Subordinate Court of India

Subordinate Courts
of
India:
A Report on Access to Justice
2016
Centre for Research & Planning, Supreme Court of India

New Delhi
Index
Sr. No. Particulars Page

Nos.
I. Introduction 1-3
II. Indian Judicial System-Current Inadequacies in Manpower, 4-16
comparison with other branches of Governance and barriers to
Access to Justice
State of Infrastructure
Problem of Delay and Arrears
The Demographic Approach
Endorsement of the 120th Law Commission of India Report,
1987 by the Courts and the Executive
Comparison with other Jurisdictions
The Rate of Disposal Method: 245th Law Commission of India
Report (July, 2014)
The National Court Management Systems (NCMS) based unit
system method (2016)
Demography: Comparison with other services of the State
Proximity to Courts
III. Way Ahead 17-40

Arriving at the Short-Term Requirement
Long Term Projections for Judge Strength
Understanding the Trend of Case Filing
Establishing equilibrium: achieving case life of 1-2 years
Methods Employed for Projections till 2040
HDI Method
Literacy Method
Normal Growth/ Forecast Method
Judge-Strength Based on Judge- Population Ratio of 50
per million
Status Quo
IV. Conclusion 41-45
List of Tables
Table No. Particulars Page

No.
A State/UT-wise analysis of immediate/ short term requirement of 46
Judicial Officers
B State/UT-wise Institution per million according to HDI 47
C State/UT-wise Judge Strength Projection for 2040 based on HDI 48
Method
D State/UT-wise Institution per million according to Literacy rate 49
E State/UT-wise Judge Strength Projection for 2040 based on Literacy 50
Rate Method
F State/UT-wise Judge Strength Projection for 2040 based on Normal 51
Growth/Forecast Method
G State/UT-wise Judge Strength Projection for 2040 based on Judge 52
Population Ratio at 50 Judges per million
H State/UT-wise situation in 2040 without any intervention/Status Quo 53
I Projected Sanctioned Strength of Judicial Officers in Subordinate 54
Courts in the year 2025/2040 under various methods in all the
States/UTs
J-1 to J-34 Individual State/UT-wise Details 55-88
List of Charts
Chart No. Particulars Page
No.
1 Court Halls for Subordinate Judiciary: Infrastructure Gap 5
2 Staff Position in Subordinate Courts 6
3 Residential Accommodation for Judicial Officers: 6
Infrastructure Gap
4 Actual Judge Strength vis-a-vis Judge Strength of Subordinate 9
Courts as per recommendations of the 120th Law Commission
of India Report, 1987
5 Judge Population Ratio in various Countries 12
6 Police Officers of the rank of Inspector and above vis-a-vis 14
Judicial Officers
7 Group 'A' Officers of Central Government vis-a-vis Judicial 14
Officers
8 Police Officers vis-a-vis Courts of first instance 15
9 Pendency of cases in Subordinate Courts: National Picture 17
10-A, 10-B, Pendency of cases in Subordinate Courts in States/UTs 19-21
10-C
11-A, 11-B, Cases Brought Forward, Case Filing and Disposal - 2015 22-24
11-C
12 Ratio of Pending Cases to Disposal in 2015 25
13 Cases for trial under IPC and disposal by Courts 27
14 Cases for trial under Special Local Laws (SLL) and disposal 28
by Courts
15 Total Cases for trial under IPC and SLL and disposal by 29
Courts
16 Percentage Increase in Criminal Trial Courts required to 29
complete triable cases in one year (IPC and SLL cases)
17 Correlation of Human Development Index with Institution per 35
million
18 Projection of Judge Strength under various methods in 2040 as 41
against 2015 Sanctioned Strength
19 Present Situation compared with the effective intervention as 43
in the year 2040: Disposal to Institution Ratio and Pendency to
Disposal Ratio
20 Situation in 2040 vis-a-vis 2015 under various methods: Case 43
to Judge Ratio
21 Pendency to Disposal Ratio: Before and After Intervention 44
List of Appendices
Appendix Particulars Page Nos.

Nos.
A 1924-1925: Civil Justice Committee Report (Justice X-1 to X-3
Rankin Committee) (Relevant extracts)

B 1949: Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court's Report (as X-4 to X-8
sourced from 14th Report of the Law Commission of

India, 1958), Vol. I on Reform of Judicial
Administration) (Relevant extracts)
C 1952: Judicial Reforms Committee, Uttar Pradesh (as X-9 to X-13
sourced from 14th Report of the Law Commission of

India, 1958), Vol. I on Reform of Judicial
Administration) (Relevant extracts)
D 1958: 14th Report of the Law Commission of India on X-14 to X-28
Reform of Judicial Administration, Vol. I (Relevant

extracts)
E 1972: Report of the High Court Arrears Committees X-29 to X-37
(Relevant extracts)
F November, 1978: 77th Report of the Law Commission of X-38 to X-80
India on Delay & Arrears in Trial Courts (Relevant
extracts)
G February, 1979: 78th Report of the Law Commission of X-81 to X-83
India on Congestion of Under-Trial prisoners in Jails.
(Relevant extracts)
H May 10, 1979: 79th Report of the Law Commission of X-84 to X-88
India on Delay and Arrears in High Courts and other
Appellate Courts (Relevant extracts)
I 1986: Satish Chandra Committee Report (Relevant X-89 to X-103
extracts)
J July, 1987: 120th Report of the Law Commission of X-104 to X-106
India on Manpower Planning in Judiciary: A
Blueprint (Relevant extracts)
K July, 1987:121st Report of the Law Commission of India X-107 to X-112
on A New Forum for Judicial Appointments (Relevant
extracts)
L 1988: 124th Report of the Law Commission of India on X-113 to X-115
The High Court Arrears -- A Fresh look (Relevant
extracts)
M 1989-90: Report of The Arrears Committee (Three Chief X-116 to X-120
Justices Committee : Kerala, Calcutta & Madras)
(Relevant extracts)
N November, 1999: First National Judicial Pay X-121 to X-122
Commission Report, Vol. I (Relevant extracts)
O March 31, 2002: Report of the National Commission to X-123 to X-124
Review the Working of the Constitution, Volume I
(Relevant extracts)
P March, 2003: Committee on Reforms of Criminal X-125 to X-133
Justice System, Government Of India, Ministry of Home
Affairs Report (Volume I) (Relevant extracts)
Q February, 2004: 189th Report of the Law Commission of X-134 to X-135
India on Revision of Court Fees Structure (Relevant
extracts)
R July, 2014: 245th Report of the Law Commission of X-136 to X-157
India on Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional
Judicial (wo) manpower (Relevant extracts)
S September, 2011: Report of the Working group for the X-158 to X-180
12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) Department of Justice,
Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India
(Relevant extracts)
T February, 2014: Department Related Parliamentary X-181 to X-187
Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,
Law and Justice: 67th Report on Infrastructure
Development and Strengthening of Subordinate Courts.
(Relevant extracts).
U April, 2008: Department Related Parliamentary X-188 to X-192
Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,
Law and Justice: 27th Report on the Action Taken
Replies on Law's Delays: Arrears in Courts, 2008, P. 2-
3. (Relevant extracts).
V 2001-02: Department Related Parliamentary Standing X-193 to X-197
Committee on Home Affairs : 85th Report on Law's
Delays: Arrears in Courts (Relevant extracts)
W All India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India X-198 to X-222
& Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247
X P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [JT 2002 (4) X-223 to X-226
SC 92] (Relevant extracts)
Y Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 6 SCC X-227 to X-230
502 (Relevant extracts)
Z Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. Uttar Pradesh Public X-231 to X-241
Service Commission & Ors., Appeal (C) No. 1867 of
2006, Order dated 04.01.2007 (Relevant extracts)
AA Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2012) 2 SCC X-242 to X-243
BB Office Order for Establishment of National Court X-244 to X-248
Management Systems, Appendix A of Action Plan,
Chapter 12 (Relevant extracts)
CC National Court Management Systems Policy & Action X-249 to X-256
Plan (Relevant extracts)
DD NCMS Baseline Report on National Framework of X-257 to X-259
Court Excellence (NFCE) (Relevant extracts)
EE NCMS Baseline Report on Human Resource X-260 to X-263
Development Strategy (Relevant extracts)
FF Resolutions Adopted in the Chief Justices' Conference X-264 to X-266
GG Resolutions Adopted in the Chief Justices' Conference X-267 to X-268
HH Resolutions Adopted in the Chief Justices' Conference X-269 to X-270
II Resolutions Adopted in the Chief Justices' Conference X-271 to X-273
I. Introduction
Justice-social, economic and political is a preambular precept of the Constitution

of India. The guarantee of equality of law and equal protection of law lies at the heart
of the judicial set up. The right to life encapsulates the essence of all rights and
liberties. It has been universally recognized and iterated repeatedly by the Supreme
Court1, that timely justice and speedy trial is a facet of the right to life under our
Constitution. Ensuring equal access to justice, a constitutional mandate not just in
terms of a fundamental right under Part III but also a good governance directive under
Part IV of the Constitution, is fraught with multiple constraints - financial, spatial,
qualitative and time2. This study places the citizen and her needs at the core of these
concerns in ensuring access to justice.
The judiciary is a co-equal branch of governance within the Constitutional

framework. The courts are created not only to adjudicate disputes between disputant
parties, but often indicate normative principles which institutions are bound by. These
principles are not merely formulated, but frequently redefined and adapted to suit
changing times, even while ensuring that the core Constitutional values are affirmed.
The guarantee of equal justice is poignant because it subsumes not merely disputes
between state institutions and citizens but disparate bodies of citizens, with vast
income and resource disparities often pitted against each other as well as demands for
decisions based on economic or commercial considerations, stretching court capacity
beyond their limits. The challenge is more acute, in criminal cases, where the
institution of proceedings is undoubtedly the beginning of the citizen's travails, but the
court's control is limited, given that prosecution of the case is in the hands of the
police and the state.
1. Article 39-A directs the State to ensure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a
basis of equal opportunity and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid by suitable legislation or
schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any
citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. Right to free legal aid or free legal service is an
essential fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. It forms the basis of reasonable, fair and
just liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which says, No person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. See Hussainara Khatoon
and Others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 at 89.
2. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 1343 of 2008 entitled as
Anita Kushwaha V. Pushap Sudan in its judgement dated 19.07.2016 identified four aspects that
constitute the essence of access to justice. The four aspects are: (i) the State must provide an effective
adjudicatory mechanism; (ii) the mechanism so provided must be reasonably accessible in terms of
distance; (iii) the process of adjudication must be speedy; and (iv) the litigants access to the process
must be affordable.
1
The importance of the judicial branch cannot be undermined - just as the executive's
role cannot be or legislative enactments, cannot be overlooked. The third branch-the
Judiciary ought not to be made ineffective in the constitutional scheme by depriving it
of resources both financial and human. The judiciary has been constantly concerned
with the workload of the subordinate judiciary, judge strength and resources 3. It has
attempted to institutionally address these concerns by constituting the National Court
Management System (NCMS) in the year 20124. Eversince, the NCMS has pursued
research and study on judicial arrears, infrastructure and planning5. Therefore, this
report would argue that as a partner in governance, the judicial system's efficacy
cannot be undermined by indifference on the part of other organs to cater to its
manpower and infrastructural needs.
The report stresses that mere case pendency is not to be seen as a bane; it is the
inevitable concomitant of growth: economic, educational and social, an indicia of
prosperity and awareness. However, while mere filing is not a cause for alarm, the
existence of a large number of cases, beyond the suggested time lines, is because it
hampers the ability of judges to deal with fresh cases.
The study and the report have two essential objectives- one to understand the
complexity of the challenges toward ensuring timely justice-judicial manpower
requirements, administrative capacities and infrastructural gaps and two, quantifying
the number of judicial officers required to tackle existing backlogs, even while coping
with time lines to handle and dispose of freshly filed cases within absolutely defined
targets. The objective is studied by employing two approaches. First, by estimating
the number of judges needed to address both immediate short term and long term
disposal goals. Second, determining judge strength on the basis of different indicies
of growth i.e., demographic, Human Development Index, literacy, etc.
The report examines various methods envisaged to fix judge strength, in the past-
through successive Law Commission reports, Parliamentary standing committee
3. See All India Judges' Association v. Union of India & Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 119 ; All India Judges'
Association v. Union of India & Ors.(1993) 4 SCC 288; All India Judges' Association v. Union of India
& Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2002) 5 SCC 1 and Brij Mohan Lal v.
Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502.
4. Office order for the establishment of NCMS. See Appendix BB.
5. NCMS Policy and Action Plan (Index, objectives, Background and Rationale etc.). See Appendix
CC. NCMS Committee: Baseline Reports on National Framework for of Court Excellence and Human
Resource Development. See Appendices DD and EE.
2
deliberations and judgments rendered. The methodology suggested by the National
Court Management Systems Committee; that favoured by the Government of India as
well, have been examined. The highlight of this report however, is the other new
methodologies proposed: i.e the Human Development Index method, which charts -
based on past tendencies, the number of cases in clusters of states with similar HDI
ratings and forecasts the number of cases likely to be filed in future. Based on this
assessment and other methods of assessments (literacy level, unit based method, case
increase level, on averaging methodology) etc., the report suggests an increase in
judge strength over the next three years, as short term target, as well as the judge
strength for the next 25 years to achieve the goal of disposal of cases in 1-1 years.
The report makes a comparative analysis of access to other public services, such as
policing, revenue administration, etc. in juxtaposition to the availability of judicial
services at the first instance court level. Ensuring meaningful access to justice means
achieving complete docket inclusion. This redefines justice as an essential social
service, similar to medical and policing services, to be made available to citizens at all
times regardless of considerations of financial or administrative convenience.
The study startlingly reveals that on a geographical average, one judge is

