It's a law and older situation

In a country with about 51,523 police officers of inspector rank and above, and 91,501 civil servants in Group A services, the total workforce of judicial officers is about 20,174 as on January 1, 2015. These numbers are obviously not enough. Because of this, the quality of justice also gets affected due to a host of other reasons, chief among them being the backlog of judicial vacancies, lack of adequate infrastructure – courtrooms, judicial staff, and residences. All this adds up to cases piling up in courts and a long wait for justice, the two characteristics that have defined the legal system in the country.

Two years ago, on April 24, 2016, while addressing a Joint Meeting of Chief Justices and chief ministers in the Capital, the then Chief Justice of India TS Thakur said, "The present has great challenges. We have over three crore cases pending in our courts (2.84 crore cases pending in subordinate courts alone). We have problems of infrastructure. We have problems of judge strength being low, but remember, we will have greater challenges in future and that is what we have to be prepared for."

The forewarning by the former CJI still rings an alarm bell for the judiciary. The pendency of cases has not come down. As far as judicial vacancies are concerned, the existing workforce in subordinate courts has increased from 20,174 (as on January 1, 2015) to 22,036 (as on October 1, 2018). Out of these sanctioned posts, 5,133 posts remain vacant, leaving an effective working strength of approximately 16,900 judicial officers. Recently, the Supreme Court suo motu initiated efforts to fill up vacancies statewise and is monitoring the recruitment of 4,180 judicial officers at both Higher Judicial Services level and at the Civil Judge (Senior and Junior) level. The process is still on but there is a long way to go.

Also Read: 359 judicial posts are still vacant in Gujarat

One of the main reasons for vacant judicial posts is the non-availability of land and infrastructure to house the sanctioned workforce. This aspect was considered by the Parliamentary Standing Committee in its report of February 6, 2014 titled 'Infrastructure Development and Strengthening of Subordinate Courts'. The report said, "The Committee gathers from the views expressed by the State Governments that the main problem States are facing is on account of non-availability of suitable site for construction of court buildings and residential quarters for the judicial officers." States are not willing to spend on judicial infrastructure, although Centre-State share has been enhanced from 50:50 to 75:25 respectively.

One can gauge from the above facts that though judiciary remains one of the three pillars of our democratic governance, yet it has been handed down a raw deal. This has affected access to justice and right to speedy trial, both considered part of a citizen's Fundamental Rights. This position can be better understood from a research conducted on the Subordinate Courts by the Supreme Court's Centre for Planning and Research in September 2016.

Interesting statistics emerged to underline this reality. It compared the population of judicial officers in the country vis-a-vis police and bureaucracy.

Out of the total area of the country measuring up to 31.66 lakh square kilometre, the number of police officers to be found per 100 square kilometre was 1.63 while the same ratio for judicial officers was 0.64. Again, if one is to match the population of judicial officers with that of group A civil servants in the central government, the difference is huge. As on January 1, 2014, there were 91,501 central government group A officers as compared to 19,526 judicial officers.

The report further reveals that for the sanctioned subordinate judiciary workforce of 20,174, there are only 15,540 court halls (as on January 1, 2015) making for a shortfall of 4,600 courtrooms. Along with it, the report pointed out a shortfall of 8,538 residential quarters for judges, leaving about 40 per cent of judicial workforce in the country without an official residence.

Even the availability of judges per million population in the country is dismally low. This is another aspect to view the pendency of cases in subordinate courts. Though the Law Commission of India, in its 120th Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary, recommended 50 judges per million population, the current ratio as per the Union law ministry statistics stands at 18 judges per million population (as on December 31, 2015). This is very low if one is to compare the figure in other countries.

The US judiciary at the trial court level has 102 judges per million population, Australia has 48 judges per million people, England is at 56 judges per million and China has 147 judges per million, according to the data available corresponding to the population in these countries in the year 2011.

A seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, while deciding a case on April 16, 2002 (P Ramachandra Rao vs State of Karnataka) had said, "The root cause for delay in dispensation of justice in our country is poor judge-population ration." The court went on to observe that "the mental agony, expense, and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself, have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country in holding the right to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just, and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21 (Right to Life)."

A manifestation of how slow the wheels of justice are to churn out justice can be best understood from the murder trial of former Union Railway Minister LN Mishra. Seven persons were accused of plotting the killing of Mishra by exploding a bomb at Samastipur railway station in Bihar on January 2, 1975. The accused were chargesheeted on November 10 the same year but the trial went on for 40 years till finally a trial court in Delhi convicted four persons and sentenced them to life in December 2014. When the trial was getting delayed, the accused approached Supreme Court to quash their trial on grounds of violation of their right for speedy trial.

Though the apex court dismissed their petition, the words of Justice HL Dattu (as he then was), in his judgment of August 17, 2012, are worth noting. He said, "We can only observe that our legal system has made life too easy for criminals and too difficult for law abiding citizens." He quoted Nani A Palkhiwala, one of the brightest legal minds the country has seen, who said, "the law may or may not be an ass, but in India it is certainly a snail and our cases proceed at a pace which would be regarded as unduly slow in a community of snails."