Learnings on Judicial reforms- Efficient court management is the lowest hanging fruit

 When we start to talk about judicial reforms in India, we begin with constitutional values, independence of judiciary, separation of power, appointment of Judges etc etc etc. Not to say that these are not cherished values that all citizens of India must crave and fight for, but there is a case to be made that these are not the only judicial reforms that we must be concerned with. There are much more mundane, dry and boring stuff which needs to be fixed at the administration level in every court and tribunal of this country. This would also enable to clear up the long list of backlogs that we have in this country. The number of backlog can be 3-5 Cr depending on the source but things with large numbers is that the marginal shock value diminishes with every zero added beyond a point. Moreover the number of case instituted each year is higher than the number of case disposed (as per Pratik Dutta and Suyash Rai, the average disposal of cases each year between 2015-19, was 1.8 million) which keeps adding to the backlog.

Needless to say what pendency means in India. We all know that constitutional cases like Habeas Corpus or electoral bond for that matter was not heard on time citing backlogs. We have heard people staying in jail for over 20 years during trial period and eventually got acquitted. Pendency also delays contract enforcement which in turn harms economic activity. India ranks 163rd in contract enforcement in World bank's ease of doing business index.

I recently read one paper by Ila Patnaik, Ajay Shah et.al and one article Pratik Dutta and Suyash Rai. I learnt that merely appointing more judges will not solve the pendency problem. One must also look at Judicial productivity (i.e. ratio of judges to case disposal each year). Both the paper and the article quotes a 2008 study of Delhi high court which found that average case disposed by a judge in Delhi HC is half that of a Judge in Australia. This means Delhi needs double the number of judges per capita compared to Australia. This is practically impossible and hence the problem is not just of appointments of more judges but also of judicial productivity.

So what causes the low productivity of Indian Judges? Are they endowed with any less cognitive endowment? Its almost blasphemous to say that. The problem lies in the various non-judicial roles that judges are expected to perform apart from the core judicial function of allocating, listing and deciding of cases. Lawyers come with inadequate preparation before the proceedings begins wasting a lot of Judges' time. Moreover as Pratik Dutta and Suyash Rai points out,  there are scheduling problems because India does not have a tradition where registrar will be told by parties in advance about the time expected to make oral submissions. Hence lawyers do guess work of schedule and then follows adjournments, absenteeism, and the much famed "tariq pe tariq". The govt. has made attempts to put technology layer to scheduling and filing but this has not helped much. Any errors in filing has to be remedied and physical copy needs to be submitted for them which defeats the purpose of e-filing.

An overhaul is expected to be thought of the administration and processes of court. There are ideas already floating around a separate body looking at court administration alone which will be equipped with organizational and professional skills to perform administrative, finances and HR functions freeing up Judges' time for purely judicial function. This can be a game changer in reducing pendency and backlog in Indian judicial system. After we have thought through of a separate body and it has revamped the processes, technology can then be introduced at various levels to bring in efficiency. 

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS) in the UK is cited in both the paper and the article to be an Institution which can be emulated and contextualized for Indian courts and tribunals. Such a body can perform all the administrative function and also do process re-engineering to bring about efficiency in the system. The oversight of such an agency however must rest with judiciary to ascertain Judicial independence. 

In conclusion, the zest of both the papers seems to be indicating that the judges are wasting far too much time in administration of the courts and there is no segregation of roles of delivery of justice and court administration. Time has come to think of segregation of administrative function from judicial function. A separate body is to be envisaged to perform the administrative function which would comprise of professionals. They would engage in process re-engineering and management of courts and would also introduce technology to bring efficiency. Although the budget for this body might come from the government, the selection and oversight of this body must and should rest with Judiciary.

References:

https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/09/09/how-to-start-resolving-indian-judiciary-s-long-running-case-backlog-pub-85296

https://macrofinance.nipfp.org.in/PDF/icts_concept_note-2019.pdf