available in a distance of 157 sq. kilometres6- policing on the other hand, is better
placed with one police officer7 every 61 kilometres. Similarly, the existing court room
infrastructure can accommodate 15,540 judicial officers at the magisterial/ civil judge/
district judge level, whereas the All India sanctioned strength of that cadre is 20,558.
An endeavor has been made to ensure that the methodologies adopted are based
on known statistical models and the language is lucid and simple.
6. Data as on 01.01.2015, as per data provided by various High Courts.

7. Police personnel of the rank Inspector and above have been categorised as officers for the purpose of
comparison. For data, see Bureau of Police Research and Developments, Data on Police
Organisations, As on January, 2015 (Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India) Available at :
http://bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/201607121235174125303FinalDATABOOKSMALL20
15.pdf
3
II. INDIAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM-CURRENT INADEQUACIES IN
MANPOWER, COMPARISON WITH OTHER BRANCHES OF
GOVERNANCE AND BARRIERS TO ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Article 50 of the Constitution of India obliges the State to take steps to separate
the Judiciary from the Executive in the public services of the State. While ensuring
independence, it is equally important that this wing of governance-which remains the
institution of last resort, when all others are unable to redress the citizen's grievance,
is vibrant and effective.
Concerns regarding judicial backlog and infrastructure have been the subject of
debate and discussions in different fora including parliamentary standing committees
and Law Commission of India reports 8. Of late, concerns about the courts' abilities at
handling backlog of cases have been voiced with increasing frequency. One issue
which has not been settled so far is what constitutes "arrears" in the context of
pending cases. A "one size fit all" policy would be ill suited to define this issue.
Pendency - specially of fresh cases, is not a negative phenomena. As levels of
prosperity, economic progress, literacy, and awareness increase, filings go up. Every
case requires a defined and "acceptable" case life so that justice is not hurried and
buried.9 It is only when this defined time line is exceeded that a "pending" case
10
becomes part of "arrears". That said, it is a fact that the existing judicial workforce
8. The findings and recommendations of some of these commissions/committees have been specifically
referred to in this study. There are many more such reports, relevant parts of which have been
reproduced as Appendices to this study. See Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court's Report (1949);
Judicial Reforms Committee, Uttar Pradesh (1952); 14 th Report of the Law Commission of India
(Setalvad Report) (1958); Report of the High Court Arrears Committees (1972); Satish Chandra
Committee Report (1986); 121st Report of the Law Commission of India (1987); First National Judicial
Pay Commission Report (November, 1999); Report of the National Commission to Review the
Working of the Constitution (March 31, 2002); 189 th Report of the Law Commission of India
(February, 2004); Report of the Working group for the 12 th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) Department of
Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India; Department Related Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice: 67 th Report on Infrastructure
Development and Strengthening of Subordinate Courts, February 2014; Department Related
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice: 27 th Report on
the Action Taken Replies on Law's Delays: Arrears in Courts, 2008 (Appendices B to E, I, K, N, O, Q,
S to U this study)
9. The 77th Report of the Law Commission of India on Delay and arrears in trial courts, November,
1978 (Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India) also supports the same and states that Any
stress on speedy disposal of cases at the cost of substantial justice would impair the faith and
confidence of the people in the judicial system perhaps in a much greater degree than would be the
case if there is delay in the disposal of cases. See Appendix F
10. Report of the 14 th Law Commission of India on Reform of Judicial Administration Vol. I, 1958,
after actual experience of the functioning of the courts, proposed guidelines to ascertain when a case
would cross the contours of its normal case life and become an 'arrear' See Appendix D. In furtherance
of the directions of the Supreme Court, the 245 th Law Commission of India, 2014 also attempted at
4
has been unable to meet the demands of justice which is reflected in the high number
of cases lying pending before the courts.
State of Infrastructure
The subordinate judiciary works under severe deficiency of 5,018 court rooms.
The existing 15,540 Court Halls are insufficient to cater to the sanctioned strength of
20,558 Judicial Officers as on 31.12.2015, resulting in the judicial officers having to
work under undesirable conditions. A similar picture emerges in terms of the
residential accommodation for the subordinate judiciary - here the shortage is of 8,538
quarters, or above 40% of sanctioned strength of judicial officers. The staff position
for Subordinate Courts is also not encouraging, 41,775 such positions are lying
vacant, thus further hindering in the functioning of the courts. These indicators have
adverse consequences on the effectiveness of courts. A judge trying cases for days
without end, in makeshift rooms cannot be expected to turnout optimal result; equally,
shortage of secretarial and support staff tells on the availability of court services, so
vital to ensure timeliness.
Chart 1: As against the total sanctioned strength of 20,558 judicial officers, 15,540
court rooms are available i.e. publicly owned as on 31.12.2015. The shortfall in
infrastructure is 5,018 or 24.41%.
defining the terms but stated- in its report- that it is not possible to devise any perfectly scientific and
uniform definition of these concepts Appendix R.
5
Chart 2: As against the total sanctioned strength of staff employees and officials (not
judges) in courts, 1,72,641 staff members were available as on 31.12.2015. The
shortfall in manpower is 41,775 or 19.48%.
Chart 3: As against the total sanctioned strength of 20,558 judicial officers residence
for 12,020 were available (publicly owned) as on 31.12.2015. The shortfall in
residential accommodation is 8,538 or 41.53%.
Problem of Delay and Arrears

As early as 1958, the 14th Report of the Law Commission of India on Reform of
Judicial Administration, dealt with the issue of delay and arrears at length and
identified the root cause of the problem as inadequate judge strength. 11 The
11. See the 14th Report of the Law Commission of India on Reform of Judicial Administration, Vol.
I, 1958 (Ministry of Law , Government of India), The report found that, though the then present
strength of judicial officers might have been adequate to deal with the then current file, intensive
6
following sections briefly discusses the various approaches suggested by Law
Commissions and other expert bodies.
A. The Demographic Approach
The earliest attempt at addressing the issue of delay and pendency was in the
Rankin Committee Report, 1924-2512. The report pithily identifies the multiple effects
of judicial backlogs on the quality of judicial administration, concluding that the
improvement of methods can be beneficial only when the problem of arrears is
tackled. The 120th Law Commission of India Report on Manpower Planning in
Judiciary, 1987 contains significant suggestions for reducing pendency and, for the
first time suggested a judge strength fixation formula. The report suggested that since
the demographic factor is the predominant consideration while delimiting legislative
boundaries, demographics should be the basis while fixing judge strength.13
The Commission took into account the information provided by Prof. Marc
Gallanter in his affidavit before the United States District Court in 1985 14. The study
showed that the U.S. in 1981 (which then had one-third population of India) had a
Judge-Population Ratio of 107 Judges per million, while in India it was only 10
Judges per million with a population of 683.3 million as per 1981 Census. The
Commission analyzed the situation in many other jurisdictions: Australia had a Judge
efforts are necessary to rid the files of the incubus of these old suits, which has assumed alarming
proportions in several States See Appendix D. This sentiment has been reiterated multiple times by
the Law Commission of India in the following reports: 77th Report of the Law Commission of India on
Delay and arrears in trial courts, November, 1978 (Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of
India); 78th Report of the Law Commission of India on Congestion of under trial prisoners in jails,
February, 1979 (Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India); 79th Report of the Law
Commission of India on Delay and Arrears in High Courts and other Appellate Courts, May, 1979
(Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India); 121st Report of the Law Commission of India
(method of review of judge strength at regular intervals), 1987; 124 th Report of the Law Commission of
India The High Court Arrears A Fresh look, 1988; Report of The Arrears Committee (Three Chief
Justices Committee : Kerala, Calcutta & Madras), 1989-90. See Appendices F to H and K to M
12. See Appendix A
13. The Commission reasoned that "As to the possible accusation that the working out of the ratio of
Judges strength per million of Indian population is a gross measure, the Commission wishes to say that
this is one clear criterion of manpower planning. If legislative representation can be worked out, as
pointed out earlier, on the basis of population and if other services of the Statebureaucracy, police
etc. can also be similarly planned, there is no reason at all for the non-extension of this principle to
the judicial services. It must also be frankly stated that while population may be a demographic unit, it
is also a democratic unit. In other words, we are talking of citizens with democratic rights including
right to access to justice which it is the duty of the State to provide. 120th Law Commission of India
Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary, See Appendix J
14. Affidavit dated 05.12.1985 filed before the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York in In Re: Union Carbide Corporation Gas Leak Disaster at Bhopal, India in December, 1984,
MDL Docket No. 626, Misc. No. 21-38 (JFK), 85 Civ. 2696 (JFK) reproduced in Upendra Baxi and
Thomas Paul , Mass Disaster and Multinational Liability : The Bhopal Case, 1961 (N.M.Tripathi
Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai, 1986), at page 161.
7
Population Ratio of 41.6 per million (10 million population in 1975), Canada at 75.2
per million (25 million population in 1973), England 50.9 per million (50 million
population in 1973). After a thorough analysis, it suggested that the Judge-Population
Ratio in India be immediately increased from the then ratio of 10 Judges to 50 Judges
per million.
The same report recommended a five-fold increase in judge strength in the

country immediately and further recommended that India should achieve a Judge-
Population Ratio which the U.S. Commanded in 1981 i.e., 107 Judges per million by
the year 2000. If these recommendations had been acted upon, India would have had a
Judge Strength of 1,10,071 in the year 2000 with a population of 1,028.7 million15 and
1,36,794 as on 31.12.2015. The Sanctioned strength of the Judiciary (at all levels) as
on 31.12.2015 however, was only 21,607.
Endorsement of the 120th Law Commission Report by the Courts and the Executive.
Having a healthy Judge-Population ratio is a necessary manifestation of the right
to Access to justice and speedy justice. The Supreme Court by its judgment dated
21.03.2002, while endorsing the views of the 120 th Law Commission of India Report,
1987, directed that the Judge-Population Ratio in India must be 50 Judges per million
of population and that the norm be achieved within a period of five years from the
date of order and not later than 10 years in any case 16. This demographic approach to
ascertain the judge strength takes into account the citizen centric approach and does
not focus entirely on judicial workload.
15. Census Report, 2001.

