2017 (1) TMI 1504 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court tackles delays in criminal cases, emphasizes need to boost judge strength for efficient justice system

Imtiyaz Ahmad Versus State of U.P. and Ors.

Imtiyaz Ahmad Versus State of U.P. and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Pendency of criminal cases due to stays at various stages.2. Impact of judicial delays on the administration of justice.3. Inadequate judge strength as a root cause of delays.4. Recommendations for increasing judge strength.5. Methodologies for determining required judge strength.6. Role of the Union and State Governments in judicial reforms.7. Implementation of the Fourteenth Finance Commission's recommendations.Detailed Analysis:1. Pendency of Criminal Cases Due to Stays:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of long-pending criminal cases due to stays at various stages such as FIR registration, investigation, framing of charges, or during trial. The Court noted the adverse impact of such delays on the administration of justice and emphasized the need for timely disposal of cases to uphold the Rule of Law and access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.2. Impact of Judicial Delays on Administration of Justice:The Court highlighted that judicial delays severely affect the administration of justice, emphasizing that access to justice is a fundamental right. The pendency of criminal cases, especially serious offenses like murder, rape, kidnapping, and dacoity, was a major concern, as these delays undermine public confidence in the judicial system.3. Inadequate Judge Strength as a Root Cause of Delays:The judgment referenced multiple reports, including the 14th, 77th, 78th, 79th, 121st, and 124th Reports of the Law Commission of India, which identified inadequate judge strength as a primary cause of judicial delays. It was noted that the judge-to-population ratio in India was significantly lower compared to other countries, and the recommendations to increase this ratio had not been adequately implemented.4. Recommendations for Increasing Judge Strength:The Court cited the 120th Report of the Law Commission, which recommended increasing the judge-to-population ratio to fifty judges per million. The All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002) judgment endorsed this recommendation, directing that the target be achieved within five to ten years. However, the actual judge strength remained far below the recommended levels.5. Methodologies for Determining Required Judge Strength:The Law Commission's 'rate of disposal method' was discussed, which calculates the number of judges needed to clear the backlog and handle new filings without creating further backlog. This method considers the average rate of disposal per judge and the backlog of cases pending for more than a year. The NCMSC proposed an interim approach, combining the rate of disposal method with the unit system used by High Courts to attribute weightage to cases based on their complexity.6. Role of the Union and State Governments in Judicial Reforms:The Union Government, in a non-adversarial manner, accepted the constitutional right to access justice and highlighted various measures adopted to secure speedy justice. These included the appointment of court managers, the National Court Management System, and the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms. The Court emphasized the need for cooperation between the Union and State Governments to enhance judicial infrastructure and judge strength.7. Implementation of the Fourteenth Finance Commission's Recommendations:The Court noted that the Fourteenth Finance Commission had endorsed proposals for judicial reforms and urged state governments to allocate funds for improving the judicial system. The Prime Minister and the Union Minister of Law and Justice had communicated with Chief Ministers and Chief Justices to ensure the effective utilization of these funds. The Court directed the state governments to cooperate with High Courts in implementing the interim recommendations of the NCMSC and to enhance judge strength accordingly.Directions Issued:1. Interim Approach for Judge Strength: Until a scientific method is formulated by NCMSC, the judge strength shall be computed based on the interim approach suggested by NCMSC.2. Submission of Final Report: NCMSC is requested to submit its final report by 31 December 2017.3. Dissemination of Interim Report: The Union Ministry of Law and Justice shall forward the interim report to Chief Justices of all High Courts and Chief Secretaries of all states within one month.4. State Government Action: State governments shall take necessary decisions within three months to enhance judge strength based on the interim report.5. Cooperation for Fund Utilization: State governments shall cooperate with High Courts to ensure expeditious disbursal of funds for judicial reforms.6. Creation of Additional Infrastructure: High Courts shall address the need for additional infrastructure to meet the enhanced judge strength.7. Consideration of Final Report: The final report by NCMSC shall be considered by the Conference of Chief Justices.8. Communication of Order: A copy of the order shall be made available to the Registrars General of each High Court and Chief Secretaries for appropriate action.Conclusion:The Supreme Court emphasized the urgent need to address judicial delays by increasing judge strength and enhancing judicial infrastructure. The Court provided a framework for interim measures and directed cooperation between various stakeholders to ensure timely implementation of judicial reforms. The proceedings for the disposal of criminal appeals were scheduled for the third week of July 2017.