentenced to a 2-year jail term by the Supreme Court. The magisterial court also sentenced former court employees Dinesh Chand Sharma, PP Batra, and Anoop Singh to 7 years in prison and fined them Rs.3 lakh each.

Repercussions of delayed justice:

· The common people’s faith and trust in the law and justice system will diminish in every instance where there is a delay in justice in important cases.

· It opposed the right of justice of the innocent, the needy and the undertrial prisoners.

· If there is no speedier justice system, economic reforms remain only in theory and not in reality.

· Foreign investors will become hesitant about investing in our country, which directly affects the functioning of programmes like “Make in India,” etc.,

· Clearly, the judiciary is unable to handle the masses of litigation. Judiciary is tried beyond its ability, and thus it overworks and loses its efficiency.

Strategies suggested to clear the backlog:

Pendency is a problem that requires different standpoints and angles to be resolved as it has emerged for various reasons. All the things that have been stated above as the causes of the increase in this situation can be fixed by taking the necessary steps and introducing some advancements in the present procedures and perspectives. Some of them are listed below :

· The government needs to fix the controversies arising from the National Judicial Appointment Commission as early as possible so that the commission can start appointing judges in the Supreme Court and High Court.

· The government needs to double the number of judges from the existing number of judges.

· Lok Adalat, Fast Track Courts, and Gram Nyayalayas must be established in greater numbers to alleviate the burden on the higher courts. Since the Lok Adalat decisions are binding on the parties to the case, it won’t be possible for the parties to the case to go for an appeal.

· Courts should not grant adjournments to cases on unnecessary grounds.

· The decision passed by the Income Tax Tribunal must be a final resort like the Central Administrative Tribunal, rather than stretching the case for more years.

· Frivolous litigation should be discouraged and the quantum of cases that are going to the courts must be reduced.

· Natural justice is a better and faster way to resolve disputes between parties because it includes moral aspects that are accepted by society as a whole.

Conclusion

“The need of the hour to mitigate the problem of pendency is to think outside the box,” said by Justice Chandrachud, reflecting the fact that the ancient ways undertaken to reduce this problem have only worsened it further. Increased awareness, illiteracy, lack of responsibility on the part of the judiciary, rising crime rates, and a plethora of laws are some of the significant factors eroding people's trust and credibility in the judiciary.

The first steps to avoiding these types of blunders are accepting and addressing the issue. It is necessary to maintain India’s constitutional democracy by sticking to the rule of law, which in turn guarantees order and stability in society. Furthermore, the country’s progress depends on a strong and fair judicial system, which should be trustworthy and able to provide quick justice.

For this, we must inspect and take immediate and effective steps to address and resolve these problems so that people don't lose their faith and respect in the judiciary. This article has made an effort by highlighting the problems with our Indian judiciary and also laying out some possible and practical solutions that may solve these existing problems, if implemented in a rigid manner.

REFERENCES

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 643 OF 2015
Madan B. Lokur, What Is Stopping Our Justice System From Tackling the Cases Pending Before Courts?, THE WIRE.IN, (Feb, 22, 2022), https://thewire.in/law/india-judiciary-pending-cases-supreme-court
Omir Kumar, Shubham Dutt, Pendency and vacancies in the judiciary, PRS LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH (Feb 22,2022,1.00PM),https://prsindia.org/files/policy/policy_vital_state/Vital%20Stats_Pendency%20and%20Vacancies%20in%20the%20Judiciary_Final.pdf.
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 599
(2017) 6 SCC 1
2019 SCC 1440
II (2003) ACC 114, 2003