16. All India Judges Association & Others. Vs. Union of India & Others, (2002) 4 SCC 247: "The
increase in the Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people should be effected and implemented
with the filling up of the posts in phased manner to be determined and directed by the Union Ministry
of Law, but this process should be completed and the increased vacancies and posts filled within a
period of five years from today. Perhaps increasing the Judge strength by 10 per 10 lakh people every
year could be one of the methods which may be adopted thereby completing the first stage within five
years before embarking on further increase if necessary." See Appendix W. See also P. Ramachandra
Rao v. State of Karnataka [JT 2002 (4) SC 92] at Appendix X
8
* Sanctioned Strength for the years 1985 till 1999 taken from First National Judicial Pay Commission,
1999 while from 2007 till 2015 as per inputs provided by High Courts
^ Census Population figures 1981, 1991, 2001, 2011 equally divided in a decade; 2021 figures taken from
Population Reference Bureau
Chart 4: Actual Judge Strength vis-a-vis Judge Strength of Subordinate Courts as per
recommendations of the 120th Law Commission of India Report, 1987
9
The demographic standard stands endorsed as the 'starting point' for judge
strength determination by the concerned Parliamentary Standing Committee report.17
The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System 18 was of the opinion that the
system could be made better if the directions of the Supreme Court in the All India
Judges Case19 were followed.
In 2013, the then Prime Minister of India too accepted the recommendations of
the then Chief Justice of India to 'double the existing number of courts' 20. This issue
was taken up at the Joint Conference of the Chief Ministers of the States and Chief
Justices of the High Courts, 2013 and it was discussed that [N]umber of Judicial
Officers in the States be doubled and Judge-population ratio of 50 per Million needs
to be achieved21. It was resolved that to narrow down the Judge-population Ratio,
requisite steps will be taken for creation of new posts of Judicial Officers with
requisite staff and infrastructure within 6 months in light of the decisions in All India
Judges22 and Brij Mohan Lal23.
To address the issue of pendency, a policy decision was taken by the State to
constitute Fast Track Courts and funds for a period of five years (2000-05) were
allocated under the Eleventh Finance Commission. The Supreme Court while dealing
with the policy decisions to continue or stop the functioning of Fast Track Courts
constituted to deal with mounting figure of pendency, in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of
India & Ors., 201224 held that, State policies should not "derogate" from undermining
judicial independence and that if policies are counter productive and increase case
load, the Courts can intervene judicially.25 The court desisted from intervening with
17. Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs , 85th Report on Law's
Delays: Arrears in Courts (2002). See Appendix V.
18. The Mallimath Committee Report on Reforms in Criminal Justice System also commented upon
the Gross Inadequacy of the Judge strength at all levels. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal
Justice System, 2003 (Ministry of home Affairs, Government of India, para 1.32, pg. 18-19). See
Appendix P.
19. All India Judges' Association v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247. See Appendix W
20. Vide letter dated 02.04.2013
21. Resolutions adopted at the Chief Justices' Conference: 2016, 2015, 2013 and 2009. See Appendix
FF, GG, HH and II.
23. Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India & Others.(2012) 6 SCC 502. See Appendix Y
24Ibid.
25. .....the Government should not frame any policies or do any acts which shall derogate from the
very ethos of the stated basic principle of judicial independence. If the policy decision of the State is
likely to prove counter-productive and increase the pendency of cases, thereby limiting the right to fair
and expeditious trial to the litigants in this country, it will be tantamount to infringement of their basic
rights and constitutional protections. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that in these cases, the
Court could issue a mandamus. Ibid para 111. See Appendix Y
10
the policy decision of continuing or discontinuing the Fast Track Courts but keeping
in mind the huge number of pending cases, ordered for the creation of additional posts
in the Subordinate Judiciary amounting to 10% of the total regular cadre within a
period of 3 months from the date of the order.
Comparison with other jurisdictions
If the demographic standard of 50 judges per million of population is applied,
with a population of 1,210.6 Million (as per Census, 2011) India requires a total of
60,530 Judges to reach a Judge Population Ratio of 50 per million. With the Judge -
Population Ratio of 18 Judges per million as on 31.12.2015, the Indian judiciary is
under-staffed in comparison with other countries. The U.S. Judiciary -at the state trial
courts level alone, in 2011, had a Judge - Population Ratio of approximately 102 per
million26 (2011 population 311.7 Million). Australia with the population of 22.68
Million in 2012 commanded a Judge - Population Ratio of approximately 48 judges
per million27. England and Wales, with 3,238 Judges 28 in their courts as at 01-04-2015
and a population of 57.4 Million 29 in 2014 had a, Judge - Population Ratio of 56
Judges per million. (This excludes 19,634 Serving Magistrates 30 as at 01-04-201531,
which takes the Judge - Population Ratio to 342 Judges per million only at the
Magisterial level in 2014). China, which compares best to India in terms of
population with 1,360 Million population in 2013, had nearly 2,00,000 Judges in
201132commanding a Judge - Population Ratio of 147 Judges per million.
26. Ron Malega, State Court Organization, 2011, BJS (U.S. Department of Justice, November, 2013)
27. Brian Opeskin, The State of the Judicature: A Statistical Profile of Australian Courts and Judges,
pg. 494 (35:489 Sydney Law Review , 2013)
28. Judicial Diversity Statistics, 2015, Judicial Office Statistics Bulletin, United Kingdom.
29. Annual Mid-year Population Estimates: 2014, Office for National Statistics, United Kingdom.
30. Magistrates (also known as justices of the peace) are volunteer judicial office holders who serve in
magistrates courts throughout England and Wales. Available at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-
the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/judicial-roles/magistrates/
31. Available at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/judicial-statistics-2015/
32. Stanley Lubman, Chinas Exodus of Judges Available at:
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2015/05/04/what-a-stubborn-exodus-of-judges-means-for-legal-
reform-in-china/
11
Chart 5: Judge-Population Ratio in various Countries
B. The Rate of Disposal Method: 245th Law Commission of India Report (July,
2014)
A second approach to assess Judge strength was devised by the 245th Law
Commission of India Report. The report recommended that the rate of Disposal
Method and formula be followed for calculating adequate Judge strength for
subordinate Courts, instead of Judge-Population or Judge-Institution Ratio or other
methods. By this method, the rate of disposal for a Judicial Officer is calculated. The
average institution of cases over the past three years is then determined; this figure is
divided by the rate of disposal for a Judicial Officer to arrive at a break-even number;
to assess whether the existing working strength is sufficient to cater to the institution
of cases in the next year. Likewise, the existing pendency is divided by the rate of
disposal to arrive at the number of Judges required to clear the pendency in one year
and similarly for clearing it in two or three years. By this method, the Law
Commission suggested that an additional number of 348 and 11,834 judges were
required, in the fourteen states/UTs that were analyzed by it, at the Subordinate court
level to handle institution and clear backlog in one year, respectively.33
33. The Report made the calculations based on the following formula:
ARD = [(D year A/ J year A )+(D year B / J year B)+ (D year C/ J year C)] / 3
BEJ= (AI/ARD)-J current year
Where, BEJ = Additional No. of Judges required to Break Even,
AI= Average Institution,
ARD= Average Rate of Disposal,
D=Annual Disposal for that year ,
J=Annual Working Strength of Judges
States analysed by the commission report:
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand,
Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab, Haryana, Chandigarh, Sikkim, Uttarakhand: 245th Report of the Law
12
C. The National Court Management Systems (NCMS) based unit system method
(2016)
A third method for assessing judge strength was devised by the Supreme Court's
NCMS (National Court Management Systems) Committee while analyzing the
approach of the 245th Law Commission of India Report further to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the Imtiyaz Ahmad Case34. The Committee suggested that
calculation of additional Judge strength should be based on Unit System". It proposes
that, whenever the total "units"35 required to be disposed of annually by a Court is
greater than 150% of the disposal norm for a Very Good Performance by that Court,
a new Court should be created. The report analyzed four courts each in Bihar and
Maharashtra. It suggested 13 additional courts as against the four courts analyzed in
Bihar. Similarly, it recommended 7 additional courts as against the four courts
analyzed in Maharashtra.36
Demography: Comparison with other services of the State

As on 01.01.2015, the states37 employed the services of 51,523 officers of the rank of
Inspector and above. In contrast, the sanctioned strength of judicial officers across the
country was 20,174. The projected population of India as on 01.01.2015 was around
1,238.88 Million38, which shows that for every million of the population there were
close to 41.58 police officers of Inspector and above rank while the judicial officers
for the same population stood at 16 judicial officers. This comparison is only by way
of analogy, to stress the under-staffing of judicial officers and the stress of pendency
Commission of India on Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (wo)manpower (July,
2014) (Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India). See Appendix R.
34. Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Crl. Appeal Nos. 254-262 of 2012. Order Dt. 01.02.2012.
(2012) 2 SCC 688. See Appendix AA.
35. High Courts have established and are implementing disposal 'norms' for subordinate court judges.
These norms are based on 'units' allocated for disposal of various types of cases. The units vary
depending on the nature and complexity of types of cases. Units vary from State to State for similar
cases, reflecting local conditions that affect the time taken for disposal of cases. (Page 7 of the NCMS
Committee Report submitted to the Supreme Court of India in Imtiyaz Ahmed vs. State of U.P. and
Ors., Crl Appeal Nos. 254-262 of 2012). Four courts each of Bihar and Maharashtra were compared on
the said methodology. (Pages 9 and 10 of the report)
36. NCMS Report filed in Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Crl. Appeal Nos. 254-262 of 2012 ,
pg. 11- 12
37. Civil and Armed Police Data for All States and UTs. Bureau of Police Research and Developments,
Data on Police Organisations, As on January, 2015 (Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India)
Available at :
15.pdf
38. Ibid
13
that they are working under.
In terms of the Civil Servants in the Group 'A' services alone there were 91,501 such
officers as on 01.01.201439 as against a sanctioned strength of 19,526 judicial officers.
Though no comparison can be drawn directly between the two figures however it is
an illustration of the human resource available to the two wings of the State for
carrying out the constitutional mandate.
Police Officers of the Rank of Inspector* & above vis-a-vis Judicial Officers#
No. of Police Officers in the rank of Inspector and above
Sanctioned Strength of Judicial Officers
60000 51,523
50000
40000
30000 20,174
20000
10000
0
As on 01.01.2015
*Bureau of Police Research and Developments, Data on Police Organisations, As on January, 2015
http://bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/201607121235174125303FinalDATABOOKSMALL2015.pdf
#Data as provided by High Courts as on 31.12.2014
Chart 6: Police Officers of the Rank of Inspector & above vis-a-vis Judicial Officers
Group 'A' Officers of Central Government* vis-a-vis Judicial Officers#

Group 'A' Officers of Central Government Sanctioned Strength of Judicial Officers
100000 91,501
80000
60000
40000
19,526
20000
0
As on 01.01.2014
* Report of the 7th Central Pay Commission of India, November, 2015.
http://7cpc.india.gov.in/pdf/sevencpcreport.pdf
# Data as provided by High Courts
Chart 7: Group 'A' Officers of Central Government vis-a-vis Judicial Officers
39. Report of the Seventh Central Pay Commission (Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
November, 2015). Available at: http://7cpc.india.gov.in/pdf/sevencpcreport.pdf. This figure of civil
servants does not include the state civil service officers.
14
Proximity to Courts
The above approaches have only been quantitative. What is to be remembered is

that access to justice is meaningful when each citizen has literally, access to courts.
In other words, every citizen is to be afforded reasonably close proximity to courts.
The proximity to courts of first instance should be assessed given the geographical
dispersion of population in the country, especially in hilly areas and large states
where rural and semi rural populations have to undertake day long journeys to reach
the nearest courts. In criminal cases, where surety is to be given, applications for bail
are to be moved, or even where urgent injunctions sought in civil cases, this becomes
a barrier to access to justice. A comparison of number of Police Officers (Inspector
and above) vis-a-vis Courts of first instance as on 01.01.2015 is tabulated below40:-
Total Area of No. of Police No. of No. of Police No. of Judicial

the Country (in Officers of Judicial Officers per Officers per 100
sq. km) Inspector and Officers 100 sq. km sq. km
above
31,66,414 51,523 20,174 1.63 0.64
Police Officers vis-a-vis Courts of first instance

