Bar amp Bench speaks to Nick Robinson author of a Working Paper on Supreme Court workload Strong Delhi bias and reduction in Article 32 petitions

Nick Robinson, a visiting Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, has recently released a Working Paper titled “The Indian Supreme Court by the Numbers” under the aegis of the Law, Governance and Development Initiative of the Azim Premji University, Bangalore. The Working Paper, a copy of which can be seen below, examines and analyses the Supreme Court docket in the last two decades.. Robinson reaches a host of interesting conclusions through the Working Paper, an exercise which may well have last been done by Rajeev Dhavan in 1986.

Nick Robinson, a visiting Fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, has recently released a Working Paper titled “The Indian Supreme Court by the Numbers” under the aegis of the Law, Governance and Development Initiative of the Azim Premji University, Bangalore. The Working Paper, a copy of which can be seen below, examines and analyses the Supreme Court docket in the last two decades.. Robinson reaches a host of interesting conclusions through the Working Paper, an exercise which may well have last been done by Rajeev Dhavan in 1986.

Some of the conclusions arrived at include:

The decline of Article 32 writ petitions

“The larger change in the Court’s admission docket has come in relation to appeals and writ petitions. Appeals dropped from about 3-8% of the Court’s docket in the 1990’s to about 2-3% from 2006-2011, and writ petitions dropped from 4-7% to 1-2% of the docket during the same periods. Remarkably, both appeals and writ petitions saw not only a decline in their per cent of the total docket, but also a decline in absolute numbers.”

Larger number of appeals arising from wealthier areas or areas geographically close to Delhi

“When averaging 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2011 the Delhi High Court had the highest frequency of cases disposed by it appealed to the Supreme Court with an appeal rate of 9.3%. The Uttaranchal and Punjab and Haryana High Courts which are both near Delhi and are located in relatively wealthier states also had appeal rates to the Supreme Court of over 5%. All other High Courts besides Himachal Pradesh (3.2%) and Bombay (3.0%) had an appeal rate of less than 3%. Madras had an appeal rate of just 1.1% and Orissa less than 1%,”

Certain matters having a higher chance of being accepted for regular hearing

“[L]arger bench, tax, company law, arbitration, and land acquisition matters all had an above average chance of being accepted for regular hearing. Meanwhile, ordinary civil matters, personal and family law matters, consumer protection cases, and compensation matters had far less chance of being accepted.”

Nick spoke to Bar & Bench about how and why he started working on the paper, the findings arrived at and what he hopes the Working Paper will eventually lead to.

Bar & Bench: First of all, this makes for some really interesting reading! When did you start planning and researching for the paper?

Nick Robinson: I clerked for the Supreme Court in 2006 and it was during that experience that I realized that the Court collects lots of data that the public wasn't aware of, and even some of the judges don't seem to know the extent of the data that is available. However, the data can be difficult to access and understand. As I explain in the paper, not only is it difficult to get one's hands on, but the accounting system of the Court is often counter-intuitive.

B&B: Did you find yourself using the insights learnt through the clerkship while writing the paper?

NR: I definitely did. I also relied on the insights of other former clerks and some of the judges. I think getting an insider's perspective of the institution through clerking can help you gain a unique understanding of the Court, and lead you to do studies, well, like this one.

B&B: Were there any findings that you found particularly surprising? For instance, the extremely small number of Article 32 petitions?

NR: I was a bit surprised by the small number of Article 32 petitions. Lawyers will tell you anecdotally that these petitions aren't as common anymore and the Court generally discourages them, but the public's view of the identity of the Court is still very much tied up with an understanding of it being accessible through Article 32. I was also surprised - and somewhat troubled - to find that the Supreme Court's docket is growing faster than either the High Courts or the lower courts. I think this is not only a sign of distrust of the lower courts, but also that the many panels of the Supreme Court might be confusing precedent and so there is more incentive to appeal.

B&B: Your thoughts on having cassation benches of the Supreme Court?

NR: Look there are two potentially worrying trends at the Supreme Court, and they are somewhat in tension with each other. First, the paper shows that appeals to the Supreme Court disproportionately come from states closer to Delhi and those that are wealthier. This might indicate that some litigants are getting priced out of the Supreme Court in say, Orissa, while a comparable litigant in Punjab goes to the Court because it is closer and they have more money to do so. Cassation benches around the country would seem to help this problem, but they lead to another. The data seems to indicate the Court is perhaps having trouble keeping precedent cohesive between its many benches. Adding cassation benches would only add to this coordination problem, and so could end up undermining the institution.

B&B: Do you plan on delving into more detail on any particular aspect of the paper?

NR: One of my hopes is that the paper might get the Supreme Court to think about the types of data they collect and improve their systems for doing so. I think the data they collect could be cleaner and more detailed in a way that could help improve the management of cases (for example, by keeping track of how many hearings are necessary to dispose of matters).

B&B: Lastly, any advice for those interested in academic research on the Indian judicial system?

NR: There is simply so much we still don't know about how the courts operate in the country - whether it is good quantitative analysis or detailed qualitative interviews and descriptions. It's an exciting time for research, so I would say just go out and get started! Any solid information that can be added to the debates right now around the judicial system would be very useful.

The Indian Supreme Court by the Numbers