Govt must devise infrastructure plan to ease traffic jams on judicial highways
In a recent speech, Gadkari narrated his exasperation over avoidable cost escalation of road construction projects because of delay in deciding project-related disputes by courts. Pegging such cost delays on NHAI at Rs 5,000 crore, the minister said, “I respect the Supreme Court and the judiciary. But in many cases, courts take a long time to deliver a verdict. Not taking decision is a big problem and we know how courts take time.”
To get a clearer picture, Gadkari has asked Niti Aayog to conduct a study and quantify the extra cost government had to bear because of delayed court decisions on disputed projects. The Aayog can surely quantify the cost of delay but it would have been wiser if Gadkari had also asked the think tank to identify causes of delay in court decisions and its frustrating impact on common litigants.
Gadkari was bang on target when he emphasised that “time is the essence” for all agencies. He will be shocked by the woefully inadequate infrastructure and manpower that has crippled the judiciary and made it systemically snail-paced for decades.
He will realise the truth by going through a 2016 report prepared by the Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning, which said, “The subordinate judiciary works under severe deficiency of 5,018 court rooms. The existing 15,540 court halls are insufficient to cater to sanctioned strength of 20,558 judicial officers as on December 31, 2015, resulting in judicial officers having to work under undesirable conditions.
“A similar picture emerges in terms of residential accommodation for the subordinate judiciary. Here, the shortage is of 8,538 quarters, or above 40% of sanctioned strength of judicial officers. The staff position for subordinate courts is also not encouraging, 41,775 such positions are lying vacant. These indicators have adverse consequences on the effectiveness of courts. A judge trying cases for days without end in makeshift rooms cannot be expected to turn out optimal result; equally, shortage of secretarial and support staff tells on the availability of court services, so vital to ensure timeliness.”
For decades, the Law Commission has been making repeated recommendations to the government to increase the judge-population ratio to at least 50 per million. In 1981, the US had 107 judges per million people when India had just 10. Now, it has improved to around 20 but is still far from the bare requirement of 50 per million.
The Law Commission in its 1987 report had recommended immediate increase in judge-population ratio to 50 per million and further recommended that India should achieve a judge-population ratio of 107 per million by the year 2020. “If these recommendations had been acted upon, India would have had a judge strength of 1,10,071 in the year 2000 and 1,36,794 as on December 31, 2015. Sanctioned strength of the judiciary (at all levels) as on December 31, 2015 however, was only 21,607.”
Gadkari has rightly said time is of the essence. If nearly three decades are not enough, can the minister ask Niti Aayog to find out when the government will be able to achieve judge-population ratio of 50 per million? And can the Aayog find out when nearly 3 crore pending cases will be wiped out? Can it also quantify the compensation the government must pay to accused in criminal cases for languishing in jail for delays in trials due to inadequate judge strength?
It required the intervention of an SC bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi to make states and high courts fill up vacant posts in trial courts by summoning chief secretaries and putting them under the contempt sword. After amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria pointed out that the Centre was lethargic in contributing its share for improvement of state judicial infrastructure, it was again the SC which had to devise a plan for timely release of central funds to spruce up rickety court infrastructure.
Coming to HCs, where governments are the biggest litigants, the vacancy in judges’ posts has been hovering around 37-40% for last five years. At present, the SC collegium’s recommendations for appointment of 40 judges and nine chief justices of HCs are pending with the government. The government had pulled out the name for appointment as chief justice of Gujarat HC from the bundle and has been sitting on the recommendations for CJs of other HCs. Will Gadkari remind the law minister and the PM that time is of the essence in appointment of heads of state judiciaries?
Gadkari would be surprised to know that the SC collegium has deferred consideration of 10 names for appointment as HC judges awaiting information from the government, which has not responded for at least five months in most cases and for seven months in one case.
In August, the CJI wrote to the law minister requesting expeditious action on collegium’s pending recommendations. “The existing percentage of vacancies — 37% of total HC judge strength all over the country — is bound to increase with 5-6 judges retiring on an average every month, unless equal number, if not more, of judges is appointed,” the CJI had said.
A go-getter in creating infrastructure, Gadkari would contribute handsomely if he flags the issue of judicial infrastructure and judge strength in the cabinet meetings headed by the PM. For, if a minister joins activists in flogging the over-burdened judiciary, it will not help clear the traffic jams on judicial highways.
[1][2][3][4][5][6]
References
- ^ Nitin Gadkari (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
- ^ Law Commission (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
- ^ Ranjan Gogoi (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
- ^ amicus curiae (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
- ^ spruce (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
- ^ Gujarat (timesofindia.indiatimes.com)
from India News | Latest News Headlines & Live Updates from India - Times of India https://ift.tt/2m6J9k8
Post a Comment