Weaknesses of the Judiciary:-
An illustration of judicial weaknesses is varied shortfalls in the judiciary that impair the effectiveness and integrity of the branch. These in general fall into the following groups:-
Institutional Weaknesses:-
Structural problems in the judicial sector are the main challenges of the legal system that can lead to operational inefficiency, accountability, and trust issues. The voices that can take different forms have a substantial effect on justice delivery and diminish people’s confidence. This part seeks to expound on major institutional issues which comprise inadequate resources, and bribery among others.
- Lack of Funding: Inadequate funding can cripple the judicial system’s ability to function efficiently. Courts may lack the necessary financial resources to procure essential equipment, maintain facilities, and invest in technology that can streamline judicial processes. The case backlog usually occurs due to low cash allocated to build rooms for trying cases and hiring magistrates, consequently delaying the dispensing of justice, thus making it difficult for people to receive fair judgment within an appropriate time. The chances for judicial officers and staff to continually educate and train could be curtailed due to scarce resources. In this regard, the quality of verdicts may suffer because of outdated legal trends and practices in the judicial system. “In the Union Budget for 2022-23, Rs. 858 crore was allocated for the development of judicial infrastructure. That included assistance for Centrally Sponsored Schemes in the lower courts, among others. However, the Ministry of Law and Justice accounted only for 0.1 percent of the Union budget.”[1]
- Lack of Staff: If judges and court personnel are inadequate, the workload for the current workers will be too much leading to exhaustion that kills productivity. When a person does a lot of work at once, they will not find time to deal with individual things that need to be looked into hence their decisions might come out wrongly as quick fixes instead of well-thought-through answers. Understaffing of required office personnel may lead to delays in handling cases and storing files; thus, facilitating a negative view towards our court system in addition to increasing unwanted outcomes for involved parties due to problems in this area. “Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana has once again called for measures to improve the judge-to-population ratio. At present, India has a sanctioned strength of 25,628 judges. This is when over 4.7 crore cases are pending in courts across the country.”[2]
- Lack of Judicial Infrastructure[3]: Most courts are found in very old buildings that have not been well maintained and which cannot cope with today’s judicial system requirements. Such old buildings are not suitable enough as they pose problems during court sessions and prevent fair justice delivery. Advanced technological tools must be present in technology and resources. With case management systems or digital recording equipment, court operations can be done more efficiently. For instance, there are instances where courts cannot handle the rising number of cases as well as their complexity due to the lack of these two resources.
Solutions to the issue of institutional weaknesses:-
- Increase in Budget Allocation to the Ministry of Law and Justice & improve staff levels: The government should give priority to funding the judiciary to ensure that there are enough resources for courts. This entails increasing budgetary allocations that cater only to the judiciary and seeing to it that finances are disbursed on time. It is also important to keep checks and balances on the expenditures of the judiciary, to keep track of taxpayers hard earned money. To enhance the staffing levels, it is important to set up measures that can see an increase in the recruitment and retention of court personnel. One way could involve engaging more judges, and support staff, and giving out attractive pay among other things that can help in enhancing their career development. It is important to note that judges and other staff personnel are also human beings and like other fellow human beings they have some aspirations and desires regarding their job if the judiciary is not able to fulfil those aspirations for what they are working hard, they will tend to leave the job or there will be vacancies throughout the year, so, it is important to provide them with some good reasons, to retain them and also make them join judiciary and help in our nation’s justice system by simultaneously enjoying their job.
- Development of Judicial Infrastructures: Modernizing the court’s infrastructure is a necessary investment Upgrade includes building new courthouses and updating the ones that are there, implementing advanced case management systems, and ensuring security is maintained. According to the Press Information Bureau on 31st March 2022, “A proposal has been received from the Chief Justice of India for setting up of National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India (NJIAI) for the arrangement of adequate infrastructure for courts, as per which there will be a Governing Body with Chief Justice of India as Patron-in-Chief. The other salient features in the proposal are that NJIAI will act as a Central body in laying down the road map for planning, creation, development, maintenance, and management of functional infrastructure for the Indian Court System, besides, identical structures under all the High Courts. The proposal has been sent to the various State Government/UTs, as they constitute an important stakeholder, for their views on the contours of the proposal to enable taking a considered view on the matter.”[4] This shows that the plan of action that is required is there, it just needs to be implemented and maintained properly.
Procedural Weakness:-
Some procedural weaknesses can greatly impair the enforcement of justice and weaken the faith of the community in the court system. Delays in delivering justice emerge as the main detractors in the judiciary. The next section gives more details concerning these drawbacks along with probable solutions.
Delays in Justice Delivery: When there is a delay in bringing about justice, it often results in longer case durations where legal proceedings go on for many years. Some of the reasons why this happens include complicated processes, excessive adjournments as well a shortage of judges, and too many cases. Most legal systems face large volumes of cases that worsen delays in passing judgments, such as courts being unable to resolve them quickly enough because too many new cases enter rather than leave. As a result, those who wish to conclude their legal disputes find themselves waiting for too long.
