Content:

1. Converting court case backlogs into treasure troves
2. Judges’ dilemma

Converting court case backlogs into treasure troves

Context:

• India’s judicial system is plagued by massivecasebacklogs:
  • Supreme Court: ~82,000 cases pending
  • High Courts: ~62 lakh cases pending
  • Lower Courts: ~5 crore cases pending, with ~50 lakh cases pending for over a decade.

Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary)

Practice Question : Judicial backlog in India poses a significant challenge to the delivery of timely justice. Critically examine the causes of this backlog and evaluate how mediation can serve as an effective solution. Suggest measures to institutionalize mediation in the Indian judicial system. (250 words)

Key Issues Leading to Backlog:

• Adversarial System:
  • Involves multiple interim applications and appeals.

• Judge-Population Ratio:
  • One of the world’s lowest — 21 judges per million people.

• Government as a Litigant:
  • Accounts for nearly 50% of all cases.

• Infrastructure Deficiencies:
  • Insufficient physical infrastructure, finances, and human resources.

Mediation as a Solution:

• What is Mediation?
  • A confidential, neutral, and non-adversarial method of dispute resolution.

• Advantages:
  • Faster resolutions (few sessions vs. years of litigation).
  • Cost-effective for both courts and parties.
  • Preserves relationships unlike traditional litigation.

• Encouraging Trends:
  • Increasing acceptance since 2005.
  • Thousands of trained mediators available.

Challenges in Implementation:

• Primary Identification of Cases:
  • Need for effective classification and referral to mediation.

• Public Perception:
  • Mediation still seen as secondary to court rulings.

• Incentives and Infrastructure:
  • Adequate remuneration and formal structures necessary.

Way Forward:

• Institutionalize mediation at all court levels.
• Make mediation the first step before litigation in civil and commercial disputes.
• Government should reduce its litigation footprint and promote out-of-court settlements.
• Enhance public awareness and trust in mediation.

Judges’ dilemma

Context:

• The editorial addresses the tension between judicial independence and accountability, arising from the Lokpal’s ruling that High Court judges fall under its jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court’s immediate stay on the order.
• Key Issue: Whether judges, as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), can be subjected to external scrutiny without compromising judicial independence.

Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary)

Practice Question: Judicial independence is a cornerstone of democracy, but it must be balanced with accountability to maintain public trust. Critically examine the challenges in ensuring judicial accountability in India while safeguarding judicial independence. Suggest suitable reforms. (250 words)

1. Lokpal’s Stand:
   1. High Court judges are under the Lokpal’s jurisdiction per Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
   1. High Courts, established by state statutes, are considered statutory bodies, making judges “public servants.”
   1. Contrarily, the Supreme Court is established by the Constitution, thus not under the Lokpal’s purview.

• Supreme Court’s Response:
  • Stayed the Lokpal’s decision suo motu (on its own motion).
  • Concern: Judicial independence could be compromised if external bodies investigate constitutional court judges.

• Legal Precedent – K. Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991):
  • Judges are public servants under PCA.
  • No FIR against a sitting judge without the Chief Justice of India’s (CJI) approval.
  • Ensures a balance: Judges aren’t immune from law, yet the judiciary’s functioning remains unhampered.

• Existing Accountability Mechanisms:
  • In-house procedure: Initiated by CJI, High Court CJ, or President on complaints.
  • Actions: Request for resignation, curtailing judicial work, transfers, or parliamentary removal.
  • Criticism: Lack of transparency; reasons for transfers often undisclosed.

• Way Forward:
  • Need for an effective mechanism balancing independence with accountability.
  • Consider independent prosecution under judicial supervision for credible corruption charges.
  • Safeguards to prevent frivolous complaints while ensuring public trust in the judiciary.

Criticism :

• Judicial Independence:
  • Essential for impartial decision-making, a basic structure element of the Constitution (Article 50).
  • External probes may create a chilling effect, deterring judges from making bold decisions.

• Need for Accountability:
  • Independence isn’t immunity.
  • Judicial corruption erodes public trust; an opaque system fosters impunity.

• Institutional Integrity vs Public Interest:
  • Striking a balance is complex; neither extreme serves justice.
  • An in-house procedure with external oversight (without direct interference) could be a middle path.

• International Practices:
  • Some countries have independent judicial commissions ensuring both accountability and autonomy.
  • India can adapt such models, ensuring constitutional sanctity is upheld.