JUDICIAL DELAYS: INJUSTICE CAUSED BY

DELAYED JUSTICE
CAUSES OF JUDICIAL LAGS WITH EMPHASIS ON SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL
REPOSITED IN SECTION 89 OF CPC

“Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and
hatred”. Martin Luther King Jr. warned half a century ago against ‘fictitious’ liberty and
freedom. The struggle to keep fiction outside the ambit of democracy sprawls on similar lines.
The founding fathers of our Constitution placed “Justice” at a pedestal higher than that of
liberty, equality and fraternity in the Preamble to the Constitution of India. 1 Justice is the core
instrument responsible for realizing democracy2. All the civilizations rest on the fulcrum
provided by the Justice. The democratic procedures should thus thrive to align itself to the
demands of justice. The aim of this paper is to delve into the reasons for delay of justice in the
country and suggest measures to overcome the impediments to it.

INTRODUCTION
Former British Prime Minister, William Ewart Gladstone famously said “justice delayed is
justice denied”3. The Supreme Court of India has held that “right to speedy trial is a
fundamental right which is implicit under Article 21”4. Such a principle has however been
grossly violated by the slacked nature of redressal of the Indian Justice System. As of 2017,
there are around 4.04 crore cases pending in the Indian courts. Of these, around 88 percent are
civil and the rest 12 percent are criminal cases. Around 15-25 percent of these cases are more
than two decades old.5 In a number of cases, both the parties have died of age. Distressed by
the findings of the Central Government’s Commission on sluggish nature of trials and other
judicial proceedings in 2007, the Hon’ble former Chief Justice, K.G. Balakrishnan went on

1
Preamble, The Constitution of India: Justice is ensured before Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
2
Laura Valentini, Justice and Democracy, The Queen’s College, Oxford.
(https://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/materials/centres/social-justice/working-
papers/SJ012_Valentini_Justice&Democracy.pdf)
3
Ibid.
4
AR Antulay v RS Nayak (1988) AIR 1531.
5
‘Pending court cases 2016’, Press Information Bureau, Minitry of Law and Justice, Government of India.

1
record to say that “the people’s faith in the judicial system will begin to wane, because justice
that is delayed is forgotten, excluded and finally discharged”.6

Following a number of Law Commission Reports, it was Justice Shah Committee Report7 in
1972 that identified 14 most critical factors responsible for any justice delay in the courts. 120th
Law Commission Report in 1987 divided the major factors into political and technical aspects. 8
Political aspects encompassed conscious understaffing of the Judiciary by the State. This also
includes the gross negligence shown by the stakeholders including press, social activists and
the Bar. The technical aspects included unsystematic solutions to the problems of understaffed
and overburdened judiciary. It reflects the lack of attention of policy makers towards the
administration of justice in India. However, it was Dr. Upendra Baxi who categorized the
reasons for delay of justice in Indian courts under four heads – court caused delays, legal
profession caused delays, litigant caused delays and the system caused delays.9 For the purpose
of this paper, delays restricted to civil cases are primarily considered with limited consideration
to the broader reasons causing delays in criminal matters as well.

MALIMATH COMMITTEE REPORT AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS IN 2002

Major stride towards structurally solving the problem of delays in civil courts was made by the
recommendations made by Justice Malimath in the report published by Malimath Committee.10
These recommendations triggered realization of the need to make procedural changes in the
Law. Amendments were made in 1999 and 2002 which were effected from July 1 st, 2002. These
amendments included provisions restricting time limit for filing written statements,
amendments of pleadings, et cetera. Section 89 was also inserted in the Civil Procedure Code,
1908 by way of amendment that said that so far it seems possible to the Court, the settlements
after the observations of the parties should be made by way of out of court settlements such as
arbitration, conciliation, mediation, et cetera. Instead of actual presence before the court of law,
a commission could now be issued for collecting evidences under section 75. And finally, it