According to the National Judicial Data Grid currently, 4,50,84,418 cases are pending in this nation. Out of this 67.81% of cases are more than a year old.[5] This shows the number of cases that are waiting for ‘justice’.
Solution of the Procedural Weakness:-
Court delays can be reduced by simplifying and streamlining the court procedures such as avoiding unnecessary formalities, using summary procedures for minor cases, and minimizing the number of adjournments that are permitted. It is very vital to increase the number of judges and court employees in the field. This may be done through the appointment of more judges, the formation of courts for certain categories of cases or laws relating to those categories of cases, as well as boosting the judge’s training and pay package. This may include the use of electronic filing, virtual hearings, and automated case management which generally aims at making court processes more efficient and reducing the time taken to handle cases. One way through which courts can be relieved of some work is through the promotion of arbitral tribunals and mediator involvement in dispute-issues settlement at an early stage.
If we analyse the information provided by Shri Kiren Rijiju, Union Minister of Law and Justice as of 10th February 2022[6], as of 31st December 2021, India had one judge for every 21.03 million people. This was calculated using the 2011 Census population figures based on the approved number of judges for the Supreme Court, High Courts, as well as District and Subordinate Courts. The strength of judges is poorly estimated by the number of judges at a given time.
In the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors.[7] The Supreme Court asked the National Court Management System Committee (NCMS) to review the Law Commission’s recommendations from the 245th Report[8] regarding judge strength in August 2014. The Law Commission concluded that the judge-population ratio was an insufficient indicator for deciding on judicial manpower and as an alternative proposed the ‘Rate of Disposal’ formula to find out how many lawyers are needed.
NCMS Committee Report made in March 2016.[9] The report recommended that in the long run, it would be necessary to use a scientific measure to determine the total amount of ‘Judicial Hours’ that are required by each court to handle their caseloads. As an alternative, the committee suggested considering specifics when dealing with cases using the ‘weighted disposal approach.’
In July 2021, the NCMS final report was ordered by the Supreme Court to circulate to all High Courts. The Executive and Judiciary jointly carry out the process of augmenting judges’ strength and infrastructure, involving various Constitutional Authorities.
State Governments, under the guidance of the respective High Courts, administer the establishment and operation of subordinate courts as well as Federal Tribunal Courts (FTCs). The 14th Finance Commission proposed the establishment of 1800 FTCs between 2015 and 2020, with emphasis on cases involving heinous crimes, women, children, senior citizens, and property disputes older than five years. By December 2021, in 22 States/UTs, there are operational 898 FTCs. The Department of Justice’s scheme regarding 1023 FTSCs, including 389 Exclusive POCSO Courts, commenced in October 2019 and will remain in force until 31.03.2023 with a budget of Rs. 1572.86 crore. As of December 2021, 700 FTSCs which includes 383 POCSO Courts have become operational in 27 States/UTs.[10]
In my view, the proper disposal of cases on time is contingent on judge availability, court staff numbers, infrastructure, the intricacy of cases, cooperation of the interested parties, and correct enforcement of the law in question. There are delays as well because of a lack of judges to fill vacant positions, irregular court appearances, and insufficient systems for keeping records on cases.
A few of the many big cases that were affected due to these weaknesses are the Nirbhaya Case[11] and Ajmal Kasab Case.[12] The Nirbhaya case had profound ramifications on Indian society and legal system. This made a considerable change in public discussion regarding gender violence and women’s safety. It led to legal reforms such as harsher punishment for rape offenders among other measures aimed at quickening the process of dealing with them through fast-tracked courts. It acted as a trigger in terms of consciousness-raising as well as empowerment efforts among females thereby helping build a fairer society free from harm. But the issue in my view is that before this heinous crime, the judiciary system did not have any stricter provisions for the protection of women, Indian judiciary must have had many instances before this act, to enforce the stricter laws but they waited for a heinous crime, public outrage and protest. So, the Judiciary needs to function efficiently and in the best interest of the public so, that their tax money can be better paid off and they are provided with proper justice. In the Ajmal Kasab case, Kasab killed 72 people on 26th November 2008 and the Apex Court of India, the Supreme Court of India confirmed the death sentence of Kasab on 29th August 2012. To give a death sentence to a terrorist on the charges of waging war against our nation, our Indian Judiciary took 271 trials. Some people call it ‘the beauty of our Indian Judiciary because it gives even a terrorist a chance to prove himself’, but I call it the incompetency of our Indian Judiciary because, in the common man’s eyes, this is an insult to all the 166 people who died at that night, as justice was served four years later.
These types of delayed judgments and incompetency of the Indian judiciary make a negative impression in front of people and it is all because of the weaknesses discussed above. I hope that new mechanisms and solutions will serve people better.