No. of Police Officers per 100 sq. km No. of Judicial Officers per 100 sq. km
2 1.63
1.5
1 0.64
0.5
0
*Bureau of Police Research and Developments, Data on Police Organisations, As on January, 2015
http://bprd.nic.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/201607121235174125303FinalDATABOOKSMALL2015.pdf
#Data as provided by High Courts as on 31.12.2014
Chart 8: Police Officers vis-a-vis Courts of first instance
40. Bureau of Police Research and Developments, Data on Police Organisations, As on January,
2015 (Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India) Available at :
5.pdf
15
Thus, as a starting point, it is necessary to provide that, a court of first instance is
available to each citizen within a radius 50 k.m. from his residence or within a
maximum traveling time of half a day. This recommendation is made in light of the
general geographical and socio-economic conditions of the country and is subject to
other local conditions. In practical terms, this can be translated into the deployment of
a minimum number of Judicial Officers (of different ranks) at every administrative
level, along the lines of manpower planning in the civil services. The basic
administrative unit can be taken to be the tehsil to achieve this ideal.
16
III WAY AHEAD
The backbone of the Indian Judiciary has been under constant strain in terms of
the alarming figures of pending cases before them. It is in this light that the present
analysis is limited to the subordinate courts level. The approach takes into account the
present ability of the Judicial Officers at the subordinate court level and thereby
assesses the situation.
The following table shows the figures of Institution, Disposal and Pendency in
the subordinate courts for the years 2013 to 2015
Year Opening Institution Disposal Pendency Cases Criminal Sanctioned Working Vacancy
Balance more than Cases Strength Strength
5 Yrs Old more
than 5
Yrs Old
2015 2,65,09,688 1,90,44,877 1,83,78,256 2,71,76,029 62,01,794 43,19,693 20,558 16,176 4,382
2014 2,68,39,293 1,92,81,971 1,93,28,283 2,64,88,408 64,29,011 44,13,011 20,174 15,585 4,589
2013 2,69,07,252 1,86,70,907 1,87,37,745 2,68,38,861 59,80,700 41,80,216 19,526 15,128 4,398
Pendency of Cases in Subordinate Courts in States/UTs*: National Picture
Percentage of Cases which are more than 5 Yrs Old Criminal Cases more than 5 Yrs Old
Cases more than 5 Yrs Old Total Cases Pending at the end of year
2,71,76,029
2015
62,01,794
43,19,693
22.82%
2,64,88,408
2014
64,29,011
44,13,011
24.27%
2,68,38,861
2013
59,80,700
41,80,216
22.28%
0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000
*Data as received from various High Courts
Chart 9: Pendency of cases in subordinate courts: National Picture
17
The 2013-2015 statistics show that the judicial system is able to tackle the flow
of fresh cases. In 2013, the institution was 1.86 crore with the disposal of 1.87 crore
cases. In 2014 the institution stood at 1.92 crore and disposal at 1.93 crore cases and
in 2015 the figure of institution was 1.90 crore while disposal was 1.83 crore. Over
the last 3 years period, the pendency has remained at 2.68 crores, 2.64 crores, and
2.74 crore cases respectively. In contrast to these figures, the Indian subordinate
judiciary has a sanctioned judicial workforce of merely 20,558 officers and a working
strength of 16,176 officers. Keeping these figures in mind, it is simple arithmetic to
conclude that the existing judicial officers are not sufficient to keep pace with the
existing situation.
18
Pendency of Cases in Subordinate Courts in States/UTs*
Total Pendency, Cases Pending for more than 5 Yrs,

Criminal Cases Pending for more than 5 Yrs and
Percentage of Cases Pending for more than 5 Yrs
Percentage of 5 Yrs Plus Cases 5 Yrs Plus Criminal Cases in 2015
5 Yrs Plus Cases in 2015 Total Pendency in 2015
55,74,490
Uttar Pradesh 17,27,272
12,52,534
30.99%
29,94,074
Maharashtra 6,02,521
3,85,338
20.12%
26,18,813
West Bengal 4,77,917
3,11,760
18.25%
21,42,011
Gujarat 8,44,279
5,61,847
39.42%
20,73,303
Bihar 7,94,544
6,56,319
38.32%
14,79,173
Rajasthan 3,81,308
2,70,369
25.78%
13,45,127
Kerala 85,641
46,179
6.37%
12,68,966
Karnataka 1,53,356
63,324
12.09%
11,91,799
Madhya Pradesh 1,35,621
1,02,520
11.38%
10,82,793
Tamil Nadu 1,73,162
73,889
15.99%
10,64,039
Orissa 3,83,799
3,17,303
36.07%
10,31,515
Andhra Pradesh 1,25,407
& Telangana 52,139
12.16%
0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000
Chart 10-A: Pendency of Cases in subordinate courts in States/UTs
19

5,68,909
Delhi 77,174
56,531
13.57%
5,24,281
Haryana 4,371
2,028
0.83%
5,04,028
Punjab 9,873
3,963
1.96%
3,24,357
Jharkhand 64,628
50,823
19.92%
2,85,962
Chhattisgarh 68,840
53,485
24.07%
2,42,503
Assam 20,992
13,108
8.66%
2,06,727
Himachal Pradesh 12,328
6,357
5.96%
1,99,699
Jammu & Kashmir 11,664
7,259
5.84%
1,66,618
Uttarakhand 20,410
15,899
12.25%
1,29,789
Tripura 6,465
5,827
4.98%
39,615
4,076
Goa 414
10.29%
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000

Chart 10-B: Pendency of Cases in subordinate courts in States/UTs
20

36,322
Chandigarh 528
264
1.45%
24,973
Puducherry 3,634
1,949
14.55%
14,988
Meghalaya 6,015
4,430
40.13%
9,495
Andaman & Nicobar 1,563
941
16.46%
8,776
Arunachal Pradesh 178
64
2.03%
6,885
Manipur 1,199
568
17.41%
5,626
Diu, Daman and Silvassa 1,811
1,434
32.19%
4,671
131
Mizoram 20
2.80%
3,862
Nagaland 1,035
782
26.80%
1,460
Sikkim 12
7
0.82%
380
40
Lakshadweep 19
10.53%
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Chart 10-C: Pendency of Cases in subordinate courts in States/UTs
21
Cases Brought Forward, Case Filing and Disposal - 2015
Disposal of cases in 2015 Total Institution in 2015
Opening Pendency at the start of 2015
55,17,004
Uttar Pradesh 33,70,910
33,13,424
28,68,764
Maharashtra 17,74,497
16,49,187
25,56,461
West Bengal 11,54,159
10,91,807
21,79,979
Gujarat 10,55,696
10,93,664
19,23,529
Bihar 4,42,472
2,92,678
14,54,566
Rajasthan 13,96,369
13,71,762
13,31,558
Kerala 13,52,012
13,38,443
12,26,112
Karnataka 12,51,981
12,09,127
11,81,459
Madhya Pradesh 10,83,924
10,73,584
10,70,377
Orissa 4,01,923
4,08,261
10,38,820
Tamil Nadu 11,95,322
11,51,349
Andhra Pradesh 10,14,372

& Telangana 6,75,856
6,58,713
0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000
Chart 11-A: Cases brought forward, case filing and disposal - 2015
22
5,07,663
Punjab 5,75,046
5,78,681
4,93,768
Haryana 5,72,953
5,42,440
4,86,776
Delhi 7,18,211
6,36,078
3,15,484
Jharkhand 1,27,978
1,18,845
2,78,887
Chhattisgarh 2,02,249
1,95,174
2,40,597
Assam 2,74,444
2,72,538
2,26,224
Himachal Pradesh 2,97,220
3,16,717
1,85,078
Jammu & Kashmir 4,07,440
3,92,819
1,45,326
Uttarakhand 2,22,223
2,00,931
1,15,209
Tripura 2,23,862
2,09,282
40,414
Chandigarh 1,41,898
1,45,990
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000
Chart 11-B: Cases brought forward, case filing and disposal - 2015
23
35,001
Goa 39,379
34,765
24,431
Puducherry 20,951
20,409
14,249
Meghalaya 19,168
18,429
9,230
Andaman & Nicobar 8,201
7,936
8,862
Manipur 5,418
7,395
5,895
Arunachal Pradesh 8,119
5,238
4,717
Diu, Daman and Silvassa 4,232
3,323
3,730
Mizoram 11,296
10,355
3,553
Nagaland 5,135
4,826
1,160
Sikkim 4,106
3,806
433
Lakshadweep 227
280
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
Chart 11-C: Cases brought forward, case filing and disposal - 2015
24
Ratio of Pending Cases to Disposal in 2015*
Bihar 7.08
Jharkhand 2.73
Orissa 2.61
West Bengal 2.4
Gujarat 1.96
Maharashtra 1.82
Diu, Daman & Silvassa 1.69
Uttar Pradesh 1.68
Arunachal Pradesh 1.68
A.P. & Telangana 1.57
Chhattisgarh 1.47
Lakshadweep 1.36
Puducherry 1.22
Andaman & Nicobar 1.2
Goa 1.14
Madhya Pradesh 1.11
Rajasthan 1.08
Karnataka 1.05
Kerala 1
Haryana 0.97
Tamil Nadu 0.94
Manipur 0.93
Delhi 0.89
Assam 0.89
Punjab 0.87
Uttarakhand 0.83
Meghalaya 0.81
Nagaland 0.8
Himachal Pradesh 0.65
Tripura 0.62
Jammu & Kashmir 0.51
Mizoram 0.45
Sikkim 0.38
Chandigarh 0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Chart 12: Ratio of pending cases to disposal in 2015
25
An analysis of data from National Crime Records Bureau shows that the present
strength of judicial officers are only able to complete trial in approximately 13% of
cases brought for trial under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) during a year 41. The
ratio of cases brought for trial to the number of cases in which trial is completed
stands close to 7 for the past five years. This clearly shows that the existing strength
of judicial officers needs to be enhanced atleast 7 times so that trial is completed
within a period of one year.
The crime rate42 has seen a steady increase in the past few years. The crime rate in
the year 2014 was reported at 581.1, showing an increase of 2.1% over the year 2010
and an increase of 7.5% over 2013.43 This clearly demonstrates that the judicial
manpower needs to be augmented manifold to cater to the situation.
Cases for trial under IPC
Year Total Cases under Cases in which Ratio of cases Percentage of
IPC for trial trial completed44 brought for trial to cases in which
including pending the number of trial completed
cases from previous cases in which trial
year was completed
(1) (2) (3)=(1)/(2) (4)=(2)/(1) x 100
2010 85,49,655 11,41,031 7.49 13
2011 89,39,161 12,11,225 7.38 14
2012 93,28,085 12,52,138 7.45 13
2013 97,81,426 12,90,148 7.58 13
2014 99,30,625 13,41,386 7.40 14
41. National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2014 Compendium (Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India)
42. Crime Rate is defined as the number of crimes reported per 1,00,000 population. Ibid
43. National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2014 Compendium (Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India)
44. Excluding cases which have been withdrawn or compounded. Reports on Crime in India by the
National Crime Records Bureau from 2010 to 2014, available at http://ncrb.gov.in
26
Cases for trial under IPC and disposal by Courts*
Total Cases under IPC for trial (Pendency of previous years + Institution during the year)
Cases in which trial completed (excluding withdrawn/compounded cases)
97,81,426 99,30,625
89,39,161 93,28,085
85,49,655
11,41,031 12,11,225 12,52,138 12,90,148 13,41,386
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

