Way back in 1987, when there were 10.5 judges per million (10 lakh people), the 120th Law Commission had recommended that there should be 50 judges per million population. Four decades later, we are languishing at only 21 judges per million.
In 2002, in All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court once again directed the government to increase judge strength to 50 judges per 10 lakh people within a period of five years. Had this order been implemented, our judge strength would have crossed 50,000 in 2007, but it stands at around 25,000 sanctioned posts, and in many states at least a third of them are vacant.
Why this slow growth?
Increasing judge strength requires a commensurate increase in the number of secretarial staff and infrastructure such as courtrooms and residences. Similar amenities need to be provided for the secretarial staff. For each new judge at the district court level approximately eight more staff including a registrar, stenographer and two clerks would be required. Therefore, the additional financial load on a state would not be insignificant. However, a cost-benefit analysis can be easily done to calculate the cost of judicial delay to the economy. Instead of frivolous expenses, the country can put the same resources in the right places.
However, financial burden is not the only obstacle. The judiciary too is responsible for not adopting a clear method to ensure its workforce grows consistently. We have had at least four different methods proposed by various commissions and committees.
Between 2017 and 2019, the National Court Management Systems Committee of the Supreme Court studied and gave a ‘Time Weighted Disposal Method’ for the lower courts.
In 2016, a report by the Supreme Court’s Center for Research and Planning concluded that by 2040, 40,000 to 80,000 judges would be in district courts.
In 2014, based on an experiment in 14 states, the Law Commission found that an additional 11,677 judges would be required to handle their pending cases, and 348 additional judges would be required to handle newly registered cases.
In 1987, when there were about 7,500 judges, the Law Commission recommended that this number be increased more than five times to 40,000 within five years.
Going by any of the above methods would require us to at least double our existing judge strength but we are nowhere near a consensus among the judiciary, the Bar and the executive.
All Chief Justices, including the recently retired DY Chandrachud, have underscored the critical importance of district courts. Justice Chandrachud also appealed for a heuristic switch to call them subordinate courts instead of lower courts. For decades we have known that district courts are the backbone of the justice system, but are we doing enough to strengthen them?
Typically, judges perform numerous other tasks. For instance, Principal District Judges (the head of the District Court unit) hold the following administrative functions: Ensuring filing of cases and their registration in all courts within that district; maintenance of registers; disposal of properties; issuance of certified copies of the orders/judgments without delay; periodical consignment of records, and organising legal aid programmes under her direct supervision, among others.
With extremely high caseloads, most district court judges have no time to prepare for fresh matters, which requires reviewing documents that have been filed. Supposing there are dozens of witnesses in a criminal case, the judge would want them to be differentiated based on relevance. Matters relating to financial crimes are even more complex and require thorough research and organisation of the adduced material before the court, all of which is a time-consuming process. But high caseloads leave them with only non-ideal choices, adjournments, and hasty orders passed with inadequate application of judicial mind.
Making it attractive
Larger solutions like creating an All India Judicial Services, or centralised recruitment should be pursued seriously. But with the caseload growing (4.5 crore) at a faster rate than ever before, we need to act now to make both the district judiciary more efficient and also attractive to law students. A simple solution is the institution of judicial clerkship-cum research assistant posts on the lines of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
All 1,114 judges of the 25 high courts are entitled to two paid interns each, their honorarium ranges between Rs 35,000 and Rs 60,000 across various HCs. At the Supreme Court, each judge is entitled to four interns who are paid Rs 80,000 each. These clerks, usually either final year students or fresh law graduates, are hired for a 10-month contract and act as a crucial knowledge assist for the judges. They prepare briefs, pull up relevant case law, and undertake in-depth legal research and perform other tasks for which a judge is not able to make time. They take detailed minutes to assist in case management, and without them the quality and speed of adjudication would be less than satisfactory.
On the lines of HC, and the SC, at least two judges in all 600 odd judicial districts could each be provided with one paid judicial clerk cum research associate by respective state governments and High Courts. One of the two judges could be the Principal District Judge and the other could be the judge with the highest workload in the district. Their remuneration can be aligned to that being already provided at the respective High Court. Quick calculations show that at Rs 25,000 per clerk, 1200 such positions will not cost more than Rs 36 crores annually, but the benefits of it would be swifter trials, speedier justice, and a higher quality of adjudication. To provide incentive to all states, the Centre could provide funds from its kitty. This is a small cost towards keeping the justice system’s spine healthy and strong.
Justice Madan B. Lokur is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India
Valay Singh is Lead, India Justice Report (@IJRranking on X)
Why should you buy our Subscription?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be misled and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package
