Pendancy of 3 Crore pending Case & Law Ministery

The law ministry is considering a cess to help clear the three crore cases clogging the courts. Though the proposal is only at a discussion stage, it must be nipped in the bud. We've already had an education cess and it is unclear how much of this has reached the real beneficiaries and if it has led to any perceptible improvement. Instead of further burdening the taxpayer, the government must look at other alternatives to clear the huge backlog of cases.


Obviously the ever-increasing pile-up of cases in our courts is a major cause for concern. Of the three crore cases pending in courts, roughly 2.5 crore are in lower courts, 40 lakh in high courts and around 52,000 in the Supreme Court. The backlog has not only paralysed delivery of justice but also exacted a high economic cost. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee recently said that delays in the courtroom were having an adverse impact on the country's GDP. This is mainly because of the inordinately long time taken to enforce a contract in India.

It is thus imperative to find ways to clear the backlog. But a cess is not the solution. The law ministry has proposed creating a special purpose vehicle, which might involve outsourcing, to clear all pending cases by 2012-end. The ministry's vision document, too, has outlined some measures to clear the backlog. It envisages establishing a national arrears grid to ascertain the exact number of cases in every court and then take steps to reduce the pendency of cases from 15 to three years. It proposes to do this by first increasing the number of judges. Among the other proposals are filling up vacancies in courts quickly. It has been suggested that some 15,000 judges be appointed in trial courts for a two-year term who will work in three shifts. There are other proposals that could also be considered. Retired judges could be drafted to help tackle the shortage of personnel; the long vacation for judges, a holdover from colonial times, should be reduced; out-of-court settlements should be encouraged; and there should be better pay for judges to attract the best talent from among the legal profession. The Law Commission has also rightly suggested that adjournments be resorted to only if absolutely necessary.

These reforms have to be implemented quickly. And the government has to budget for these reforms. The chief justice of India's suggestion of increasing court fees, especially for commercial cases, to meet establishment costs could be considered. But in the end, it's government authorities and not citizens who have to bear the cost of executing long-delayed judicial reforms.