*Reports on Crime in India by the National Crime Records Bureau from 2010 to
2014, available at http://ncrb.gov.in
Chart 13: Cases for trial under IPC and disposal by courts
Cases for trial under Special and Local Laws (SLL) by courts across the country45
Year Total Cases under SLL Cases in Ratio of cases Percentage of
for trial (Pendency of which trial brought for cases in which
previous years + completed trial to the trial completed
Institution during the (excluding number of
year) withdrawn cases in which
/compound trial was
ed cases) completed
(1) (2) (3)=(1)/(2) (4)=(2)/(1) x 100
2010 93,14,925 44,47,281 2.09 48
2011 84,72,922 34,97,455 2.42 41
2012 82,51,289 29,21,119 2.82 35
2013 89,76,765 32,73,104 2.74 36
2014 94,96,060 36,49,425 2.6 38
45. Reports on Crime in India by the National Crime Records Bureau from 2010 to 2014, available at
http://ncrb.gov.in
27
Cases for trial under Special & Local Laws (SLL) and disposal by Courts*
Total Cases under SLL for trial (Pendency of previous years + Institution during the year)
93,14,925 94,96,060
89,76,765
84,72,922 82,51,289
44,47,281
34,97,455 32,73,104 36,49,425
29,21,119
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
*Reports on Crime in India by the National Crime Records Bureau from 2010 to
Chart 14: Cases for trial under Special Local Laws (SLL) and disposal by courts
Cases for trial under IPC and Special and Local Laws (SLL) by courts across the
country46
Year Total Cases for Cases in Ratio of cases Percentage Percentage
trial (IPC+SLL) which trial brought for of cases in increase in
(Pendency of completed trial to the which trial Criminal Trial
previous years (excluding number of completed Courts to
+ Institution withdrawn/c cases in which complete trial
during the year) ompounded trial was in one year
cases) completed
(1) (2) (3)=(1)/(2) (4)=(2)/(1)*100 (5)=((3)-1)*100
2010 1,78,64,580 55,88,312 3.2 31 220%

2011 1,74,12,083 47,08,680 3.7 27 270%
2012 1,75,79,374 41,73,257 4.21 24 321%
2013 1,87,58,191 45,63,252 4.11 24 311%
2014 1,94,26,685 49,90,811 3.89 26 289%
46. Reports on Crime in India by the National Crime Records Bureau from 2010 to 2014, available at
http://ncrb.gov.in
28
Total cases for trial under IPC and SLL and disposal by Courts*
Total Cases for trial (Pendency of previous years + Institution during the year)
1,87,58,191 1,94,26,685
1,78,64,580 1,74,12,083 1,75,79,374
55,88,312 47,08,680 49,90,811

41,73,257 45,63,252
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
*Reports
*Reports on Crime
on Crime inby
in India India
the by the National
National Crime Crime Records
Records BureauBureau fromto2010 to
from 2010
2014, available
at http://ncrb.gov.in
Chart 15: Total cases for trial under IPC and SLL and disposal by courts
Percentage Increase in Criminal Trial Courts required

to complete triable cases in one year (IPC and SLL cases)
350% 321%
311%
289%
300% 270%
250% 220%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Chart 16: Percentage Increase in Criminal Trial Courts required to complete triable
cases in one year (IPC and SLL cases)
29
A. ARRIVING AT THE SHORT-TERM REQUIREMENT
Keeping in mind a reality that at any given point of time, any cadre would have
10-15% vacancies in sanctioned strength, the sanctioned strength to vacancies ratio
should, correspondingly be 85-90% : 15-10%. The following calculation method
adopts a two pronged approach vis--vis immediate judge-strength needs:
1. Judges required to tackle fresh institution of cases =
Total Institution of cases in a state/UT
Avg. Disposal of cases in previous year(s) by a Judicial Officer
2. Judges required to tackle pending cases:
(a) Cases which are >5 yr age be disposed off in 1 yr =
Total no. of such cases as on 31.12.15
Avg. Disposal of cases in previous year(s) by a Judicial Officer
(b) Cases which are 1-5 yr old be disposed off in 3 yrs time-frame =
Total no. of such cases as on 31.12.15
(3 x Avg. Disposal of cases in previous year(s) by a Judicial Officer)
Mindful of average disposal rate of various states/UTs separately and the
pendency as on 31.12.2015, the following table suggests the judicial strength needed
to deal with pendency and institution:
Pendency Institution Cases Cases No. of No. of No. of Total no. Total
(2015) (2015) pending pending Judges judges judges of judges Sanctioned
for more between 1- required reqd. to reqd. to required Strength of
than 5 5 years to tackle clear 5 clear to cope up all States
years institution year old other with and Union
cases cases institution Territories
within within 1-3 and
one year years pendency
2,71,76,029 1,90,44,877 62,01,794 2,09,74,235 17,131 7,585 7,244 31,960 35,155
[For state-wise break-up, refer to Table - 'A']
Thus, Indian subordinate judiciary, in the next 3 years, requires an additional
14,597 Judicial Officers (35,155-20,558), and sanctioned Judge strength of 35,155
to cater to the existing problem with a caveat that the rate of filing remains constant.
This rider, as is evident from the previous years' figures of institution of cases, is not
correct as the rate of filing has been increasing consistently and is likely to rise
rapidly in the coming years.
The immediate requirement itself shows that enough has not been done to
increase the Judge strength of the Subordinate Judiciary. The State is obliged to carry
30
out the decisions of the Apex Court and increase the Judge- Population Ratio to 50
per million as held in the All India Judges Association case47.
The present report attempts to study and forecast, future demands of justice- not
as a crystal ball gazing exercise, but by use of statistical models. As demonstrated, the
present Judge strength is sufficient just to handle the fresh cases filed each year which
ensuring constancy of pendency figures. It is necessary to understand and predict that
case filing patterns would change in future and device methods to keep pendency in
manageable limits.
B. LONG TERM PROJECTIONS FOR JUDGE STRENGTH

B.1 Understanding the Trend of Case Filing
Litigation behavior analysis and study is essential to study pendency and case
filing. Several attempts at mapping this have found that litigation bears a close nexus
with development. Empirical studies confirm that litigation can, in fact, be perceived
as a measure of well being contrary to conventional wisdom that it hampers
development.48 Efforts have been made across various jurisdictions to identify factors
influencing litigation of a particular society 49. An in-depth analysis of these studies
and its application to available data in India, reveals a close nexus between the
litigious behavior and development indicators like HDI and literacy rate50.
Healthy and manageable case pendency numbers reflect an efficient judicial
system. Conversely, excessive case pendency renders the judicial system ineffective,
resulting in loss of confidence of common people in the courts. Efforts, ranging from
fixing time frames for judicial appointments in the Malik Mazhar Sultan Case51 to the
targets of Five Plus Zero have not yielded much. This study aims to project the
quantum of cases likely reaching the courts in the coming years and, based on that
assessment, projecting the number of judicial officers required for reducing case
48. Theodore Eisenberg, Sital Kalantry, and Nick Robinson, Litigation as a Measure of Well-Being ,
62(2) DE PAUL LAW REVIEW 247 (2013) (The report on the trend of civil litigation in India
showed a close nexus between HDI and institution of cases. ). Clemenz and Gugler, Macroeconomic
Development and Civil Litigation Eur. JL&E (2000) 9:3, 215-230. (also studies the similar scenario in
Austria.)
49. Ibid
50. See Tables B & D.
51. Malik Mazhar Sultan & Another Vs. U.P.P.S.C & Others. Appeal (C) 1867 of 2006. Order dt.
04.01.2007, wherein an elaborate time schedule was prescribed starting from the date of advertising of
vacancies to the final date of joining. (Appendix Z)
31
pendency to optimal levels, ultimately aimed at increasing the efficiency of and
revitalizing the judicial system. This exercise involves state/UT - wise analysis of
litigation levels and the corresponding judge strength to achieve lowest case
pendency levels.
B.2 Establishing equilibrium: achieving case life of 1-2 years

The present effort is divided into two parts: firstly, the short term goal of
reducing present case pendency and secondly the long term goal of reducing case
life cycle to : between one and two years. This is estimated, based on existing
unreasonably manageable case loads and case pendency levels. The present report
uses the following three ratios for achieving its ends:
(i) Pendency : Institution
(ii) Disposal : Institution
(iii) Pendency : Disposal
The first ratio, Pendency : Institution, is the rate at which the case filing will
affect the pendency of cases. This ratio shows the number of cases lying pending at
the end of a year to the number of cases instituted during the year. Since the quantum
of cases filed in a court is not within the control of the judiciary, the ratio can be
maintained by controlling the pendency. If the pendency is higher than the institution
figure, it will lead to creation of backlog thus in order to achieve an acceptable case
life of One to Two years, it is suggested that this ratio must ideally be less than one.
The above ratio depends upon the number of cases disposed of in a year thus the
second ratio, i.e., Disposal : Institution, speaks about the relationship between case
filing and the disposal figures. This ratio must be around 1 (or higher) so that the
average yearly flow of cases52 are tackled by the available judge strength in any
given year. This will ensure that no part of the yearly average case load is carried
forward to the next year.
The third ratio, Pendency : Disposal, is the relationship between the number of
cases lying pending at the end of a year to the number of cases disposed of in that
year. To achieve the above goals, the disposal figures should be in close proximity
(preferably higher than) with the institution to achieve the short-term goal of reducing
pendency. To keep the pendency figures at such a level so as to achieve a case life of
52. Average yearly flow of cases in a given state/UT = Sum of Institution of previous 'n' years / 'n'
32
1-2 years, in the long-run, this ratio should ideally be less than 1 and in no case
greater than 1.5.
To achieve these goals, and keeping in mind the recruitment capability and
present infrastructural gap in the system, a time frame is also suggested. To suggest
that recruiting over 15,000 Judicial Officers at the lower courts level in a year would
eliminate present case pendency, is impractical and incapable of implementation. This
study recommends phased manpower induction, with 2040 as the target year. These
objectives can be accomplished in the target year; the present report adopts the
scheme most objective, suited and especially evolved for the purpose. An underlying
premise is that periodic review is necessary to make mid course corrections. This part
of the study adopts an extremely conservative approach towards Judge strength
calculation. It quantifies almost all factors affecting case filing trends. This part of the
study does not take into account demography though it takes into account a healthy
case life of one to two years in stabilizing the above ratios.
B.3 METHODS EMPLOYED FOR PROJECTIONS TILL 2040

This part of the study attempts at ascertaining the volume of cases likely to be
filed, in the subordinate courts level by 2040. Quantitative litigation behavioural
patterns are forecast, using certain methods. The study is based on a state /UT -wise
analysis of litigation figures and its nexus with the development indicators. The
approach gives a different picture of optimal Judge strength for the particular state/UT
for achieving the needed goals.
B.3.1 HDI METHOD:

