Mission impossible? The challenges ahead for the Advisory Council on legal reforms

The Advisory Council of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms held its ninth meeting on Tuesday. On the agenda were topics including specialisation of courts and tribunalisation, judicial accountability and dispute resolution..Headed by the Union Law Minister DV Sadananda Gowda, the Advisory Council of the National Mission has 14 other members including Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, Justice AP Shah, the last Chairman of the Law Commission, BCI Chairman Manan K Mishra, and Prof NR Madhava Menon..The Commission was brought into existence with the two-fold objective of increasing access to justice by reducing delay and arrears, and enhancing accountability in the system. And the origins of the Mission are as interesting as the tasks the Missions was entrusted with..In October 2009, the government approved the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, primarily with a view to reduce pendency and delays in the justice system. Prof Madhava Menon, who has been at the forefront of this initiative, writes in this article,.“The Union government announced a series of policy initiatives aimed at reducing pendency from an average of 15 years to three years — within a three year period. It was considered by many as too ambitious for a system used to chronic delays, outmoded procedures and indifferent management.”.In 2011 though, the government realised that this objective was indeed too ambitious. Reassessing the ground situation, the timeline for achieving the pendency was calibrated with the 12th Five-Year Plan, which concludes in 2017..Pursuant to this end, the 13th Finance Commission allocated a sum of Rs. 5,000 crore towards strengthening the judicial system. However, this sum does not reflect the actual amount spent on the judicial system. For instance, Department of Justice statistics reveal that only Rs. 1,480 crore was released, out of which a mere 471 crore was utilised..This has not affected the quantum of monies being allotted though. Just last year, the 14th Finance Commission almost doubled the allocation to a whopping 9,749 crore. Unfortunately, the utilisation has hit a roadblock of a different kind – state governments seem extremely reluctant to actually increase justice sector spendings..It is this reluctance that has been identified as a key issue by the Advisory Council of the National Mission. Law Minister DV Sadananda Gowda has written to the Chief Ministers of the states to take early action in this regard..A look at the state-wise expenditure on administration of justice throws up some interesting figures..StateExpenditure on Administration of Justice (in Rs. crore)Court Fees/Fines collected (in Rs. crore)Uttar Pradesh1881.45102.04Maharashtra1458.06157.85Karnataka1026.42215.48Bihar877.92178.00Tamil Nadu826.28200.04Rajasthan803.36186.48Delhi735.6892.44.As the Council has pointed out, justice sector spendings are simply not enough. The lack of investment becomes starker when compared to other sectors. For instance, Maharashtra’s total expenditure for 2014-15 was Rs. 60,354. And the amount spent on judicial administration?.Just Rs. 1,458 crore, or 2.4% of the state’s total expenditure..The other issue, one that is far more fundamental, is the abject dearth of data on cases pending in courts across the country. As noted in the agenda for the ninth meeting,.“One of the biggest problems facing policy makers in this field is the lack of any benchmark to determine when a case should be considered delayed. For example, if a case is not disposed of within a year of it being instituted, will it be considered to be delayed?.Lack of uniform data collection methods compounds the problem of lack of quality data. Different States count institutions, disposals and pendency differently. Some include bail, interlocutory applications, committal proceedings and even traffic challans into their calculations.”.This is something Harish Narasappa of Samvad Partners identified a while ago. In an earlier interview with Bar & Bench, Narasappa talks about the difficulties of keeping a track on pendency,.“The sad part is that no one pays attention to it. The judges don’t have the time because they are busy writing judgments and dispensing justice. The registry only looks at day-to-day management. In fact, nobody knows whether the pendency figures are true or not!”.In a bid to remedy the situation, the National Mission has approved a project to be undertaken by Narasappa’s research organisation Daksh, titled Comparative analysis of causes for pendency in six High Courts and six District Courts in India. This has been sanctioned under the National Mission’s Scheme Action Research and Studies on Judicial Reforms..In fact, law schools like WBNUJS Kolkata and NALSAR Hyderabad have also been sanctioned funds to conduct research projects on various topics under this Scheme..InstitutionName of ProjectTotal Sanctioned AmountAmount ReleasedWBNUJS(ADR) Mechanism and Legal Aid in the Settlement of Disputes: A case Study of State of West BengalRs. 2.3 croreRs. 4.7 lakhNALSARA Study on Court management techniques for improving the efficiency of Subordinate CourtsRs. 2.2 croreRs. 1.3 croreJudical Academy, JharkhandStudy on major bottlenecks in procedural laws affecting expeditious conclusions of criminal trials and measures needed to remove such bottlenecksRs. 1 croreRs. 6 lakhIIM KashipurPerformance indicators for subordinate courts and suggestive policy/procedural changes for reducing civil case pendencyRs. 2.5 croreRs. 5 lakhIIT KharagpurDesigning the Continuing Legal EducationRs. 2.4 croreRs. 4.8 lakhIIM KolkataStudy of Court process and re-engineering opportunities for improving court efficiencies for Justice delievery in IndiaRs. 3.5 lakhRs. 70,000.As of now, the National Judicial Data Grid puts the number of pending cases in district courts alone at over 2.09 crore. Out of these, almost 20% have been pending for 5-10 years. The Advisory Council has a long way to go before its ‘mission’ is completed; it will be interesting to see where we stand at the end of the current Five-Year Plan.