Court Management and good administration

This article is reproduction of views of Hon. Yatindra Singh,J  (Allahabad High Court) while passing interim order in WRIT - A No. 16879 of 1999, Net Singh  Vs. Labour Secy., U.P. Shasan Lko. & Others. Where his lordship observed that:

“ The pressure upon the modern judges----at first instance and on appeal--is, in most instance much grater than it was in case of their forebears. And we have one of the lowest number of judges per million of population in the world. And many of our vacancies are not filled up. We are at present working at half of our sanctioned strength. The court management and good administration are more relevant today than ever.

Court Management:

         Here the service of more than 1000 employees were terminated in terms of the GO dated 12.2.1999 and the decision of the Parishad dated 9.3.1999. While terminating their services, the procedure indicated in the GO dated 12.2.1999 was followed. The basic questions in all the writ petitions are same. This was argued at different time before different judges with different results. Was it not better that these cases were consolidated and heard by one judge. Many object to it: this takes away variety of views; difference in opinion. But we have to consider the time constraint; lakhs of cases are pending; there are no judges to hear them. They ought to have been consolidated and dealt by one Judge. If there was any mistake it can always be corrected by the appellate court.

        Apart from it, if these cases were consolidated and heard together, this would have led to--better understanding of the problem; saving time, efforts, and finance. This would have saved some embarrassment and anxiety--among the lawyers, as well as the litigants. Many appointed subsequently are working but those appointed earlier so to speak are still on the road. We should evolve a procedure to track these cases and decide them together.
        Classification of cases was started in this court in 1978-79. It was done manually and now is being done through computer. A code is allotted and fed at the time when cases are filed. Old cases have been codified to a large extent, though it is not complete. We can find out cases in one category that is cases of Ad hoc employees who were in service of a local body, or Corporation, or the State Government. But this kind of grouping to find out the writ petitions of the terminated employees in view of the GO (as in these seven writ petitions) is not possible; at least not with the computerisation that we have today. We have classification Section with few judicial officers. They look into each file and categorise old cases. They perhaps could do it, but they have their limitations. And finding a few hundred cases from lakhs of cases perhaps may not be worthwhile. We should have better methods to track them.

        One method is to seek more information in a pro-forma from lawyers to be fed in the computers. This additional information may help us in clubbing cases of similar nature. But lawyers have to co-operate too. I have no reason to doubt that they will not. They are as much part of this court as we are. They are equally keen to solve arrears and other problems of this court. We have to solve them together. There are few other options.

        The terminated employees have engaged different counsels. It is difficult for them or their counsels to give details of these cases but contesting respondent in all these cases is the Director of the Parishad. He has knowledge about these cases. Notices have been issued and reply has to be filed in these cases. His office could have sorted out all these cases and given a list to its counsel for information to the court. Then these cases could have been decided together.

        The State Government or its Departments or its agencies or the Corporations (like the Parishad) are the biggest litigants in this court. This kind of sorting could be better managed at their level. The State Government or the different departments already have legal officers. If they don't, then they may have a litigation in-charge to look after these matters. They can easily supply such lists to the court through their counsels so that cases may be decided together. This will not only save the time of the court but the time and finances of the State Government and its departments. This court and the State Government, its departments and agencies may consider improving communication between classification and Computer section of the High Court and legal cell of the State government and its departments to track these cases.

          We have work force. We have judicial officers; well trained for judicial work but not for court management. It is still dormant and does not appeal to many. We still think that our job is to decide cases and not to manage them. But if we wish to reduce arrears then this attitude has to change. If one has to cut a tree in eight hours one does not have to chop it constantly for eight hours. One has to spend time to sharpen ones axe. It is equally important. But where one can find material for it.

         We have good material available. There are reports of different committees for reducing the arrears. The report of the arrears committee 1989-1990 constituted by the Government of India on the recommendation of the Chief Justices' Conference is a good 'source material'. This is to be implemented and staff to be trained. We do have Judicial Training Institute; Court management may be compulsory part of judicial officer training. No one may be appointed, or promoted unless he has gone through training in court management. Merely training is not sufficient. It is to be constantly practised.

Good Administration:

         While we are discussing about court management and talking about appointing law officers or litigation in-charge, I would like to point out on few other things. Many of the writ petitions are entertained because of mal-administration; and many others can be easily avoided with some effort.
 There are few fundamentals for good administration.
(i)Decision may be taken only after affording opportunity to the concerned parties.
(ii)If controversy is similar or affects many persons then the claims may be decided together rather than separately.
(iii)The officer passing the order should have authority to pass the order.
(iv)There should be reasons for taking the decision. It restricts arbitrariness.
(v)Decision be taken within reasonable time and communicated to the party concerned.

        It is not only important that previously mentioned points are practised but also they should appear from the order that they were followed in any particular case. These points may have been followed--yet, writ petitions are entertained as at the time of exparte motions the court has an order that does not indicate it. And the State machinery is too slow in getting instructions--for various reasons. It would be better if every order indicates at least following things:

 (i)How effected parties were afforded opportunity?

(ii)The source of power (details of Sections or rules or regulations if it is taken under any such provision).

(iii)Brief reasons for taking the decision. In case only brief reasons are given and there are detailed reasons elsewhere then it may also be indicated in the order that they can be provided on request on payment of reasonable fee.

(iv)The details of statutory remedy, if any, available against the decision. “