<p>A common grumble of business and civil society, is of the ineptitude of India’s judicial system where cases take years to settle. This dampens economic efficiency and, at a more fundamental level, is unfair to litigants. Most blame the judiciary as being primarily responsible for the volume of unsettled cases. A closer examination, however, suggests there is much more to this than meets the eye. As it happens, the government and its associated entities play the overriding role in burdening the Indian legal process. In so far as the judiciary is concerned, it has an obligation to adopt proper procedure in order to deliver a robust system for the people of India, and some of this understandably takes time. It is not the judiciary or the inefficiency of the courts that should assume the blame for delays, but rather the government together with other litigants who, taking advantage of the system, seek to delay final verdicts.</p><p>Governments at various levels which include, the centre, state, local authorities, public sector undertakings, etc. are litigants in the bulk of disputes that range from tax litigations, land acquisition, environmental issues, contractual disputes, etc. Tragically, frequent appeals to higher courts make the situation worse. Every arm of the government, almost mandatorily, files an appeal against adverse decisions of lower courts, going all the way to the Supreme Court. This practice, often a strategy to delay the inevitable, consumes precious judicial resources. Within government few amongst those responsible, have the courage to make an objective decision if that is accepting an unfavourable verdict.</p><p>What would really help reduce judicial overload, would be a more sensible approach to litigation - one based on dispute resolution and out-of-court settlements. The government tends to be reluctant on this and adopts a combative stance. Clearly, there are other litigants too who also contribute to the pile-up, through delay tactics such as frequent adjournments and frivolous petitions, abusing the process of law. Cases consequently languish in the system for years. Adjournments in a legal process are occasionally necessary for valid reasons, but they are misused as the backbone of a legal strategy to just delay. Coupled with this is the fact that the judiciary has to contend with crumbling infrastructure. There is a significant shortage of judges and support staff. The sheer volume of litigation that has to be handled is not humanly possible to settle, unless these are addressed.</p><p>Estimates suggest that in the Supreme Court of India, approximately 46% of the cases before their Lordships involve government entities. At the level of High Courts, the figure varies among states but it would seem reasonable to offer a range between 20-40%. In lower courts, at the district level, again government participation is high, specifically in relation to taxation and land disputes. None of this can be construed to be good news. In addition to creating a nightmare for litigants, it involves costs, both in terms of lawyers’ fees and court time. These things undermine governance. The responsibility of government, is to deliver public services rather than fight trials.</p><p>In a civilised society, judicial services that involve a quick fair trial are essential constituents of the social contract between citizens and the State. The government spends less than 0.1% of GDP on the courts compared with approximately 3% for instance on defence. Whilst the interests of the latter cannot be undermined and is recognised as necessary by almost every citizen of the country, the former gets a bad deal because it only affects a few people – ones that face the tyranny of delays in getting justice. In state after state, allocations to the judiciary remain modest and far below even the bare minimum necessary to improve efficiency. This comes with a lot of costs, both to individual and the state. To the economy at large, some estimates suggest these could be as high as 2% of GDP.</p>
<p>A common grumble of business and civil society, is of the ineptitude of India’s judicial system where cases take years to settle. This dampens economic efficiency and, at a more fundamental level, is unfair to litigants. Most blame the judiciary as being primarily responsible for the volume of unsettled cases. A closer examination, however, suggests there is much more to this than meets the eye. As it happens, the government and its associated entities play the overriding role in burdening the Indian legal process. In so far as the judiciary is concerned, it has an obligation to adopt proper procedure in order to deliver a robust system for the people of India, and some of this understandably takes time. It is not the judiciary or the inefficiency of the courts that should assume the blame for delays, but rather the government together with other litigants who, taking advantage of the system, seek to delay final verdicts.</p><p>Governments at various levels which include, the centre, state, local authorities, public sector undertakings, etc. are litigants in the bulk of disputes that range from tax litigations, land acquisition, environmental issues, contractual disputes, etc. Tragically, frequent appeals to higher courts make the situation worse. Every arm of the government, almost mandatorily, files an appeal against adverse decisions of lower courts, going all the way to the Supreme Court. This practice, often a strategy to delay the inevitable, consumes precious judicial resources. Within government few amongst those responsible, have the courage to make an objective decision if that is accepting an unfavourable verdict.</p><p>What would really help reduce judicial overload, would be a more sensible approach to litigation - one based on dispute resolution and out-of-court settlements. The government tends to be reluctant on this and adopts a combative stance. Clearly, there are other litigants too who also contribute to the pile-up, through delay tactics such as frequent adjournments and frivolous petitions, abusing the process of law. Cases consequently languish in the system for years. Adjournments in a legal process are occasionally necessary for valid reasons, but they are misused as the backbone of a legal strategy to just delay. Coupled with this is the fact that the judiciary has to contend with crumbling infrastructure. There is a significant shortage of judges and support staff. The sheer volume of litigation that has to be handled is not humanly possible to settle, unless these are addressed.</p><p>Estimates suggest that in the Supreme Court of India, approximately 46% of the cases before their Lordships involve government entities. At the level of High Courts, the figure varies among states but it would seem reasonable to offer a range between 20-40%. In lower courts, at the district level, again government participation is high, specifically in relation to taxation and land disputes. None of this can be construed to be good news. In addition to creating a nightmare for litigants, it involves costs, both in terms of lawyers’ fees and court time. These things undermine governance. The responsibility of government, is to deliver public services rather than fight trials.</p><p>In a civilised society, judicial services that involve a quick fair trial are essential constituents of the social contract between citizens and the State. The government spends less than 0.1% of GDP on the courts compared with approximately 3% for instance on defence. Whilst the interests of the latter cannot be undermined and is recognised as necessary by almost every citizen of the country, the former gets a bad deal because it only affects a few people – ones that face the tyranny of delays in getting justice. In state after state, allocations to the judiciary remain modest and far below even the bare minimum necessary to improve efficiency. This comes with a lot of costs, both to individual and the state. To the economy at large, some estimates suggest these could be as high as 2% of GDP.</p>