6
Speaking on delay in Consumer For a, as against the legislative intent behind the Consumer Protection Act,
1986. (URL:https://www.thehindu.com/features/education/issues/Waiting-for-justice/article16888467.ece).
7
Justice Shah Committee Report, 1972. (URL: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report_No.245.pdf) .
8
‘Manpower Planning in Judiciary: A Blueprint’, 120th Law Commission Report, 1987.
(URL:http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/report120.pdf)
9
Upendra Baxi, ‘Alternatives in Development: Law – The Crisis of Indian Legal System’, Chapter 3: The Courts
in Crisis, 59 (1975).
10
Volume 1, Report of the Arrears Committtee, Malimath Committee Report, 1990.
(URL:http://dakshindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Malimath-89-90.pdf)

2
also placed some restrictions on the right to appeal.11 The unique feature of the amendments
made in 2002 was that all the amendments dealt with procedural changes that could reduce the
time taken in providing redressal by a considerable amount. The amendments did not involve
any provision which would require structural or infrastructural variation or any involvement of
other pillars of democracy beyond the Judiciary. These amendments could have shown the
results in the form of faster delivery of justice within the strength and structure of existing
judicial setup. Therefore, the amendments could have been readily adopted in the absolute
sense. The impact of their footprints however would remain dependent upon how integrally the
amendments are adopted within the judicial processes. Unfortunately, the legislative intent has
been circumvented in the way these amendments have been adopted and operated currently. Commented [AM1]: Para could be shortened

ALTERNATE FORUMS AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS UNDER SECTION 89

Section 89 of CPC was envisioned to be major breakthrough towards resolving dispute outside
the bounds of the courts to reduce the burden of courts while also ensuring justice by way of a
compromise between the parties. The alternate approaches provided in section 89 are not only
faster in their functioning but also cheaper. However, the section is plagued with a number of
anomalies that dissolved the effectiveness that this breakthrough aimed to provide. The section
suffers from a barrage of structural and implementational issues as well. The structural issues
relate to the drafting of the section which makes it a victim of severe peculiarities. The
implementational issues stem from the structural issue of poor drafting that left judges confused
about its application and the parties reluctant from referring the case to alternate modes. Commented [AM2]: Stop Paraphrasising , Citation
Required

The biggest barrier to the efficient use of alternate modes however remains to be the haphazard
drafting of the section. Supreme Court held in the Afcon’s case12 that making sense of section
89 of the CPC was “trial judge’s nightmare”. The phrase “shall formulate the terms of
settlement” in section 89(1) unnecessarily burdens the court with the task of re-formulation of
issues.13 The reformulation of issues and specifying the alternate method adopted may render

11
The Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002.
(URL:http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/apcity/unpan006185.pdf)
12
M/S Afcons Infra Ltd. v M/S Cherian Varkey (2010) SCC 24.
13
Section 89(1), CPC: “Where it appears to the Court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be
acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their
observations and after receiving the observations of the parties, the Court may reformulate the terms of a

3
the provision meaningless before the adoption of alternate method.14 Such reformulation will
be useless even at post adoption of the alternative method stage because the entire dispute is
transferred to the alternate mode or to the settler and not just the terms of settlement. This
would cause unnecessary delays both in the court and in the alternate forum as the alternate
center would frame the issues again anyway. In case the alternate mode of settlement is finally
rejected, the entire process of formulation of issues by the court and transferring the case and
reformulation by the alternate forum, would be rendered futile. Commented [AM3]: Valid Point

The case of Afcons observed another aberration in section 89 with respect to intermingling of
definitions of ‘judicial settlement’ and ‘mediation’. The word ‘mediation’ should be replaced
by ‘judicial settlement’ in section 89(2)(c) and vice versa in section 89(2)(d). 15 the court relied
upon international judgments and the classical Common Law and held that a negotiated
settlement by a court cannot be ‘mediation’. It also held that reference of the matter to some
other forum cannot be ‘judicial settlement’.16 Another consequential anomaly related to section
89, the section that was aimed to reduce the burdens of the existing courts, is related to the
court fees. The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 also amended the Court Fees
Act, 1870.17 The amendment to the court fees act provided that in case the matter is transferred
to the alternate forum, the plaintiff would receive back from the collector, the full amount of
fees he deposited as court fees before. However, the section does not talk about the situation
where the matter could not be solved in the alternate forum and had to be brought back to the
Civil Court. There is no provision that imposes fresh court fees. This creates a situation where
a suit is tried free of cost. All these irregularities have perplexed the courts more than reducing
their burden.