The HDI or Human Development Index, was created to emphasize that people
and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a
country. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how
two countries with the same level of GNI (Gross National Income) per capita can end
up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate
about government policy priorities.
The HDI is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of

human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent
standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of
33
the three dimensions. The composite index results in a figure between 0 and 1, (of
which 1 indicates high level of human development and 0 being no level of human
development). The health dimension is assessed by life expectancy at birth, the
education dimension is measured by mean of years of schooling for adults aged 25
years and more and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age.
The standard of living dimension is measured by gross national income per capita.
The HDI uses the logarithm of income, to reflect the diminishing importance of
income with increasing GNI. The scores for the three HDI dimension indices are then
aggregated into a composite index using geometric mean53.
53. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi
34
HDI and Litigation:
Correlation of Human Development Index* with Institution# per Million
(in decreasing order of HDI)
HDI: 2008 Institution Per Million: 2008
Kerala 31,719
0.790
Delhi 84,647
0.750
Himachal Pradesh 23,400
0.652
Goa 19,618
0.617
Punjab 19,412
0.605
Maharashtra 15,360
0.572
Tamil Nadu 19,582
0.570
Haryana 18,354
0.552
Jammu & Kashmir 15,885
0.529
Gujarat 20,442
0.527
Karnataka 12,835
0.519
West Bengal 13,122
0.492
Uttarakhand 17,473
0.490
A.P. & Telangana 8,104
0.473
Assam 6,236
0.444
Rajasthan 13,655
0.434
Uttar Pradesh 14,276
0.380
Jharkhand 3,747
0.376
Madhya Pradesh 13,342
0.375
Bihar 3,461
0.367
Orissa 6,745
0.362
Chhattisgarh 9,165
0.358
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000
* At Page No. 24, India Human Development Report, 2011 Towards Social Inclusion, (Report by
Institute of Applied Manpower Researchinstitute under the aegis of Planning Commission)
#Data as received from various High Courts
$ 2008 population arrived at by equally dividing the population growth from 2001 to 2011. The
figures for the years 2001 and 2011 taken from India Census Reports.
Chart 17: Correlation of Human Development Index with Institution per Million
35
Studies show that a relation exists between HDI and institution of cases 54. They
suggest that "the fact that higher litigation rates are associated with Indian states
with higher HDI indices suggests that people are more likely to use the courts to
resolve disputes when they are economically, socially, and physically better off55.
Therefore, the present study employs the HDI method to determine future institution
of cases.
The data on HDI figures is available for most of the states and UTs but states/UTs
having small population have not been included for the purpose of calculating the
average institution per million vis-a-vis HDI Range Bands56.
To appreciate increased case filing, states/UTs were grouped in certain ranges of
HDI and average institution per million of population for the states/UTs in each band
was calculated for the year 2015. The growth was clearly evident and the groups are
as follows:
Sr. No. States HDI Range57 Average institution
per million
1. Bihar, Chhatisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, 0.40 to 0.45 11,080
Orissa (When => 0.45)
2. Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, 0.45 to 0.50 13,946
Rajasthan (Avg. 0.475)
3. Assam, West Bengal, A.P & 0.50 to 0.60 14,099
Telangana, Gujarat, Jammu & (Avg. 0.55)
Kashmir, Karnataka, Haryana
4. Uttarakhand, Maharashtra, Tamil 0.60 to 0.70 16,372
Nadu, Punjab, (Avg. 0.65)
5. Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Kerala 0.70 to 0.90 (Avg. 0.8) 39,352
[Details of projected HDI and Institution Per Million for individual states for the year
2015, is at Table-'B']
54. Theodore Eisenberg, Sital Kalantry, and Nick Robinson, Litigation as a Measure of Well-Being,
62(2) DE PAUL LAW REVIEW 247 (2013) (describing the relative civil filing rate for different
Indian states and showing that the civil filing rate was higher in states with higher GDP per capita and a
higher score on the Human Development Index).
55. Ibid at pg.34.
56. HDI figures for Andaman & Nicobar island, Daman & Diu, Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, Puducherry
were unavailable in the India Human Development report, 2011.
57. Projected HDI for 2015 based on HDI figures of 2000 and 2008 taken from India Human
Development Report, 2011.
36
To project future case filings, individual states/UTs analysis was carried out. The
growth of HDI in the respective states/UTs is "forecasted" 58 based on the figures of
previous years. Whenever the HDI of a state reached the average figure for a
particular band in the table, the corresponding figure of average institution was used.
The intervening figures were proportionately calculated and used59.
For instance, if a state 'A' has an HDI of 0.580 in 2015 and can be projected to
achieve HDI of 0.650 in 2022, the average institution per million in the band of 0.60
to 0.70 is used in the year 2022. The average institution per million from 2016 till
2021 will be calculated by equally dividing the increase and adding it to the previous
years' figure of institution per million.
To project future population, base data for the years 2001 and 2011 are taken
from the Census Reports and projected figures for the years 2021, 2031 & 2041 have
been sourced from PRB (Population Reference Bureau)60. The intervening figures are
evenly spread. The outcome suggests that the institution of cases in the future can be
calculated by multiplying the population of the state/UT in a given year with the
average institution per million in that year.
Projected Institution[year A] = Projected Population (in millions)[year A]
x Projected Average Institution per million[year A]
The disposal in a given year is calculated as follows:
Projected Disposal[year A] = Average Disposal Rate of previous years x
Working Strength of Judicial Officers previous year
Summary of the analysis with HDI Method is reproduced in the following table.
Year Projected Existing Total number Annual increase in
Institution Sanctioned of judges number of judges for
Strength required the next 25 years
2040 4,85,55,322 20,558 75,594 2,075
[State-specific details can be found at Table-'C']
The study shows that 75,594 Judicial Officers will be required in the
States/UTs by 2040, under this method so that the above mentioned ratios can be
stabilized.
58. Method by which the future growth if predicted based on the past trend of data.
59. For states/UTs which are in the highest bracket of HDI i.e., above 0.800, average institution per
million of population cannot be projected as no data is available. Thus, the future average institution
per million has been taken to be constant in such states. In such states, the 'forecast' method may be
better suited to project future institution of cases.
60. The Population Reference Bureau (PRB) is a private, nonprofit organization which informs
people around the world about population, health and the environment for research or academic
purposes. It was founded in 1929. The Future Population of India: A Long-range Demographic View,
available at http://www.prb.org/pdf07/futurepopulationofindia.pdf
37
B.3.2 LITERACY METHOD
Under the Census Report 2011, literacy is defined as the ability of a 7 year old
and above to read and write with comprehension, in any language. Literacy rate is the
ratio of the number of literates per 100 persons in the age group 7 years and above.61
Analysis of literacy rate growth data on the one hand and case-filing data on
the other, reveals co-relation between the two. States/UTs are grouped into bands
according to their literacy rates as per 2011 Census62 (60-65%, 65-75%, 75-85% and
so on) and the average institution per million of the states/UTs falling in such band is
calculated. Individual states/UTs analysis has been done with the assumption that the
growth in literacy rate of a particular state/UT in the next three decades (2011-21,
2021-31, 2031-41) will be in line with the previous decadal growth in literacy rate of
that state/UT. Whenever a state/UT literacy rate is forecasted to reach the literacy rate
corresponding with the average figure for a particular literacy band, the respective
figure of average institution per million for that band is used to arrive at the institution
of cases in a particular year. 63The literacy bands, according to 2011 Census, along
with institution per million of various states/UTs are tabulated as follows:
Sr. No States Literacy Band Average
Institution per
million
1. Bihar 60% to 65% 3,978
2. Odisha, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Madhya 65% to 75% 13,051
Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttar (Avg. 70%)
Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh & Telangana,
Jharkhand, Rajasthan
3. Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil 75% to 85% 16,674
Nadu, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, West (Avg. 80%)
Bengal, Punjab, Haryana, Karnataka
4. Kerala, Delhi 85% to 95% 39,046
(Avg. 90%)
[Details of Literacy Rate and Institution Per Million for individual states/UTs, is at
Table-'D']
61. Census Report, 2011.

62. Ibid
63. For states/UTs which are already in the highest bracket of literacy rate, future average institution
per million cannot be projected as no data is available. Thus, the future average institution is assumed
as constant in such states/UTs. In such states/UTs, the 'forecast' method may be better suited to project
future institution of cases.
38
Future population projection has been calculated as explained in the HDI method.
Likewise, case-filing projection has been calculated by multiplying the projected
population in a year with the relative average institution per million for that year. The
disposal figure for a given year is arrived at by multiplying the average disposal rate
with the working strength of judicial officers of previous year . A summary of the
analysis with Literacy Method is reproduced in the following table.
Institution Sanctioned of judges number of judges
Strength required for the next 25 years
2040 5,87,12,042 20,558 85,734 2,440
[State-specific details can be found at Table-'E']
The study shows that 85,734 Judicial Officers will be required in the
States/UTs by 2040 under this method so that the above mentioned ratios can be
stabilized.
B.3.3 NORMAL GROWTH / FORECAST METHOD:

This model studies the pattern of litigation in the past and uses the linear
regression model to predict future case institution growth for any given time-frame. 64
The required judge strength is then calculated in accordance with these institution
figures so as to ensure that pendency to institution ratio, disposal to institution ratio
and pendency to disposal ratio are reduced to below 1, higher than 1 and less than one
respectively by 2040. A summary of the analysis with Normal Growth / Forecast
Method is reproduced in the following table.
Institution Sanctioned of judges number of judges for the
Strength required next 25 years
2040 3,83,98,101 20,558 42,561 884
[State / UT - specific details can be found at Table-'F']
The study shows that 42,561 Judicial Officers will be required in the States/UTs
by 2040 under this method so that the above mentioned ratios can be stabilized.
64. This method solely depends upon the past year's entries of institution of cases and does not take
into account any other factors such as future growth in litigation.
39
B.3.4 JUDGE- STRENGTH BASED ON JUDGE- POPULATION RATIO OF 50
PER MILLION
To reach the Judge - Population ratio of 50 Judges per Million in 2040, states/UTs
data analysis was made and projected case filing was worked out by taking the
average of the institution figures in a state/UT calculated by the above 3 methods.
Multiplication of the projected population of a state/UT in the year 2040 with 50 was
the method to arrive at the Judge strength. The working strength of Judges has been
proportionately increased from 2016 onwards till 2040 based on the figures on 2015
and 2040. A summary of the analysis with this method is reproduced in the following
table.
Institution Sanctioned of judges number of judges
Strength required for the next 25
years
2040 4,87,16,264 20,558 84,011 2,377
[State-specific details can be found at Table-'G ']
The analysis shows that in some states, like Bihar, Jharkhand, Goa,
Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim,
even this standard is insufficient to stabilize the ratios.
B.3.5 STATUS QUO

It is important to ascertain what would be the position in 2040 in the event of no
intervention in Judge strength. This was assessed by analysing case filing institution
in states/UTs taking the average filing in a state/UT through the 3 methods. The Judge
strength is increased without intervention and the existing vacancies are filled in 1-6
years to reach a working strength of 90% of the sanctioned strength.
Summary of the analysis without any Intervention is reproduced in the following
table.
Year Projected Pendency to Disposal to Pendency Case to Judge
Institution Institution Institution to Disposal Ratio
Ratio Ratio Ratio
2040 4,87,16,264 8.55 0.41 20.63 23,476
[State-specific details can be found at Table-'H']
40
IV. CONCLUSION
The policies of the State have hitherto aimed toward ensuring that all children
are provided elementary education; that all citizens achieve a basic nutrition level;
that each one is assured minimum means of livelihood and access to public health
services. Justice is one critical component of citizenship which cannot be neglected.
Overworked judges, overburdened court staff, chronic shortage of court-space and
unending wait to justice does not compliment the policies of the State.
Access to justice is to be pursued as rigorously as any other social service
that the State provides to its people under the Constitution. There is an absolute value
and justification in providing minimum access to justice, at reasonable distance,
within reasonable time and at affordable cost.
Based on the study and keeping in mind the future growth in institution of
cases, it is found that the present Judge strength, is insufficient to deal with a huge
figure of pendency of cases, which is a cause of concern. Additional judicial
manpower and support staff, as well as infrastructure is required immediately to
handle the situation. As evidenced from the foregoing study, a close nexus between
development and litigation, between literacy and litigation and between demographics
and litigation exists which makes the requirement of additional judicial workforce
more imminent. The role of a robust judiciary in a nation's development is pivotal.
With development and a corresponding growth in litigation, more judges will
certainly be required to handle the same so that justice is done in its truest possible
sense.
The analysis undertaken by this report- based on the forecast, HDI, Literacy and
50 Judges per Million Methods, suggest that the total number of Judges required in
2040 will range between 40,000 80,000. It is also important to mention here that in
all the methods suggested above, the attempt has been to stabilize the ratios over a
period of time and not to hurriedly reduce the pendency figures in absolute numbers.
Projection of Judge Strength under various methods in 2040

