While there is general acceptance that the Indian judicial system suffers from case delay and the use of antiquated methods, the discourse on judicial reform remains focussed on areas such as appointments and vacancies. It is time that organisational barriers and court processes that also contribute to case delay are studied. We focus on two areas that greatly affect court efficiency: case listing practices and court infrastructure.
The need to scientifically determine how many cases should be listed per day cannot be stressed enough. It is not uncommon to see over 100 matters listed before a judge in a day. When a judge is pressed for time, not only does the quality of adjudication suffer but it also means that several cases will inevitably go unheard. Matters listed towards the end (usually cases near the final stage of hearing) tend to be left over at disproportionate rates and often end up getting stuck in the system.
The second issue is infrastructure: from inadequate support staff for judges to the dearth of basic courtroom facilities. Without research and secretarial support, judges are unable to perform their functions in a timely manner. For instance, in a private interview, a judge said that even though he managed to hear close to 70 cases in a day, it took two days for the stenographers to finish typing the orders. A 2016 report published by the Supreme Court showed that existing infrastructure could accommodate only 15,540 judicial officers against the all-India sanctioned strength of 20,558. The lack of infrastructure also raises serious concerns about access to justice. A recent Vidhi study on district courts in the National Capital Region found that even basic needs such as drinking water, usable washrooms, seating and canteen facilities are often not available in court complexes. Solutions for such challenges will require a fundamental shift in how courts are administered.
Courts must become more open to applying management principles to optimize case movement and judicial time. In this, external support agencies competent in strategic thinking should be allowed to work with judicial officers to understand and help the institution function better. This is already a widely-adopted practice in executive departments across the country. Courts have partially realized this need and created dedicated posts for court managers (MBA graduates) to help improve court operations. But more often than not, court managers are not utilized to their full potential, with their duties restricted to organizing court events and running errands.
Q. Which of the following is/are true as per the passage?
While there is general acceptance that the Indian judicial system suffers from case delay and the use of antiquated methods, the discourse on judicial reform remains focussed on areas such as appointments and vacancies. It is time that organisational barriers and court processes that also contribute to case delay are studied. We focus on two areas that greatly affect court efficiency: case listing practices and court infrastructure.
The need to scientifically determine how many cases should be listed per day cannot be stressed enough. It is not uncommon to see over 100 matters listed before a judge in a day. When a judge is pressed for time, not only does the quality of adjudication suffer but it also means that several cases will inevitably go unheard. Matters listed towards the end (usually cases near the final stage of hearing) tend to be left over at disproportionate rates and often end up getting stuck in the system.
The second issue is infrastructure: from inadequate support staff for judges to the dearth of basic courtroom facilities. Without research and secretarial support, judges are unable to perform their functions in a timely manner. For instance, in a private interview, a judge said that even though he managed to hear close to 70 cases in a day, it took two days for the stenographers to finish typing the orders. A 2016 report published by the Supreme Court showed that existing infrastructure could accommodate only 15,540 judicial officers against the all-India sanctioned strength of 20,558. The lack of infrastructure also raises serious concerns about access to justice. A recent Vidhi study on district courts in the National Capital Region found that even basic needs such as drinking water, usable washrooms, seating and canteen facilities are often not available in court complexes. Solutions for such challenges will require a fundamental shift in how courts are administered.
Courts must become more open to applying management principles to optimize case movement and judicial time. In this, external support agencies competent in strategic thinking should be allowed to work with judicial officers to understand and help the institution function better. This is already a widely-adopted practice in executive departments across the country. Courts have partially realized this need and created dedicated posts for court managers (MBA graduates) to help improve court operations. But more often than not, court managers are not utilized to their full potential, with their duties restricted to organizing court events and running errands.
Q. Which of the following is/are true as per the passage?
The correct option is B Only II and III
STATEMENT II- “The need to scientifically determine how many cases should be listed per day cannot be stressed enough. It is not uncommon to see over 100 matters listed before a judge in a day.”
The entire passage corroborates statement III and is correct.
STATEMENT II- “The need to scientifically determine how many cases should be listed per day cannot be stressed enough. It is not uncommon to see over 100 matters listed before a judge in a day.”
The entire passage corroborates statement III and is correct.