A major factor that reduced the effect of the breakthrough assured by section 89 was the
discretionary nature of the Law. The burden of the existing civil courts could only be
sufficiently offloaded if the provision for transfer of matters to alternate forums is obligatory

possible settlement and refer the same for - a) Arbitration; b) Conciliation; c) Judicial settlement including
settlement through Lok Adalat; d) Mediation.
14
Justice RV Raveendran, “Section 89 CPC: Need for an Urgent Relook” (2007) 4 SCC.
15
Ibid 14.
16
Ibid 14.
17
The Court Fees Act, 1970. (URL: http://districtcourtsnamchi.nic.in/laws/The%20court-fees%20act1870.pdf).

4
in nature.18 However, section 89(1) states that “where it appears to the court that there exists
elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties”, this makes the discretion
given to the courts explicit. This is an anomaly that deeply frustrates the purpose of section 89.
Due to the discretionary nature of this section, Supreme Court held in Salem Advocate Bar
Association v Union of India19 that there are severe creases in the way the section is drafted
and it needed further amendments. Justice R.V. Raveendran went on record to say that
“ironically, section 89 has been drafted in hurry, it is not a happy section”.20

Any matter could only be transferred to any of the alternate modes mentioned in section 89 if
the parties consent to it. But, the consent only becomes a subject when the parties have the
necessary legal knowledge to take advantage of this faster and cheaper dispute settlement
mechanism. The Government did not make the minimum arrangements necessary to
sufficiently spread the required awareness about the advantages of alternate forums of
redressal. The courts are not bound by any legal duty to inspect every matter as to whether it
could be transferred to the alternate modes of dispute settlements. Therefore, the frequency of
usage of alternate forums therefore still remains ridiculously minute.21

Section 89, therefore, though being right in its spirit suffers from severe anomalies which defeat
its purpose. 238th Law Commission Report highlights the need to amend the section keeping
in mind the discussed inconsistencies.22 The report critically analyzes the holding of the Afcons
case and gives several recommendations on the lines of the Afcons judgment. The
recommendations however, were never adopted and the frustrated and fictitious nature of
section 89 still prevails in practice.

OTHER PRE-EXISTING PROVISIONS IN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FOR

SPEEDIER TRIALS

18
‘Urban Litigation: Mediation as an Alternatice to Adjusication’, 129th Law Commission Report, 1988.
(URL:http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/Report129.pdf)
19
Salem Advocate Bar Association v Union of India (2003) SC 1.
20
Justice RV Raveendran, “Section 89 CPC: Need for an Urgent Relook” (2007) 4 SCC.
21
Konoorayar, Vishnu; Pillai, K.N. Chandrasekaran; V.S.,Jaya; Alternate Dispute Resolution In India – ADR:
Status/Effectiveness Study. (URL: https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/41034/ssoar-2014-
konoorayar_et_al-Alternative_Dispute_Resolution_in_India.pdf?sequence=1)
22
‘Amendment of section 89 of the CPC, 1908 and Allied Provisions’, 238th Law Commission Report, 2011.
(URL: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report238.pdf)

5
Section 89 was the most recent provision adopted in CPC to curb judicial lags. However, CPC
consists of various other legal provisions adherence to which would ensure some level of
swiftness in the way a civil trial is conducted. What makes the nature of such provisions highly
peculiar is that these small provisions could bring about considerable changes even without
any kind of intervention from Legislature or Executive. They appear to be the most practical
solutions to the problem of judicial delays. The infrastructure cost of applying such provisions
is negligible as they only demand a change in existing procedure short of incurring any kind of
cost on expanding infrastructure.