as against 2015 sanctioned strength
2015 . HDI Literacy 50 Judges per million Normal Growth
100000
75,594 85,734 84,011
80000
60000 42,561
40000 20,558
20000
0
Projected Sanctioned Strength
Chart 18: Projection of Judge Strength under various methods in 2040 as against 2015
sanctioned strength
41
Current Projected Sanctioned Strength of Judges
Sanctioned (2040)
S. No. State
Strength HDI Literacy 50 Judges Normal
(2015) per million Growth
1 Andaman & Nicobar 9 9 24 26 17
2 Andhra Pradesh &
972 6,740 3,018 5,251 1,990
Telangana
3 Arunachal Pradesh 17 294 228 113 107
4 Assam 424 2,466 2,577 2,148 882
5 Bihar 1,727 14,380 14,658 8,292 3,769
6 Chandigarh 30 30 51 87 114
7 Chhattisgarh 394 1,101 968 1,674 740
8 Daman, Diu and
7 7 101 51 29
Silvassa
9 Delhi 778 1,017 1,017 1,280 1,211
10 Goa 57 80 137 101 109
11 Gujarat 1,939 3,300 4,217 3,920 3,244
12 Haryana 644 1,304 1,638 1,920 1,249
13 Himachal Pradesh 152 232 232 431 510
14 Jammu & Kashmir 245 522 522 737 828
15 Jharkhand 592 7,962 7,684 2,457 768
16 Karnataka 1,122 2,967 2,994 3,783 2,522
17 Kerala 457 686 686 1,927 1,241
18 Lakshadweep 3 3 3 6 10
19 Madhya Pradesh 1,461 3,433 4,906 5,265 2,739
20 Maharashtra 2,251 7,824 8,380 7,556 4,519
21 Manipur 41 482 427 150 143
22 Meghalaya 39 700 617 215 144
23 Mizoram 63 256 256 72 144
24 Nagaland 27 1,528 1,722 170 94
25 Orissa 716 1,803 4,137 2,530 1,692
26 Puducherry 26 26 58 79 26
27 Punjab 672 1,572 1,628 1,754 1,100
28 Rajasthan 1,191 1,789 3,483 5,515 2,344
29 Sikkim 18 282 377 48 47
30 Tamil Nadu 1,015 3,577 3,049 3,685 2,827
31 Tripura 104 187 198 237 356
32 Uttar Pradesh 2,100 4,530 10,224 16,149 3,974
33 Uttarakhand 280 673 618 690 451
34 West Bengal 985 3,832 4,899 5,692 2,621
Total 20,558 75,594 85,734 84,011 42,561
[State/UT-wise analysis at Table-'I' and individual details at Table-J-1 to J-34]
42
The effect of intervention is indicated in the charts below. A perusal of these
charts would reveal that effect of intervention is not merely in absolute reductions of
arrears, but would contribute towards maintaining an efficient justice delivery system
measured using different parameters- institution to disposal ratio, pendency to
disposal ratio and caseload per judge. Though a pan-Indian intervention is warranted
on this front, as a first step, states which face an acute problem of arrears may be
identified and worked on.
Present Situation compared with the effective intervention as in the year 2040
The dark blue bar represents the present situation as in 2015 and the multi-color bars to its right
represent the effect of intervention projected for the year 2040

2
1.48
1.5 1.12 1.14 0.99 1.08
0.96
1
0.5 0.30 0.36 0.40 0.38
0
Disposal to Institution Ratio Pendency to Disposal Ratio
Chart 19: Present Situation compared with the effective intervention as in the year 2040
Situation in 2040 vis-a-vis 2015 under various methods
Case to Judge Ratio
2,816
3000
2000 1,179 1,493
1,042 891
1000
0
Case to Judge Ratio
Chart 20: Situation in 2040 vis-a-vis 2015 under various methods
43
Pendency to Disposal Ratio: Before and After Intervention
2015 vis-a-vis 2040

50 Judges per million 2040 Normal Growth 2040 Literacy 2040
HDI 2040 . Ratio in 2015
7.08
Bihar 0.36
0.3
0.3
3.57
2.73
Jharkhand 0.04
0.04
0.33
10.38
2.61
Orissa 0.33
0.36
0.13
0.12
2.4
West Bengal 0.26
0.45
0.42
0
1.96
Gujarat 0.32
0.31
0.35
0
1.82
Maharashtra 0.34
0.3
0.16
0
1.68
Uttar Pradesh 0.2
0.37
0.51
0
1.57
A.P. & Telangana 0.37
0.12
0.43
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Chart 21: Pendency to Disposal Ratio: Before and After Intervention
44
The spatial aspect of justice, in terms of immediate access to the court of first
instance, is yet another front on which immediate action is warranted. To that end,
courts of first instance should not be situated at a distance which is not accessible
within a day (round-trip) by means of public transport for a citizen65.
The true import of the present study does not lie in analysing absolute numbers or
merely recommending an abstract increase in the number of judges. It attempts to
synthesize various factors that influence litigation, work load and arrears,
underscoring the need to adopt a multipronged approach to tackle the present crisis.
The study and report is objective and at the same time, is agnostic to all methods. For
the first time, no one ideal solution is suggested; instead, different methods to
comprehend the real problem are suggested. The report does not also offer any one
solution; it points to many ways of looking at it to achieve the desired goal, in a
neutral manner, without preference. The report also suggests that periodic review is a
critical component in the process, regardless of whatever reform is introduced,
because course correction is crucial to reaching the ultimate objective. The conclusion
is bound to be that there is a crying need to increase judicial work strength and to
overhaul infrastructure if seekers of justice are to get it within optimal time.
It is expected that the Executive will comprehend the crisis, rise to the occasion
and fulfill its constitutional obligations, in turn facilitating the Judiciary to achieve its
constitutionally ordained goals.
65. Prof. Dr. G. Mohan Gopal, Chairperson NCMS Committee and former Director, National Judicial
Academy suggests a citizen to court temporal distance" (CCTD) consistent with the citizen's right of
access to justice --which should be "a day trip (round trip) by the fastest available public transport
affordable to the poorest people".
45
) * + , +- + -. + . +. /) . +- + ) +- .
01232 +-4423 56+5 7025 1+4 5+3 5289+: 3; 9+ 81+<0 289+6=6 >+28+ 702 2:520>+28+ += 56
+ ?9@+ 83 2 8 1+ * 5;289+ @+ 4+B019 6+ + 3; 9+ 3; 9+ @+ 4+ 019 6+ @+ 4+ 019 6+ + @+ 4+ +8 @+ 4+ A06+5 7025 1+
86 2 0 2 8+28+ 26< 6 + 5 89 A+28+ 5 89 A+28+ 5 7025 1+ + C 81 83=+ DA23A+26+ DA23A+26+ 5 7025 1+ + 5 7025 1+ + B019 6+ B019 6+ 83 2 8 1+ 5 89 A+
& ' < 5+ 019 +28+ & ' & ' 3; + 28+& ' > 5 + A 8+ '+= 56+ 1 3 5+'+= 56+ 3 5+ '+= 56+ 5 7025 1+ + 5 7025 1+ + E+ 4+* 5;289+
<5 ?2 06+ 286 2 0 2 8+ 4+ '+= 5+ 1 1+3 6 6+28+ + 1+3 6 6+28+ + 3 5+: 3; 9+ 3 < +0<+ 5 89 A+ ;289+3 5 +
= 56 3 6 6+ 4+& ' = 5 = 56 28+ A +6 +28+ + 286 2 0 2 8+ + 4+? 3 83=!+ ? + 3@
= 56 < 81 83=
!
"
" ##
$
$ $ % &
'
' ( #
) *
)
+ ,
+ -
, # -
,
. - / 0
1 *
1 #
1 0
1 *
12
3
*
(
4 ( #
% --
0
5##
5## -
6 #!
!" !##!$%% & !''$ (! %( %! &!% !%(! &" (&! !%"# &! "!%#!& ' %!'$' %!&## #!$&" !"( '! ''
# / # 77 # # # #
) * % ) +% , - . +% +- % +
/ (01( &' '2 & 1 &' 3 4 5&((&' 67 15 8 ('35 9 . :' ;
? 8=@
4 :(7 ,'31( &' ,4'> 0 & 1 &' ,4'> 0
< 4 +3 & = & 3' '2 , & = & 1 &' 3 4
& &1 /& 5&((&' ; ,'31( &' 3 4 5&((&'
( 0 0 0 5&((&' 2'4
# 0 1 '2 # & # #
:
1
:)5* ;
1 !
:)5* ;
! "
#"" $
% 1 "#
:)5* ;
" $
& '
( "
) ' *
+ ", *
)
- " 1 "
& $ :)5* ;
! %
. 1 #$#
#"" :+ <=
"1 1 *
, " ;
/ "" *
% &' ( # # $$ # "" $!! $ !$ ! ! # # !$ " #
0, 1 23* 13 4 4 13 2 5 16 " - 61 "
>?" " 5 * 616 " 1 5 @ (1 6 ! 6 ! * % ? $$ ! @1 9 * ) 5 1" 31 " 1 13 )5 *
2 "" "1 6 1 3*
7 23* 31 8 $ 6 ' % / * ) '9 1 1" 5 2 5 16 " - 61 "
* + , - * + , - * + , - * + , - * + , - * + , - /- /,4 02. 2 /- /,4 2 --0 0 / //3 /,* 2
. /0/1 /2 0 3 0 / 02. 2 /- /,4 /, 0 / - *60/1 /2 0 3 0 / /2 0 3 0 / 02. 2 3-1 0 3-1 0/ *60/1
/, * /1 5 * /1 5 0 0 0 * /1 5 * /1 5
! ! !
" ! ! !
! ! !
# ! ! !
$
$ %% ! ! !
& &" ' (
& ! ! !
) ! ! !
)"* % ! ! !
+ , ! ! !
+ ! ! !
- " . ! ! !
- / ! ! !
. % / ! ! !
. ! ! !
0 / 1 2
3 , ! ! !
3 % ! ! !
3 2" ! ! !
3 , ! ! !
34 ! ! !
! ! !
5 ! ! !
" " ,
" * ! ! !
6 * % ! ! !
' // ! ! !
" ! ! !
2" ! ! !
7%% ! ! !
7%% / ! ! !
8 %# ! ! !
! "! #!$%& !'&!&&!" &! &!% !(&% (!$"!( !'&' #&!&% $'! " )" ()( )" (! &&! "' ! #&
+&9 $ " % %2 +&9 : " % ( 9 +" & ( 2 %6 2 % ; " % *" % % 1 % <
% " 1 % " :: % % % %
! " !# $!% " ! &&"$ '! "! $ &(!$ !
)& *+ ! ,! - + !. /!% !01! / *1!$ !% 2 34
- + # .+ ! #/ 6 * 3! / *1!$ - + !. /! / *1!$ ! 8 / 7 !
! ) !5 -4 # .+ ! ! 5 3-! - + !. /!
! ) !5 -4 ! ) !. /* 7 4 5 !, /! 2 !
,! 0 3
! "
# $
% & '
$ (
)
"
*
+
, '
)
- .
!
+ . '
- "
/ $
&
01 2! 3 ' 454 5 23 ) 3 ' 6 5 4 5 3 7 #5 4 4 ' ) 1 "" 75 8 ' +

