Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

5 crore and counting

IT’S a matter of grave concern that the number of cases pending in various courts of the country has crossed the 5-crore mark. The Union Government told the Rajya Sabha on Thursday that around 70,000 cases were pending in the...
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

IT’S a matter of grave concern that the number of cases pending in various courts of the country has crossed the 5-crore mark. The Union Government told the Rajya Sabha on Thursday that around 70,000 cases were pending in the Supreme Court, more than 60 lakh in the high courts and over 4.4 crore in the district and subordinate courts. The Centre has cited several factors for the ever-rising pendency, including an inadequate number of judges and judicial officers, the absence of a prescribed time-frame for the disposal of various kinds of cases, frequent adjournments and lack of effective arrangements to monitor, track and bunch cases for hearing.

Who is primarily responsible for the sorry state of affairs? Last year, the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana had blamed inaction by the executive, along with legislative deficiencies, for the huge caseload in courts. In 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had scathingly attributed more than 50 per cent of the litigation in courts across the country to ‘lapse or negligence of the state machinery’. The Union Government, however, is of the view that the disposal of pending cases in courts is ‘within the domain of the judiciary’.

There is no denying that an inordinate delay in filling vacancies of judges impedes the delivery of justice. The appointment of judges in higher judiciary is a collaborative process involving the executive and the judiciary. Both these organs of the government need to ensure that the gap between sanctioned and working strength of judges is bridged in a time-bound manner and the differences of opinion over the names recommended are resolved expeditiously. Tardiness or inefficiency on the part of investigating agencies and the prosecution must also be addressed on priority. As far as the legislature is concerned, it needs to weed out archaic Central and state laws, which are big contributors to excessive or frivolous litigation.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper