image description


The constitution of India secures to all citizens the concept of justice (social, economic, and political). The ideal of justice had been circumscribed in our Indian constitution to carry out the purpose of law so that its concept reaches to each and every individual. But really our judicial system is working in this field to secure the very most objective of law. Thus this is the question in the mind of every people who before entering into the clutches of law thought. A person whose rights has been deprived or infringed by some other authority or person might be in confused state, whether he/she proceed towards the court for seeking the ideal of justice or not. If a person took advice from a layman he would definitely suggest him to wave his rights and never approach court, thus this is the conception in the mind of people before approaching to the court. Thus this development of conception in the minds of people might be the improper functioning of the judicial system. Thus administration of justice is the most essential function of a state and if a state is incapable of performing such functions, cannot be rightly called a ‘STATE’. Thus this is the view held by modern jurist regarding the concept of justice. According to Salmond “law is the body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice” . Thus the importance of justice has been considered essential because man being selfish by nature, some kind of external coercive authority is needed to keep him within the limits and restrain his unfettered liberty. Unlimited and unrestrained liberty would lead to a state of anarchy and chaos. Thus “liberty consists of everything that does not injure another” . If a judicial system of a state is incapable to discharge the justice then in that case there is no concept of independence of judiciary. Thus Indian judicial has been criticized on many grounds regarding inefficient judicial procedure, delay in deciding the cases, pendency’s of cases, vacancy to the post of judges, etc. Therefore the need of the time is the efficient judicial system which would eliminate all sorts of loopholes in our own judicial system and made our judicial system a better place to impart the concept of justice to each and every individual in the society. A good judicial system produces many reforms in the field of social, economic and political sphere which maintain equilibrium which is considered essential for the maintenance of law and order in the society. But our Indian judicial system is suffering from inefficient judicial system which is characterized by the backlog of number of cases as well as suffering from the vacancies of the post of judges. An independent and impartial judiciary and a speedy and efficient system is the essential element in the civil society. But however our judiciary by its very nature as has been mentioned above has become ponderous, excruciatingly, slow and inefficient. Our laws and interpretations and their adjudications forced the litigant party to search for alternative modes rather than approaching to courts. The word “Litigant” in devil’s law dictionary defined litigant as “a person who is about to give up his skin in the hope of retaining his bones . Thus our judicial system supposed to treat the litigant in the same as have been mentioned in the devil’s law dictionary. Thus the need of the time is to develop an efficient judicial system which aims at reducing all sorts of pains and tries to fill the loopholes in our judicial system. It is evident from the reports of World Bank Report which has been published in the Times of India on dated 6th June 2017 which showed that the lack of judicial reforms pulls down India’s ranking at International level. Thus this report also provided that an evaluation has been conducted which were basically based on the parameters such as court structure, proceedings in the courts, pendency’s of cases, court automation and alternative dispute resolution which resulted India being ranked overall 130 among 190 countries . The World Bank has rated countries on the basis of judicial indicators with a score ranging between (0 to 18); higher the score better and more efficient is the judicial process and system. In the Bank’s 2016 report, India had scored an overall of 7.5 out of 18 on its quality of judicial process. This improved marginally to 9 out of 18 in 2017 but that was primarily because of scoring high in `court structure’ where it scored 4.5 out of 5. The other indicators such as in the `case management’ category , India scored 0.5 out of 6; court automation 2 out of 4 and in the alternate dispute resolution category it scored 2 out of 3. Thus in the written constitution as that of India it is the judiciary which acts as a guardian and interpreters of the constitution. Judiciary has been loaded with the responsibility to act as a watchdog and to check whether the executive and legislature are functioning within their limits under the constitution. Of the three organs of the government i.e. the legislatures, executive and judiciary the position of judiciary has been considered important as judiciary is “in unique position to support sustainable development by holding the other two branches accountable for their decision and underpinning the credibility of overall business and political environment” . The judicial reform becomes the need of the hour as there is undue delay in the disposal of cases in India. Thus justice delayed is justice denied. If the stream of justice dries up there will be discontent and chaos in the society as that stream does not fulfil the thirst of person for justice.

According To Martin Luther King “Law and Order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become dangerously structured dam that block the flow of social progress” . Thus if the courts fail to impart justice and maintain law and order then that court would act as a dam that block the social progress. Our judicial system might be in same condition and would be considered as a dam blocking the social progress if timely no solution is found. Thus judicial reforms aim to build up a credible justice system that would secure the rights of citizens through legitimate process. The citizens should enable to resolve their dispute in a free, fair and speedy manner including disputes against the mighty government .

