INACTION BY EXECUTIVE

owned firms and police, if different wings of the executive followed due process of law and acted fairly, a huge chunk of litigation would never reach the doorsteps of judiciary, justice Ramana said.

The CJI was addressing a joint conference of chief ministers and chief justices of high courts, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union law minister Kiren Rijiju present on the dais.

On Friday, attorney general of India KK Venugopal cited 40 million cases pending in trial courts and several million cases in the high courts, ruing that a “pall of gloom settles” over a “hopeless situation”. Venugopal was speaking at a reception held by the Supreme Court Bar Association for chief justices of various high courts.

Earlier, in September 2021, Union law minister Kiren Rijiju said that pendency of cases has become a “challenge”, and called for effective delivery of justice to the common man.

On Saturday, it was the CJI’s turn to point out how exactly the government adds to the court’s burden: “It is beyond my understanding as to why intra- and inter-departmental disputes of the government or fights between public sector undertakings (PSUs) and the government end up in courts... If police investigations are fair, if illegal arrests and custodial torture come to an end, then no victim will have to approach the courts. Abiding by law and the Constitution is the key to good governance. However, this is often ignored, and opinions of legal departments are not sought in the rush to implement executive decisions.”

Justice Ramana underlined that land acquisition cases account for 66% of pendency — and mostly because revenue authorities fail to follow the due process of law, resulting in a “docket explosion” in the Indian court system.

Disobedience of court orders by the government, justice Ramana added, has created an additional burden on the judiciary with more contempt petitions being filed. “The resultant contempt petitions are a new category of burden on the courts, which is a direct result of the defiance by the governments. Deliberate inactions by the governments, despite judicial pronouncements, are not good for the health of democracy.”

Talking about the reluctance of the executive to take decisions, the CJI said that the executive is often only too willing to transfer the burden of decision making to the judiciary. “Although policy making is not our domain, if a citizen comes to the court with a prayer to address his grievance, the courts cannot say no.”

The senior most Supreme Court judge added that ambiguities in legislation add to the problem. “If the legislature passes a law, with clarity of thought, foresight and with people’s welfare in mind, the scope for litigation gets minimized. The legislature is expected to solicit the views of the public and debate the bills, clause by clause, threadbare, before enacting a law,” emphasised the CJI.

It’s a theme that has weighed on before, most notably, on August 15, 2021, when, while addressing the Supreme Court lawyers at an event to celebrate the Independence Day, justice Ramana rued the “sorry state of affairs” in Parliament, where, he said, laws are being passed without constructive debates, leading to legislation with “a lot of ambiguities”.

Recapitulating, the CJI said: “Based on these examples, one can safely summarize that, often, litigation is triggered because of two major reasons. One, nonperformance by the various wings of the executive. Second, the legislature not realizing its full potential. I am sure you will agree with me that these are avoidable burdens on the judicial system.”

During his 19-minute speech, justice Ramana added that pendency is often blamed on the judiciary but a keen look at the websites of the courts will give an idea about the huge workload on judges. “The number of cases filed and disposed of on each day is unimaginable.”

The CJI further took this opportunity to flag the pendency of names with the government in so far as recommendations for appointments to the 25 high courts in the country is concerned.

“50 proposals (by the Supreme Court collegium) are still awaiting approval by the Government of India. The high courts have sent around 100 names to the Government of India. They are yet to reach us (the Supreme Court collegium). The data reveals the earnest efforts being made by the judiciary to fill the vacancies,” said justice Ramana.

The judge also urged chief ministers to extend cooperation to the chief justices (of the high courts) in their endeavor to strengthen the district judiciary by increasing the sanctioned strength of judicial officers in subordinate courts.

“Unless the foundation is strong, the structure cannot be sustained. Please be generous in creating more posts and filling them, so that our judge-to-population ratio is comparable to advanced democracies. As per sanctioned strength, we have just around 20 judges per 10 lakh (1 million) population, which is alarmingly low,” underlined the CJI.

An inclusive and representative judiciary

The CJI also talked about “Indianization of the justice delivery system”, pitching for inclusivity, providing access to justice, removal of language barriers, reforms in practice and procedure, development of infrastructure, filling up of vacancies, and augmenting the strength of the judiciary.

“The judiciary, as well as every other institution of our democracy, must mirror the social and geographical diversity of the country,” said justice Ramana while stating that the time has come to consider introducing local languages in proceedings before the high courts. “The practice of law before Constitutional Courts should be based on one’s intelligence and understanding of law, not mere proficiency in language,” said justice Ramana.

He further stated that judicial infrastructure, both in terms of personnel and physical infrastructure, needs urgent attention. “With the expanding economy and growth in population, the case-load is rising alarmingly. There is a severe gap between the existing infrastructure and the projected justice needs of the people. The environment of some district courts is such that, even lady advocates feel apprehensive about entering court rooms, let alone female clients. Courts, being temples of justice, should be welcoming and carry the requisite dignity and aura,” highlighted the CJI.

A special vehicle for infrastructure

The CJI pointed out that he has been advocating for the creation of special purpose vehicles (SPVs), namely, the National Judicial Infrastructure Authority and the State Judicial Infrastructure Authorities so as to have a more streamlined, accountable and organised structure for infrastructural needs of judiciary.