It
is a pleasure and privilege to welcome the hon. Prime Minister of
India and the hon. Chief Justice of India to this Joint Conference.
I extend my warm welcome to the distinguished judges of the Supreme
Court, Chief Ministers, Chief Justices of the High Courts and other
dignitaries also who have joined us today to deliberate upon the pressing
issues facing the justice delivery system in the country. The
fact that this Conference is being held within a span of one year after
the last conference reflects the commitment of the Government and
the judiciary to move ahead at100
a faster pace towards providing timely, affordable and quality justice
to the citizens of this great nation. I would like120 to thank the hon. Chief Justice of India
for wholeheartedly supporting us in this initiative. The High
Courts and the State Governments have a major role to play in the development
of judicial administration in the States. Recognizing this fact, a landmark
resolution was adopted in the last Conference wherein it was decided
that the Chief Justices of the High Courts and the Chief Ministers of the
States would institute a mechanism for regular interaction amongst themselves to
resolve the200 issues
relating to infrastructure and manpower needs and facilities for the
judiciary. I am sure that in most of the States, such a mechanism has
already been instituted and this Conference would provide us the perfect
opportunity to deliberate upon240
ways and means to take this initiative forward.
As
per information available with us, the Central Government and the State
Governments have together spent on an average a sum of about Rs. 2000 crore per
annum during the last three years on development of judicial
infrastructure. I am glad to inform this august gathering that the
overall availability of the300
court halls now matches the working strength of around 16000 judges and judicial
officers in the subordinate judiciary. With a number of projects in hand,
we are aiming at 20,000 court halls in the near future to match the
availability with sanctioned strength in every State. While notable progress
has been made on judicial infrastructure front, the same360 cannot be said about availability
of judicial manpower. Despite considerable increase in the sanctioned strength
of the High Courts and the District Courts in the recent past, the persistence
of a large number of vacancies of judges and judicial officers400 is an area of concern. I would urge the
High Courts to adopt a pro-active approach in selection of the suitable
candidates for various judicial positions. As you are aware, the protracted
nature of litigation in the country has an adverse impact on investor
sentiments. In order to assuage these concerns and as part of the Government’s
continuous efforts to forge investor-friendly environment in the country, the Government
has initiated a number of steps, including setting up of Commercial Courts480 and amendments to Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
These initiatives500 are essentially
linked to speeding up the dispute resolution processes both within the
formal court system as well as under alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Concerns
regarding the inordinate delays in the conclusion of the criminal trials
have been expressed by various Parliamentary Committees. The Government has over
the years established expert committees to review the criminal justice
system in order to make it more responsive to the needs of the society.
Some of the recommendations of these Committees have been implemented and legislative
provisions incorporated in the procedural laws. However, legislative
reforms alone are not sufficient. Reforms in policing and600 investigative mechanisms are as
important as reforms in court processes. Law Commission of India is now
reviewing both substantive and procedural aspects of our criminal
justice system. I have requested the Chairman of Law Commission to expedite
their recommendations in this regard. As per data compiled by the
National Crime Records Bureau at the end of 2014 there were about 2.82 lakh
under-trial prisoners in the jails, which constituted two-third of the total
inmates. I understand during the early years after our independence the
under-trial prisoners constituted only one third of the total prisoners700 in jails. This situation prevails
despite amendments in Criminal Procedure Code prescribing for release of
those under-trial prisoners on personal720
bond who have spent half of their maximum sentence. I would urge the State
Governments and Chief Justices of the High Courts to take appropriate steps to
ensure that this provision is implemented expeditiously. The e-Court
Integrated Mission Mode Project was launched with the objective of improving
access to justice with the help of technology. Phase I of the e-Court project
witnessed significant results which, inter alia, include ICT infrastructure
upgradation of subordinate courts, launch of800
national e-court portal and constitution of process re-engineering committees
by the High Courts. Phase II, currently in progress, aims at setting up of centralized
filing centres, digitization of documents, adoption of document management
systems, creation of e-filing and e-payment gateways.840 However, there is lack of
awareness about the potential of e-Court Project among the judges as well as
public at large. I would urge upon Chief Justices of the High Courts to
not only sensitize the members of the judiciary to utilize full potential of technological
advancements being made but at the same time disseminate
necessary information900 about
litigant-friendly services being provided under the project to public at
large. At present the National Judicial Data Grid provides summary of pending
and disposed cases at the District and Subordinate court level. However, in
addition, periodic reports on the courts in a format that allows for the
assessment of judicial productivity and congestion rates must also be
published. Categorisation960
and assignment of cases through case management system will help to ensure that
the old matters are disposed on priority basis. Grouping of cases need to be
undertaken as on-going continuous exercise so that cases arising out of the1000 same subject matter and involving the
same question of law can be assigned to one Judge. Improved categorization will
enable courts to adhere to pre-decided timelines.
In
this regard, rules of High Courts could be suitably
amended to incorporate these mechanisms. Although several important and
innovative initiatives are in place to improve upon the existing court
processes, yet there is significant room for further work in this
regard. The High Courts must take a strong leadership role in actively1080 promoting a shift towards higher
efficiency in the implementation of the project. Further research in the area
of process simplification1100
should also be encouraged to assess if the litigants are benefitting
from various initiatives and to assess what else could be done. ICT initiatives
if successfully completed will ease the day-to-day management of courts
processes and provide necessary tools to the higher judiciary for performance
appraisal of subordinate courts. The bar in India plays an important role in
our judicial process including alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. We
must continuously engage with the bar for improving their standards and
practices as also for upgrading their professional skills through continued
legal education. In this regard, I must appreciate the1200 efforts of Bar Council of India
in establishing first lawyers’ academy at Kochi in Kerala. I hope other States
would also facilitate their respective State Bar Councils in such an
endeavour.