Why Reforms Needed
*Delay in Justice – The concept of speedy justice is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. Any delay in expeditious disposal of criminal trial infringes the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under article 21 of the Constitution. The debate on judicial arrears has thrown up number of ideas on how the judiciary can set its own house in order.
* In almost every High Court, there is huge pendency of cases and the present strength of the judges can hardly be said to be sufficient to cope with the alarming situation.
* Judicial procedure is very complex, costly and dilatory putting the poor at a distance from justice.
* Lawyers in addition to being champion at the various laws also have a social responsibility of helping the ignorant and the underprivileged to attain justice. This element is missing in present times.
*According to the report that has been presented by the department of justice, it shows the following figure . Thus these vacancies clearly show the cause for the pendency’s of cases.
Courts in India Approved strength Working Strength Vacancies
Supreme Court 31 27 4
High Courts 1079 660 419
Subordinate Courts 20558 15540 5018

Thus all the reasons mentioned above are sufficient to tell the present condition of the judicial reforms in India. Thus from this data we can figure out that how our judicial system will work if there would such vacancies and it is because of such vacancies that about around 30 million cases are pending in Indian courts out of which 80% cases are pending in the subordinate courts. This is the reality behind the huge backlog of cases in the Indian judicial system.
(1)Pendency- The need of the time is to bring reforms in the pendency’s of cases in India. This can be sort out by bringing reform in the judicial process and procedure that is being followed in India. It cannot be said that the vacancies of judges is the reason behind the huge backlog of cases. It is also due the role of advocates that they are playing in the modern century. Lawyers and advocates are totally involved in the business oriented profession where they are totally ignoring their role in imparting justice to their clients.
(2) Technology Modern technology is the most influential factor playing part in the 21st century. Thus modern techniques should be used to collect the information for the disposal of pendency’s of cases in India. These technologies would help to increase the productivity of courts by EPR tools such as video conferencing through which we can record the evidences.
(3) Reforms at Village Level The Gram Nyayalayas Bill has been enacted to set up the more trial courts at the intermediate Panchayat level. The most important feature is that the procedures have been kept simple and flexible so that the cases can be heard and disposed of within 6 months.
(4) Alternative Dispute Resolution; The only field in which the courts In India is recognised is Alternative dispute Resolution which is unique field of arbitration. The legislation which emphasizes ADR is the Legal Service Authority Act 1987. Power has been given to Lok Adalats to dispose of the dispute referred to them by to the decrees of civil courts or tribunals and every award by a Lok Adalat is treated as final and binding on all parties to the dispute and no appeal lies to the court against the award.
Second Judge Case (Statement by Justice J.S Verma)
Justice J. S Verma a former chief justice of India who had written the leading judgement in the Second Judge case expressed in an interview to the Frontline Magazine published in its issue of October 10th 2008. When asked: “You said in one of your speeches that judicial appointments have become judicial disappointments. Do you now regret your 1993 judgment?” Justice Verma responded: “My 1993 judgment, which holds the field, was very much misunderstood and misused. It was in that context I said the working of the judgment now for some time is raising serious questions, which cannot be called unreasonable. Therefore, some kind of rethink is required. My judgment says the appointment process of High Court and Supreme Court Judges is basically a joint or participatory exercise between the executive and the judiciary, both taking part in it. Broadly, there are two distinct areas. One is the area of legal acumen of the candidates to adjudge their suitability and the other is their antecedents. It is the judiciary, that is, the Chief Justice of India and his colleagues or, in the case of the High Courts, the Chief Justice of the High Court and his colleagues (who) are the best person to adjudge the legal acumen. Their voice should be predominant. So far as the antecedents are concerned, the executive is better placed than the judiciary to know the antecedents of candidates. Therefore, my judgment said that in the area of legal acumen the judiciary’s opinion should be dominant and in the area of antecedents the executive’s opinion should be dominant. Together, the two should function to find out the most Suitable (candidates) available for appointment.”

The need of the hour is that there is urgent need for the reform in judicial system. Otherwise a day would come when no person would feel safe in this world. We all know that everyone that survives on this earth has to die but every person is supposed to live his life to the fullest extent and with full dignity and to provide this right to every individual is only when our judicial system would work efficiently. Justice Krishna Iyer observed that “Society is guilty if anyone suffers unjustly”. Thus we all knew that our judicial system is backed by huge backlog of cases which makes our judicial system less reliable and people are going to lose confidence in our judicial system. If people had lost faith in the justice system then what purpose does law serve? This is the question which might be creating danger and made a judicial system mere commodity which imparts justice to only those people who pays highest bid for that. According to me right now our judicial system is in I.C.U and if no attention has been paid the time will come where justice would become a toy in the hands of the people and only one justice would prevail i.e. mob justice. If a person gets justice after 20 years would that be considered as justice? The answer would definitely be no because that 20 years might be considered the most difficult and painful moment in one’s life as nobody is going to ask that person that in those 20 years how many times does he visited the court, how much money he had spent in the court proceeding. These might be the external pain but what about the internal pressure that he has suffered from those 20 years, whether he would be able to have a sleep without tension in those 20 years. Article 21 of our Indian constitution guarantees “Right to life and Personal Liberty”, whether our current judicial system is trying to secure this fundamental right and if no then what purpose does law serve if it is not been able to fulfil the need of the masses. Thus I would like to suggest that a comprehensive judicial administration should be set up which provides right to every person including a pregnant woman and a child in the womb so that all must be equal in the eyes of law.

(1) Websites

(2) Articles
• “Lack of judicial reform pulls down India’s ranking” an article published in Times of India On dated 6th June 2017.
• World Development Report : The state in changing world (1997) 100
• Arnab Kumar Hazra, (2004), institutional reform in the enforcement of criminal justice in India, In BIBEK DEBROY (EDS), Agenda For Improving Governance (2004)