PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2024] Explain the reasons for the growth of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary? Linkage: Judiciary is one of the most important topics for GS-II. This PYQ tests how failures of the lower judiciary, delay, pendency, and weak remedies, drive the rise of PILs and expand the Supreme Court’s role. The article directly shows these systemic gaps, explaining why litigants bypass subordinate courts and seek relief through PILs. |
Mentor’s Comment
The lower judiciary forms the backbone of India’s justice delivery system. Yet, a combination of procedural complexity, chronic pendency, and structural stagnation has now reached a point where even the Supreme Court has begun to publicly express concern. The following article unpacks the crisis using insights from the given text, presenting it in a UPSC-oriented, structured, exam-ready format.
Why in the News?
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice, recently flagged the stagnation and systemic decay in India’s subordinate judiciary. With 4.69 crore pending cases in district courts (National Judicial Data Grid), the Court has now asked judges in Delhi to undergo training due to lack of basic knowledge, a move rarely made earlier. This highlights a deep structural crisis, where procedural rigidity, unclear statutes, and administrative delays have created a near-gridlock in India’s justice system, affecting millions of litigants.
Introduction
India’s subordinate judiciary, comprising district and lower courts, handles the vast majority of cases filed in the country. Despite its crucial role, it is plagued by procedural delays, inadequate training, unnecessary litigation, unclear statutes, and case mismanagement. The editorial highlights how routine court processes, outdated laws, poorly drafted statutes, and lack of judicial preparedness have cumulatively created low efficiency and high pendency. Strengthening the lower judiciary is essential for access to justice, rule of law, and economic productivity.
Why Are Procedural Rigidities Choking the Lower Judiciary?
- Mandatory procedures: Courts are bound to entertain pleadings, issue repeated summons, and ensure appearances, leading to wasted time and multiple adjournments. Example: Subordinate judges must call every suit for appearance or vakalatnama, often pointless.
- Inefficient daily case flow: Judges take up matters from 10:30 AM and continue till evening, leading to exhaustion and slow disposal. Result: Even if cases are adjourned, orders still need dictation.
- Heavy clerical & ministerial workload: Quality time is lost, reducing focus on adjudication.
Why Is the Subordinate Judiciary Functioning Below Optimal Capacity?
- Lack of experience: Many judges are fresh graduates without adequate training or exposure. Observation-based training plays a minimal role.
- Inadequate orientation: Civil judges rarely receive training with senior district or High Court judges in handling evidence, settlements, and procedural complexities.
- Absence of structured mentoring: No robust system for judge mentoring and skill development exists.
How Poorly Drafted Statutes Create Litigation Instead of Resolution?
- Negative impact of new provisions: Despite claims of faster disposal, many statutes increase complexity. Example: Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act on mandatory pre-institution mediation.
- Ambiguity causing additional litigation: Example: Confusion on whether a party that has already exchanged notices can skip mediation.
- Statutes creating contradictory interpretations: Judges are unsure whether processes are mandatory or directory, resulting in wastage of time.
What Makes Family and Civil Disputes Especially Burdensome?
- Six-month cooling-off confusion: Confusion on whether the six-month period in mutual-consent divorce is mandatory or waivable causes delays.
- Two-year separation interpretation: Courts differ on whether the couple must be separately living for two years before filing or after filing.
- Unclear appellate steps: Example: When the 90-day limitation begins for filing appeals if the written statement is delayed.
- Property disputes: Example: Whether a preliminary decree must be followed by a fresh application to pass a final decree.
How Do Outdated Procedural Laws Deepen Pendency?
- Archaic provisions retained: Several Code of Civil Procedure rules continue to burden courts.
- Unclear bars to appeal: Example: Whether written statements filed after 90 days can be accepted.
- Conflicting decrees: Parties get stuck when preliminary decrees are not automatically converted into final decrees.
- Excessive adjournments: Even when mediation fails, the litigant has to refile fresh applications, clogging the system.
Why Must Higher Judiciary Intervene in the Lower Judiciary Crisis?
- Review of subordinate court functioning: Supreme Court’s intervention highlights widespread stagnation.
- Training requirement: Judges asked to undergo training due to lack of basic knowledge, an unprecedented move.
- Need for systemic correction: Simplification of statutes, harmonized procedural laws, and modernization of case-management systems are essential.
Conclusion
The crisis in India’s lower judiciary is structural, not episodic. Procedural rigidity, unclear statutes, inexperienced judges, and outdated rules have combined to create massive pendency. Reform must focus on statutory simplification, judicial training, transparent case management, and harmonized procedural norms. Without systemic changes, the lower judiciary will continue to be a bottleneck in India’s justice delivery and governance framework.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
