National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC) report on judicial vacancies

According to a study conducted by the National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC), more judges in the High Courts, or even filling all the vacancies in them, does not necessarily end pendency.
Highlights of the study:

• Not a single High Court has been able to eliminate backlog even when vacancies are non-existent or very low.
• In 1987, the Law Commission recommended 44,000 judges to battle backlog. The country now has only about 18,000 judges.
• By blindly increasing judicial strength with the sole aim to hike the rate of disposal of cases and avoid backlog was skewed logic. In fact, avoiding backlog seems to be the “central and sole objective” of having more judges in the High Courts.
• The current mechanism of calculating the required judges’ strength based on the average number of cases filed and the existing pendency has led to “grossly inadequate expansion of required High Court strength”. Hence, the concept of timely justice delivery system has taken a severe beating.
• The current method of calculating judges’ strength in High Courts is not scientific or robust, nor has it produced desired results of pendency resolution
• “Effective” judicial strength has not expanded adequately to meet the rising inflow of cases.
• In the last five years, the number of new cases filed in the High Courts of India has increased by 24 per cent and pendency by 32 per cent. Yet, effective judge strength has increased only by 8.5 percent.
• Again, the committee found that “only 49 judges have been added to the effective strength of High Courts in five years in the whole country to deal with 3.72 lakh additional new cases — this means an average of 7,591 cases per new judge — and 7.2 lakh additional pendency at the rate of 14,693 cases per new judge.”
• The report calls for a long-term scientific method to assess the number of judges required in a court.
• Judges strength should be augmented after calculating the judicial hours required to hear and dispose of cases on the basis of their individual nature and complexity.

Analysis:

• As early as 1987, the Law Commission had taken note of the crisis before the judiciary and had advised immediate appointments to fill vacancies, as well as a three-fold increase in the judge-to-population ratio from the then existing levels to 50 per 100,000 citizens.
• The situation since has not taken a turn for the better; the present judge-to-population ratio is an abysmal 17, with the shortfall hitting subordinate judiciary the hardest. It accounts for 75 per cent of the total backlog. The higher courts do not fare any better. Currently, there are 5,000 vacancies in lower courts and as many as 458 in high courts.
• The judiciary’s problem, however, runs deeper. In the subordinate judiciary, appointments are made solely by the respective state governments. This is unlike the collegium system that prevails in the higher courts. While the system involves competitive exams and promotions are based primarily on Annual Confidential Reports and seniority, there are many loopholes that allow incompetent people to get hired and promoted. As a result, there is a severe lack of talent in the lower judiciary.
• In the 2014 Delhi Judicial Services exam, for example, out of 1,000 applicants, only 115 qualified for the 85 posts available. What was startling, however, was that of the 885 who failed, 68 were judges in other states. Even the 115 who had initially qualified were shown to be related to previously appointed judges in one way or another.
• The chances of a lower court judge being promoted to the high court or Supreme Court are also paper thin. There exist a disproportionately high number of judges selected as direct appointments from the Bar in the high courts, as compared to elevations from the subordinate judiciary.
• The decision in the ‘S P Gupta case and the Advocates on Record Association vs the Union of India’ has further taken the sheen off jobs at the subordinate level. It mandated that all promotions in the Supreme Court be determined only on the basis of a candidate’s years of service as a high court judge. This whitewashes all the time served by judges in lower courts before their elevation to the high court, making the chance of appointment to the apex judiciary practically impossible. This is a huge disincentive to young lawyers who see direct appointments to the high court as a far more lucrative option.
• Another factor that goes against lower courts is remuneration. High court judges earn between Rs 80,000 and Rs 1,00,000 a month in addition to numerous perks that include house, car with a driver, guard, cleaner, steno as well as travel and telephone allowances. In contrast, the benefits afforded to lower court judges are fewer and salaries considerably less lucrative.

By: Vishal