Order VII of the code specifies the particulars which should be contained in the plaint. If the
provisions contained within this order are strictly complied with, it could eliminate many
causes of delay. Particular attention should be drawn to Order VII, Rule 14 which says that
when the plaintiff sues upon the document in his possession, he should file the document or a
copy with the plaint.23 An estimate of the Law Commission suggests that in more than 15
percent of the cases, the document is not filed with the plaint and courts are adjourned for
months just for the plaintiff to file the document in question which causes unnecessary delays.24
Order VIII, Rule 1 says that the defendant has to file the written statement at or before the first
date of hearing or within so much time as the court permits. However, this rule has been grossly
violated in various Trial Courts throughout the country. Not filing the written statements at or
before the first hearing has led to adjournments for months leading to delays. Even the
summonses that are issued to the defendants clearly states that the written statement has to be
filed on the first date of hearing.

77th report of the Law Commission laid special emphasis on Order X of the code that is about
the examination of the parties by the court before the framing of issues.25 Judicial experience
says that if Order X is strictly followed and statements are recorded before framing of issues,
many admissions beyond the ones mentioned in the pleadings, would come out. Admissions
about execution of documents, for instance, helps in narrowing the controversy in the matter.

23
Order VII, Rule 14, CPC: “Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession
or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the
plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with
the plaint.”
24
‘Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts’, 77th Law Commission Report, 1978.
(URL:http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report77.pdf).
25
‘Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts’, 77th Law Commission Report, 1978.
(URL:http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report77.pdf).

6
Such admissions relating to documents would also obviate the necessity of producing
evidences with respect to the issues and matters that stand admitted. The 77th report went on to
say that “effective use of Order X is only possible if the trial judge reads in advance the
pleadings of the parties and knows the case of each party as set out in the pleadings” 26. This
would allow him to put crucial questions during recording statements before framing the issues
to further narrow down the scope of controversy in the matter. This would also abstain the
parties to wriggle out of their original stance subsequently.

PROMINENT AND PALPABLE REASONS FOR DELAYS

The reasons for delays highlighted before are the ones that arise due to procedural or
implementational irregularity that could be solved by mere reading the Law right. However,
there are a barrage of broader reasons that cause judicial lags that demand enormous Executive
and Legislative intervention to curb the deeply embedded structural problems by way of
infrastructural expansions and sanctions. Commented [AM4]: Paraphrasing Software Ain’t too bad
but bit imperfect

The most crucial factor, that is highly debated in contemporary times, which encourages
judicial lags more than anything else, and which has brought the Executive and the Judiciary
at daggers drawn, is the issue of Judicial vacancy. None of the courts in the country, right from
the lowest level Munsifs to the highest forum of Justice, is working at full judicial capacity.
More than a thousand seats are vacant in the High Courts alone.27 Even the Supreme Court that
has the judicial capacity of thirty-one judges is functioning on only twenty eight of them.28 It
becomes imperative here to briefly summarize the procedure of appointment of judges to
various courts in the country.

After the set of three cases, called as The Three Judges Cases29, the collegium system still
prevails to be the authorized mechanism of appointment of judges. Under the present collegium

26
‘Delay and Arrears in Trial Courts’, 77th Law Commission Report, 1978.
(URL:http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/51-100/Report77.pdf).
27
List of High Court Judges as on 01.01.2018. (URL:
http://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/HCs%2801.10.2018%29_0.pdf)
28
List of Supreme Court Judges as on 01.01.2018.
(URL:http://doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/SCI%2801.10.2018%29_0.pdf)
29
The three judges cases:
1. SP Gupta V Union of India, (1982) SC 49.
2. Supreme Court Advocates on Record association v Union of India, (1993) SCC 411.
3. In re Special Reference 1 of 1998.

