4.2 Million Cases Pending In High Courts, Allahabad Tops List
High courts nationwide are 37 percent short of judges, and ad hoc appointments–not posting judges to courts that need them most–are worsening delays and affecting India’s economy, according to our analysis of data released by the department of justice.
There were over 4.2 million cases pending in the 24 high courts of India on 4 February 2018, according to the National Judicial Data Grid, with 49 percent of these cases being more than five years old.
Data from central ministries show that infrastructure projects of close to Rs 52,000 crore are affected by court orders, according to the Economic Survey 2017-18.
The Allahabad high court has the highest number of pending cases, exceeding 9,00,000 cases in 2016 and 2017.
The number of pending cases has declined during 2017 by a slight margin in only three of the 24 high courts.
The number of judges has declined in Calcutta (seven), Himachal Pradesh (three), Gujarat and Tripura (two) and Manipur and Orissa (one).
The working strength has increased in all other courts with Madras witnessing the maximum increase of 16 judges, followed by Bombay with 10 judges, and Patna, Rajasthan, Gauhati and Chhattisgarh with six judges each.
One would expect that the most stressed courts would get a good share of new judges. The simplest metric to compute the stress is the average number of pending cases per judge. The higher the average case burden per judge, the more stressed the court would be.
In 2016, although Bombay had a lower workload per judge than Calcutta, Bombay saw an increase of 10 judges while Calcutta saw a decline of seven judges.
New judges should be allotted–or transfers made–to courts depending on pending cases. Judicial appointments and transfers should be based on the metric of workload per judge.
Currently, the collegium (which comprises of the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court) recommends the appointments and transfers of judges. The collegium does not have any place in the Constitution.
The government had recommended the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as a constitutional body to replace the collegium system of appointments of judges. However, the Supreme Court rejected the NJAC Act.
“But for the system to heal, the process of higher judicial appointments needs a fundamental rejig,” Member of Parliament, Baijayant ‘Jay’ Panda, wrote in The Times of India on 18 January 2018. “SC would do well to review its NJAC decision; if it does not, the Parliament must re-enact something similar.”
( This article was first published on IndiaSpend and has been republished with permission. Mathur is the executive director at Vision India Foundation, a non-profit policy research and training organisation based in New Delhi. Mandal is a BTech student at NSIT, New Delhi.)