Whose count of judges is it anyway? | The Economic Times

Op-Eds by Judicial Reforms · July 21, 2019
Author(s): Prashant Reddy and Tarika Jain

Continuing with a practice started last year, the Economic Survey 2018-19 devoted an entire chapter, ‘Ending Matsyanyaya: How to Ramp Up Capacity in the Lower Judiciary’ (bit.do/e2qGB), on increasing judicial efficiency by increasing the number of judges at the level of the district judiciary. While it’s great that the most important policy document of GoI is giving judicial reforms the attention it needs, there is much to disagree with its conclusions.

The long and short of the Economic Survey’s conclusion is that the ‘backlogs’ associated with the Indian judicial system can be cleared with a ‘relatively small investment’. It applies the ‘case clearance rate’ (CCR) to provide a rough estimate of the number of judges required to be appointed to reduce pendency.

CCR, as explained by the Survey, “is the ratio of the number of cases disposed in a given year, to the number of cases instituted in that year, expressed as a percentage”. So, if, say, 75 out of the 100 instituted cases are disposed within the same year, the CCR would be 75%. As per this methodology, the judiciary needs to balance the institutions with the disposals in a year to achieve a 100% CCR and ensure no backlogs.

To achieve this 100% CCR, the Survey recommends increasing the number of judges by using a simple input-output model — that is, if 75 judges can achieve a 75% disposal, an increase by 25 judges should result in a100% CCR. Based on this methodology, it calculates that India needs roughly 8,152 additional judges at the subordinate court level to clear the present backlog of 3.04 crore cases in the next five years.

This methodology proposed by the Survey is similar to a July 2014 report of the Law Commission, which was criticised by the Supreme Court’s National Court Management System (NCMS). In its 2016 report, NCMS pointed out that the Law Commission’s recommendations to calculate the number of judges based on perjudge disposal rates were flawed, as not every case is of similar complexity, and the number of judge hours required for each case type can differ drastically across different categories of cases.

For example, a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act for the bouncing of a cheque can take a few months. On the other hand, a traffic challan can be disposed in a single hearing. A complex whitecollar crime, however, can take a few years to resolve. The same stands true for civil cases.

The formula of case disposal per judge does not take into account these differences. Thus, each case needs to be weighted as per case type and complexity before an estimate of the number of judges can be prepared.

To be fair to the Economic Survey, it does acknowledge these issues when it states that the “complexity and gravity of a case type can determine the stages and process that it must go through”. The problem, however, is that the Survey fails to explain the manner in which its proposed methodology incorporates this crucial caveat even as it provides a rough estimate of 8,152 judges.

The more pertinent question, perhaps, is why are we not following a weighted system to calculate the time required for disposal of cases. The answer, as conceded by the Law Commission in its 245th report, while referencing this model of calculating judge strength, was, “All the information required to run this model for Indian courts is not available. In India, the system does not have any information about the time required by judges to resolve each type of case.

This lack of information points to a larger systemic problem.” The solution, then, is to start collecting and publishing such data in a more systematic manner.

 

Originally published – https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/whose-count-of-judges-is-it-anyway/


About Prashant Reddy:

Prashant Reddy T. is a Senior Resident Fellow with the Judicial Reforms team. His areas of interest include judicial reforms, intellectual property law and drug regulation. He has a B.A.LLB (Hons.) degree from the National Law School of India University and a LLM degree from Stanford Law School. Prashant was awarded the Tata Scholarship by the J.N. Tata Endowment for pursuing his LLM. He is the co-author of ‘Create, Copy, Disrupt: India’s Intellectual Property Dilemmas’ which was published by Oxford University Press. He has been published in peer reviewed academic journals in India and abroad, as well as in newspapers, national magazines and digital platforms such as the Hindu, Indian Express, Business Standard, Economic Times, Caravan, Open, Scroll, Wire, Hoot, Bloomberg Quint and Live Law. He previously blogged for SpicyIP which is India’s leading blog on intellectual property law. Link to full bio


About Tarika Jain:

Tarika is a Research Fellow with the Judicial Reforms team. At Vidhi, she researches on gender representation, efficient budgeting and transparency in the judiciary with an empirical lens. Her areas of interest include law and economics, and governance. Tarika graduated from Gujarat National Law University with B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) in 2017. She has publications in peer reviewed law and social sciences journals and online platforms like Firstpost and Oxford Human Rights Blog. Prior to joining Vidhi, she was working for Gujarat State Petronet Limited, a state Public Sector Undertaking in the oil and gas sector where she was involved in various litigation and arbitration matters. She has previously interned with the Law Commission of India and Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana at the Supreme Court. Tarika is a pop culture enthusiast and enjoys watching anime and rockumentaries in her free time. Link to full bio