7
system of appointing the judges to the Supreme court, the Chief Justice along with four more
senior most judges recommend the names for appointment of judges, to the Government.
Appointment, however, from within the suggested names is in the hands of the Government.
The same process prevails for appointment of judges in the high courts where Chief Justice of
the concerned high court chairs the collegium. The issue arises where the Government does
not appoint the judges to the courts even after the collegium has recommended the list of names
they shortlisted. The time lag between recommendation and appointment had been so daunting
that the Supreme Court had to lambast the Government in 2016 when it said “whether the
Centre intends to bring the entire judiciary to a grinding halt by sitting on recommendations of
the collegium for appointment and transfer of judges to High Courts of the country”.30 Even
the Law Commission through its 245th report said that “the system requires massive influx of
judicial resources and urgent measures for increasing judge strength. A disputation between
the two pillars of democracy should not cripple the judiciary.”31 In around 50 percent of the
cases pending in various courts throughout the country, state is a party itself. Dr. Baxi has
argued that non-appointment of judges favors the vested interest of the Union which would
always want to delay the decision on determination of its liability.32 In several cases, it has also
been observed that the existing judges are highly unequipped and lack specialized knowledge
to effectively deal with the modern offences upon the advancement of science and technology,
such as cyber pornography. Lack of required skillset restrains an effective judgment, which
leads to multiplicity of proceedings in the absence of a concrete precedent.

The second widely noticeable reason that slows down the justice system of the country, and
which stems from more than mere procedural inconsistency, is the issue of inadequate number
of courts itself. In Mumbai, 50 Metropolitan Magistrate courts serve a population of more than
12 million. The situation is worse in Delhi and other metropolitan regions.33 India merely has
17-19 judges per million people while United States has around 60-70 judges per million

30
Krishnadas Rajagopal, ‘Supreme Court pulls up Centre for sitting on collegium system’, (2016).
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/cji-slams-centre-over-recommendations-of-collegium-on-
%20judges/article8979565.ece%20accessed%20on%20August%2013,%202016./
31
Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (wo)manpower, 245th Law Commission Report, 2014.
(URL: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report_No.245.pdf).
32
Upendra Baxi, ‘Alternatives in Development: Law – The Crisis of Indian Legal System’, Chapter 3: The
Courts in Crisis, 59 (1975).
33
Mumbai CMM Court/District Court in India, 2018. (URL:
https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/mumbai-cmm-court)

8
people.34 Even the ratio of Pakistan is much higher than that of India. The Supreme Court in
the case of Imtiyaz Ahmad v State of UP35 directed the Law Commission and the Union for
creation of additional courts. Nick Robinson, author of ‘Law and Other Things’, has suggested
that India needs more than one Supreme Court and multiple benches throughout the country
and more than one High Court within the state.36 In an outstanding analysis, he found that while
nationally there was a 2.5 percent chance of appealing a case to the Supreme Court, there was
a greater disparity in the appeal rates depending upon the proximity of the state High Court to
the Supreme Court. For instance, the appeal rate in Delhi in 2008 was around 10 percent while
that in Tamil Nadu it was a meagre 1.1 percent.37 Therefore, the issue does not only relate to
access to timely justice, but also to the access to courts itself, which has been Constitutionally
guaranteed.38

Another important factor that does not generally find its mentioning among the causes of
judicial delays is the problem of frequent amendment of laws. Making a general understanding
of a new law is a time consuming process. Frequent amendments kill the valuable time of the
court. The Income Tax Act, for instance has been amended for over four thousand times ever
since it was enacted in 1961.39 Nani Palkhivala, eminent jurist and economist, went to the
extent of saying that “the tragedy of India is the tragedy of wastage of national time, energy
and manpower for grappling with torrential countless amendments”40.

RECOMMENADTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR IMMEDIATE RELIEF

Encouragement to the alternate forums of justice would provide the most effective impetus to
unburden the courts on immediate basis. It would not only refrain the future matters from
burdening the existing civil courts, it would also transfer the existing matters to alternate
forums. Realizing the true potential of section 89 and the alternate forums suggested therein is
imperative for providing such immediate relief within the existing infrastructure and setting.
The fact that the measures suggested in section 89 could be implemented within the existing

34
Official data of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. (URL: http://doj.gov.in/appointment-
of-judges/vacancy-positions)
35
Imtiyaz Ahmad v State of UP (2012) SCC 688.
36
Nick Robinson, Law and Other Things, (2012).
37
Nick Robinson, ‘A Quantitative Analysis of the Indian Supreme Court’s Workload’ (2012). (URL:
https://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl2703/stories/20100212270304600.htm)
38
Article 39-A, The Constitution of India.
39
The Income Tax Act, 1961. (URL: https://dor.gov.in/sites/default/files/IT%20Act%20%28English%29_0.pdf)
40
Nani A Palkhivala, “We, the Nation: the Lost Decades”, (1994).

9
judicial setup by making a few procedural changes is what makes it the most practically
possible solution. However, there are other measures which could also be taken for immediate
relief.

Section 89 is suggested to be redrafted on the following lines to reduce the existing anomalies:
“Settlement of disputes outside court:
(1) For every41 dispute, the court shall assess if there exists the elements of settlement which
may be acceptable to the parties, and if they do exist and42 the parties assent to it, it shall43
refer the dispute for-

(a) arbitration;

(b) conciliation

(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or

(d) mediation.

(2) Where a dispute had been referred-

(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement
under the provisions of that Act.

(b) to Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and all
other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;

(c) for mediation44, the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person to effect a
compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed;

(d) for judicial settlement45, the court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall
follow such procedure as may be prescribed and the provisions of Legal Services Authority

41
The discretionary nature of the section could be curbed by making the investigation of dispute for outside of
court settlement mandatory for every dispute.
42
‘and’ would imply that the parties’ assent is still a requirement for such settlement.
43
‘shall’ would imply that the court will only refer the dispute positively to the alternate forum without
formulation of issues for them.
44
‘judicial settlement’ replaced by ‘mediation’ by relying on international jurisprudence.
45
‘mediation’ replaced by ‘judicial settlement’ by relying on international jurisprudence.

10
Act, 1987 shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of
that Act.”

The second important step towards curbing judicial lags is filling up the existing vacancies
before expanding the number of courts. The Executive holds the list of judges recommended
by the collegium to be appointed to various courts. The Government should appoint the judges
from the recommendations given on the immediate basis. The High Courts should be the
priority for filling the vacancies as maximum vacancies and cases are pending in different high
courts throughout the country.

The third important step towards dealing with judicial delays is to check the role of Legislature
in the process. Consistency is integral to any law. The Legislature should maintain this
consistency by avoiding very frequent amendments. The clarity of law should also be
maintained by proper drafting of the law. In case of criminal law, it has often been suggested
that the petty offences such as theft of rupees 50 should not be a cognizable and non-bailable
offence, because it wastes the precious time of the court. Similar recommendations regarding
the petty issues of civil nature should be adopted for civil matters as well.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES FOR LONG TERM

EFFECTS
The most critical factor that encourages judicial lags structurally is the lack of courts itself.
Former Chief Justice of India, TS Thakur lamented the “inaction” on Government’s part when
he said that the Judiciary alone should not bear the brunt of the mounting number of pending
cases.46 Financial restraint should not stop the Government from expanding the existing
judicial infrastructure of the nation. What is also relevant here is to realize the need of planned
expansion Judiciary and judicial infrastructure as opposed to simply expanding the number of
courts. There is need to have more dedicated courts for specific purposes. This not only reduces
the burden of ordinary courts but also ensure specialization of judiciary as all the matters would
be specific to a particular kind of law with minimum deviations. This also encourages setting
of concrete precedents that by itself reduces litigation in the long run. Establishing dedicated

46
Krishnadas Rajagopal, “CJI Thakur’s emotional appeal to Modi to protect judiciary”, (2016). (URL:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/CJI-Thakur’s-emotional-appeal-to-Modi-to-protect-
judiciary/article14257126.ece)