Controversial Judgments rendered by the Judiciary:-
- Satish Ragde V. State of Maharashtra: Skin-to-skin contact is a necessary ingredient to constitute sexual assault.[13]
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012 was tailored to protect minors from sexual assault and harassment by acknowledging their vulnerable nature. In this case, in December 2016, a 12-year-old girl was coaxed into the house of her neighbor with a promise of receiving a guava where she was molested and an attempt made to undress her salwar. The accused was sentenced to three years in jail for “skin-to-skin” contact before a sexual assault conviction but was later acquitted by the Special Court on different counts of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. ‘His jail term was reduced to one year because according to the Bombay High Court ruling, such an offence requires physical contact for conviction.’
The Supreme Court turned over the Bombay High Court’s verdicts after the Attorney-General of India and some other appellants had declared their support for this decision. The grounds provided for this decision included the fact that sexual intent and not just “skin-to-skin” contact were instrumental in proving charges against the person who was alleged to have committed sexual offenses under the POCSO Act. Supreme Court restored sentencing made by Special Court which had given three years of physical punishment meted against him under section 08 of POCSO together with upholding his conviction by IPC sections.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court criticized the narrow interpretation of the Bombay High Court saying that it undermined the purpose of the POSCO Act and the protection that the law intended for minors. In section 7 of the POSCO Act, it was made clear that touching did not necessarily imply coming into contact with another person’s skin. Furthermore, in assessing such cases, the perpetrator’s intent ought to be given weight.
This case has established a new judgment that supports the extensive coverage of the POCSO Act concerning sexual offenses with children as its central point of focus with a call to its goal of preserving the physical and mental health of minors.
- Recent Pune Porsche Accident Case.[14]
A boy aged seventeen in Pune was bailed just after 15 hours of arrest for driving at high speed in a Porsche which hit a motorbike killing 2. The teenager will be working with the Yerwada traffic officers for 15 days, writing an essay about the accidents suffering from alcoholism as well other destructive behaviours in adolescents remaining with counselling sessions. The public was angered by his release on bail.
The police are preparing to challenge bail and will regard the young person as mature as far as the proceedings are concerned. Furthermore, they mentioned that they would accuse his father and the drinking place for juveniles under articles 75 and 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, caregivers of minors who cause harm by neglecting, assaulting, or deserting them are punished. Committing such acts of violation leads to mental or physical injury. Giving alcohol or drugs to a minor is handled by section 77.
The accident was reported to have happened in Kalyani Nagar around 3:15 am. Aneesh Awadhiya and Ashwini Koshta, who were engineers based in Pune from Madhya Pradesh, were hit by the Porsche while they were riding a bicycle at that time, apparently over speeding at an estimated 200 kmph, upon which it lost control and went crashing lane dividers. It flung these pillion riders upwards culminating to their instantaneous demise, as they descended from a joint party held at a hotel within the vicinity.
Conclusion
The Indian Judiciary is seen as a justice server among Indian citizens. The judiciary needs to ensure the competency of its members and staff and it can do so by correctly interpreting the laws, correcting its institutional weaknesses, and correcting its procedural weaknesses.
[1] Budget 2023: The need for reinforcing judicial infrastructure (2023) Money control. Available at: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/budget/budget-2023-the-need-for-reinforcing-judicial-infrastructure-9973851.html (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[2] Sumeda (2022) Explained: Over 47 million cases pending in courts: Clogged state of Indian judiciary, The Hindu. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-judiciary-pendency-data-courts-statistics-explain-judges-ramana-chief-justiceundertrials/article65378182.ece (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[3] Judicial Infrastructure in India, ClearIAS. Available at: https://www.clearias.com/judicial-infrastructure-in-india/ (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[4] (2022) Lack of judicial infrastructure. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1812043 (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[5] Welcome to NJDG – National Judicial Data Grid. Available at: https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdgnew/?p=main%2Fpend_dashboard (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[6] Inadequate fast track courts and vacancies in courts (2022) Press Information Bureau. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1797201 (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[7] Imtiyaz Ahmad vs State of U.P.& Ors on 1 February 2012. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50352079/ (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[8] 245th report on arrears and Backlog. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63539579 (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[9] (2019) RSDEBATE. Available at: https://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/701860/1/IQ_249_23072019_U3395_p174_p174.pdf (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[10] Centrally sponsored scheme for setting up 1023 fast track special courts to provide speedy justice to victims of rape and POCSO act being implemented by Department of Justice (2022) Press Information Bureau. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1883723 (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[11] Mukesh & Anr vs State for NCT of Delhi & Ors on 5 May 2017. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68696327/ (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[12] Md.ajmal md.Amir Kasab @Abu Majahid vs state of maharashtra on 29 August 2012. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193792759/ (Accessed: 13 June 2024).
[13] Satish S/O Bandu Ragde vs state of mah., Thr. P.S.O. Gittikhadan, … on 19 January 2021. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/158325618/ (Accessed: 15 June 2024).
[14] Desk, W. (2024) Teen who killed two with his Porsche car gets bail in 15 hrs; judge asks him to write essay on accidents, The Week. Available at: https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2024/05/20/teen-who-killed-two-with-his-porsche-car-gets-bail-in-15-hrs-judge-asks-him-to-write-essay-on-accidents.html (Accessed: 15 June 2024).
Author: Sakkcham Singh Parmaar
Juris Centre 