Filed in 1951, the case pertaining to liquidation of the erstwhile Berhampore Bank is listed as the oldest to be heard in any Indian court. Its disposal by the Calcutta High Court, after 72 years, is a grim reminder of the clogged state of the country’s judiciary. The High Court still has two of the next five oldest pending cases to deal with, all of which were filed in 1952. Over 4.7 crore cases are pending across different levels of the judiciary in India, 87 per cent of them in subordinate courts. The government is the largest litigant. One department suing the other is routine, leaving decision-making to the courts. Avoiding litigation or preferring a quick resolution seems the least of concerns. For any change to happen, this tendency must be addressed with a sense of urgency.
The massive backlog of cases is blamed on the inadequate infrastructure, the large number of judges’ vacancies and overburdened courts. What’s missing in the discourse is the culture of forced delays, ineptness, inefficiency and the lack of accountability. A chronic problem of the justice delivery system is the ease of adjournments. Despite the Supreme Court advisory, costs are rarely imposed. Adjournment of cases is, sadly, a well-established norm. Inhouse solutions are the only hope. Exemplary precedents have to be set; the veil of acceptability has to fall.
Some remedial measures, such as setting up of Lok Adalats, have worked, but the pendency is only increasing, not decreasing. Suggestions have been put forth for a massive clean-up exercise in every single court to weed out cases that are either infructuous or not worth pursuing. Also, to study why some cases get decided in a few years, while others take decades. Equally vital is to assess the performance of the legal aid system and determine the flaws. Is it effective or letting down those it seeks to help? Amid the rising trend of litigation, there’s no quick fix. A systemic revamp of methods and practices can help.