11
fast track courts for specific purposes such as sexual assaults, et cetera has greatly reduced the
burden of ordinary criminal courts in the past. Such an approach could also be adopted for civil
issues. Gram Nyayalayas are another example of forums that are dedicated to solve petty
matters at rural level. They were established in 2008 by Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 and have
been consistent in reducing the burden of ordinary courts while also providing a quick and
cheap way of dispute settlement at the local level. There is an urgent need to establish
commercial courts in the country. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Bill, 2015 has been passed for establishment
of commercial courts throughout the country. However, only a few states have progressed
towards actual expansion of commercial courts.

The second critical point that could largely reduce the judicial lags in the long run and has been
extensively adopted by several other countries, is a step towards computerization of the whole
judicial process with greater use of technology in general. In most courts, specially at the local
level, technology is limited to electricity and print. E-filing introduced in Supreme Court in
October, 2006 was one step towards realizing the potential of technology which allowed
advocates-on-record or any other petitioner to file the matter from any part of the world. Case
management, file management and docket management which could be easily done by
computers and associated technology has not been adopted by India yet, even though countries
like Australia and Canada have followed it for over a decade to not only reduce judicial lags
but also to respect the environmental concerns.47 Greater use of video conferencing is necessary
to both deal with cases in timely manner and also streamline the process as a whole. Online
caveat matching is another such avenue where even though several other countries have
progressed, but a technology giant like India has not paid enough stress upon. As is been widely
discussed in contemporary times, allowing live broadcasting of the proceedings of the Supreme
Court would ensure manifold benefits. It would not only instill a greater sense of accountability
in the judiciary but also it will allow greater analysis of the cases by way of allowing the study
of the domain of emotional psychology that operates within the courtroom. The most relevant
use of technology could be to reduce the number of adjournments that plague the modern
judicial system by making a person’s absence no bar for postponing the hearings in most
general cases. The filtering ability of computer intelligence could reduce the number of

47
The Hon’ble Justice Stephen Gageler, ‘What is Infirmation Technology doing to the Common Law?’, (2012).
(URL: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-
justices/gagelerj/2014%2039%20australian%20bar%20review%20146.pdf)

12
frivolous cases that are filed in the courts as well. Therefore, the Government as well as the
Judiciary could be said to be underestimating the potential of technology in solving the problem
of judicial delays.

Scope of sections 4(h), 4(k) and 4(l) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 should be
broadened to also include awareness campaigns about alternate and outside of court forums of
dispute settlements within the legal awareness programs of the Central Authority constituted
within section 3A of the Act.

CONCLUSION
The Gladstone’s principle, “justice delayed is justice denied” coupled with the true meaning of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India that reads right to speedy trial within the fundamental
rights, should ring alarms about the plight of justice in the Indian context. But however, what
is also important to note here is “justice hurried is justice buried”. Therefore, speedy trials do
not mean that procedural requirements should be compromised at any stage of the trial. The
right balance between the delay and haste would strike when the courts look for expeditious
ways of case disposals within the statutory parameters. Such balance would only be ensured if
the courts take into account the recommendations of the Law Commission reports and reports
of various other committees prepared for the concerned purpose. The courts should rely upon
what is possible within the available bounds of Judiciary to solve the problem and leave the
structural transformations to the Government. However, this does not mean that the
Government should not fulfill its duty of making structural changes by way of providing long
term solutions to the problem. The Legislature is also expected to be clear, unambiguous and
explicit in its drafting of a law. The problem of judicial lags requires a joint effort of all the
stakeholders. The element of fairness should not however be compromised at any stage. In
conclusion, what Former Chief Justice of American Supreme Court, Warran Burger said,
meticulously summarizes the essence of the entire paper:
“...The notion – that ordinary people want black-robed judges, well dressed lawyers, fine
panelled courtrooms as the setting to resolve their disputes, is not correct. People with legal
problems. like people with pain, want relief and they want it as quickly and inexpensively, as
possible.”48

48
Ibid.

13