9 " 4 . ) , ' + . 8 5( 3 5 ( :5 5 5: +3 ' 6 5 4 5
( :'
+ , - . + , - . + , - . + , - . + , - . + , - . 0. 0-5 13/ 3 ! 0. 0-5 3 ..1 1 0 ! 004 !
/ 0102 03 1 4 1 0 13/ 3 ! 0. 0-5 0- 1 0 . +7102 03 1 4 1 0 03 1 4 1 0 13/ 3 ! 4.2 1 4.2 0-+ 3 10
! 0- + 02 6 + 02 6 1 1 1 + 02 6 +7102
+ 02 6
6 "
! "
! ## "
$ $ % &
$
'
' ( #
) *
)
+ ,
+ -
, # -
,
. - / 01
2 *
2 #
2 0
2 " *
23
"
4
*
(
5 ( #
% --
6
6 0
7##
7## -
8 # "
! "# # $# %& %#'&#$ # (#()#$ #(&$ # #"'#' '%#&" &&#$%' * $ $*$ *"( $#$&) (%#$&% #
1 ( # *.# *5 # #9 / "# " 0 # # : #( " # "# / # ;
# / # 99 # # # # "
* + , - * + , - * + , - * + , - * + , - * + , - /- /,4 02. 2 /- /,4 2 --0 0 / //3
. /0/1 /2 0 3 0 / 02. 2 /- /,4 /, 0 / - *60/1 /2 0 3 0 / /2 0 3 0 / 02. 2 3-1 3-1 /,* 2 0/
/, * /1 5 * /1 5 0 0 0 0 * /1 5 *60/1
* /1 5
"
#
# $$
% %! & '
%
(
(!) $
* +
*
, ! -
, .
- $ .
-
/ . 0 1
2 +
2 $
2 1!
2 +
23
4
! ! +5
! )
6 ) $
& ..
!
1!
7$$
7$$ .
8 $"
!"#$"%$" & &"#&"'#"! ! "! "$ "$$' !"(%"' "&(( "(%! &#" '$ ) ! !) # )&# !" '& " ( ##
5 1 ) $ $ 1 $9 ! 9 : $ $!$ 0 $ ; ! $ )! $ $ 0 $ <
$ ! 0 $ ! 99 $ $ $ $
* + , - * + , - * + , - * + , - * + , - * + , - /- /,4 02. 2 ! /- /,4 2 --0 0 / ! //3 ! /,* 2
. /0/1 /2 0 3 0 / 02. 2 ! /- /,4 /, 0 / - *60/1 /2 0 3 0 / /2 0 3 0 / 02. 2 ! 3-1 0 3-1 0/ *60/1
! /, * /1 5 * /1 5 0 0 0 * /1 5 * /1 5
"
#
# $$
% %! & '
%
(
(!) $
* +
*
, ! -
, .
- $ .
-
/ . 0 1
2 +
2 $
2 1!
2 +
23
4
! ! +
! )
5 ) $
& ..
!
1!
6$$
6$$ .
7 $"
! "#$%#&%# #$&#"%# % #$"#'&# "( "#( # # $' $ # "" & #% ' ) )(( ) $(" %'# $ #'&&
$ ! 0 $ ! 88 $ $ $ $
&' ( ) * &' ( ) * &' ( ) * &' ( ) * &' ( ) * &' ( ) * & ,* ,)2 1-/+ / & ,* ,)2 5 / **- - , ,,0
+ ,-,. ,/ - 0 - , 1-/+ / & ,* ,)2 ,) - , * '4-,. ,/ - 0 - , ,/ - 0 - , 1-/+ / 60*. - 60*. ,)' / -,
,) ' ,. 3 ' ,. 3 - - - ' ,. 3 '4-,.
' ,. 3
"
#
# $$
% %! & '
%
(
(!) $
* +
*
, ! -
, .
- $ .
' 9
- 8& $
/ . 0 1 &$ $ 8 +
2 + : +
2 $
2 1!
2 +
23
4
! ! +
! )
5 ) $
& ..
!
1!
6$$
6$$ .
7 $"
! ""# $" " $ $ # $" $ $ !! $ !# %!! % $ %" "
$ ! 0 $ ! 88 $ $ $ $
+!! & !"# $ % &$ '"& % ! &( ) "* +%( , - . !"# $ % &$ '"& % ! &( ) "* +%( , - . / ! ( &&+ 0 '&$! , '& 1"!2'&( ! &( )
&$ '"& % ' ! $3 +%( , ; ! "!< 0 ' ! $3 +%( , ; ! "!< 0 ' ! $3 +%( , ; ! "!< 0
! &( ) <'00'"& !"= ) <'00'"& !"= ) <'00'"& !"= )
- 9 .
"
#
# $$
% %! & '
%
(
(!) $
* +
*
, ! -
, .
- $ .
-
<
= . 9 0
/ +
/ $
/ 0!
/ +
/1
2
;
! ! +
! )
3 ) $
& ..
!
0!
4$$
4$$ .
5 $"
" 0 4 5 6 4 7 5 468 5 4 99 4 :9 874 55 84 88 478 549 4 6 4 4866 55
*%6 # ! $ $0 *%6 7 ! $ ' 6 *! % ' 0 $3 0 $ 8 ! $ )! $ $ 9 $ :
; 0 ) $ ( 9$ $ 0 $7 ! 7 6 $ $!$ 9 $ 8 ! $ )! $ $ 9 $ :
< ) $ +=$ +3 $ $7 9 $ 0 $! $ 8 ! $ )! $ $ 9 $ :
$ ! 9 $ ! 77 $ $ $ $
* % *0* 1 2
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
( )
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
( )
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
! "" # $ " % & $" $ ' #$ ( $'$ !($ )$!
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
) (/ / (0 )+ )
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/
45 #
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/
45 #
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
27* ( 2 (
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"# 0
!'
2 56#
* + , -& 0
* . , * $'$ - %
. $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"# 0
!'
2 56#
* + , -& 0
* . , * $'$ - %
. $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
.
%
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( ' % ()
' % (
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
) - ! " #
$ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( ' % ()
' % (
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
) - ! " #
$ $
% &
( 2
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
6
( ) + /(
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( 7
' % ()
"#
' % (
!'
/ 45#
' % ()
) * + ,&
' % (
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( 7
' % ()
"#
' % (
!'
/ 45#
' % ()
) * + ,&
' % (
! " #
) - $ $
% &
*+,- . / +,- " - + , " / 0 /
8
(( , 2(
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2
2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 '&
2
0
(
0
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 '&
2
0
(
0
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
8
% )9 : ) ;
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( 7
' % ( ' %
"#
(
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,& ' % (
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( 7
' % ( ' %
"#
(
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,& ' % (
! " #
) - $ $
% &
*+,- . / +,- " - + , " / 0 /
9
(
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -& $ "$ % 1 &$"
% ( $
/"
* . , * $'$ - %
. $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -& $ "$ % 1 &$"
% ( $
/"
* . , * $'$ - %
. $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
+1
. ! - * & ! '
! "# ! "# - '

1 ' " ! 2 3 '
! "# !'
" '& '&
/ / / / /
$
! "# ! "# !!
1 ' " ! 2 3 ' "
% & ! '# ! "# !' !'
" '& '& 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( ' % (
"# ' % (
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
! "# ! "# !!
1 ' " ! 2 3 ' "
% & ! '# ! "# !' !'
" '& '& 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( ' % (
"# ' % (
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
,7 2
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
* .
, * $'$ - %
. $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
* .
, * $'$ - %
. $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
( /$ )
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
$
) -
$ %
&
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
$
) -
$ %
&
(% ( 2 (
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
.
%%: 0 < (% /
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
( 2:( *
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
1 &$" 0
(
1 &$"
1 &$" 0
"#
1 &$"
!' 2
56 #
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
1 &$" 0
(
1 &$"
1 &$" 0
"#
1 &$"
!' 2
56 #
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
6
< /) <
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !' /
/ / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
8
: 2
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2
2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 '&
2 2
(
"#
!'
2
56 #
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 '&
2 2
(
"#
!'
2
56 #
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
8
< ( 2
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( 7
"#=
!'
/ 4 5 #>
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( 7
"#=
!'
/ 4 5 #>
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
*+,- . / +,- " - + , " / 0 /
1! - " 2 3 4 5 &
67 8 /
'! $ 9 2 $ 2 / / / 8 (
9
% ($ 2 (
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
( 0
"# 0
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
( 0
"# 0
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
% ( / ( /
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
% * 72
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
% +( $
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
) - ! " #
$ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
) - ! " #
$ $
% &
% ;12 %
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
* . , * $'$ - %
. $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
* . , * $'$ - %
. $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
.
) + )
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,& ' % (
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,& ' % (
! " #
) - $ $
% &
12
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
6
: : ( //$
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( 7
"# ' % ()' % (
!'
/ 4 5 #>
) * + , &=
! " #
>
) - $ $
& % &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / / '&
( 7
"# ' % ()' % (
!'
/ 4 5 #>
) * + , &=
! " #
>
) - $ $
& % &
*+,- . / +,- " - + , " / 0 /
1! - " 2 : &5 &
63 / 8 / -
'! $ 9 2 $ 2 / / / 8 (
8
7*
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !' . '

" '& '& 2
2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !' !! "
" '& '& 2 !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
. $
* .
. $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !' !! "
" '& '& 2 !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
. $
* .
. $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
8
/ ( )
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !' /
/ / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' / !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' / !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
) - $ $
% &
9
:: %
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -& 0
/
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -& 0
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
% ) :
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& / !' /
/ / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& / !' !' 2 3 '
/ / / '& '&
(
"#
!'
/
45 #
) * + ,&
! " #
$
) -
$ %
&
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& / !' !' 2 3 '
/ / / '& '&
(
"#
!'
/
45 #
) * + ,&
! " #
$
) -
$ %
&
2 72
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" '& '& !'
2 2 2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"# 0
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 2 '&
(
"# 0
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
: / / (
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& !'
/ / / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 '
/ / / / '& '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
$
) -
$ %
&
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& !' !' 2 3 '
/ / / / '& '&
(
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
$
) -
$ %
&
7 2 :( *
/ ! . + & ! '
1 ' ! "# " 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# . '

" ! '& '& !' 2 2
2 2 2
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" ! '& '& !' 2 !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
$ /
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " 3 4 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" ! '& '& !' 2 !' 3 4 ' '&
2 2 2 '&
(
"#
!'
2 56#
* + , -&
, * $'$ - %
* . . $ . $ &*
/$ "
*$ (#$ " "* + *$ $ " $ %% *$ $ $" $&$
.
2 )+
. ! - * & ! '
1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# - '

" '& '& / !'
/ / / /
$
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& / !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / '&
' % ()
(
' % (
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
$
) -
$ %
&
$ .
% & ! '# 1 ' ! "# " ! 2 3 ' ! "# ! "# !! "
" '& '& / !' !' 2 3 ' '&
/ / / '&
' % ()
(
' % (
"#
!'
/ 45#
) * + ,&
! " #
$
) -
$ %
&
Appendix-A
1924-1925
CIVIL JUSTICE COMMITTEE
X-1
2(3). The Governor General in Council has accordingly decided to appoint a
Committee :-
To enquire into the operation and effects of the substantive and adjective
law, whether enacted or otherwise, followed by the courts in India in the
disposal of civil suits, appeals, applications for revision and other civil
litigation (including the execution of decrees and orders), with a view to
ascertaining and reporting whether any and what changes and improvements
should be made so as to provide for the more speedy, economical and
satisfactory despatch of the business transacted in the courts and for the more
speedy, economical and satisfactory execution of the processes issued by the
courts. [Para 2(3), Page No. viii]
13. An examination has been made of the records of a large number of decided and
undecided suits throughout India. We have arrived at the conclusion that in Bengal
parties are not likely to obtain a decision in a contested suit of value involving a
reasonable amount of difficulty in less than two and a half years. In Bombay and Sind
and in Madras the period would be about two years, and in Bihar and Orissa, Agra and
Oudh, the Punjab and the Central Provinces it would be about one year or a little less. In
Burma and the North-West Frontier Province the period would be even shorter.
14. In Bengal and Assam, Bombay and Sind, and Madras the arrears in this class of
suit are either unmanageable or approach the unmanageable. It is true that these suits
represent a small proportion of the total number, but it may be estimated safely that the
interests of more than one hundred thousand persons are involved in them, and their
decision occupies the major part of the time of several hundred courts.
15. Improvement in methods is of vital importance. We can suggest improvements,

but we are convinced that, where the arrears are unmanageable, improvement in methods
can only palliate. It cannot cure. It is patent that, when a court has pending work which
will occupy it for something between one year and two years or even more, new-comers
have faint hopes. When there is enough work pending at the end of 1924 to occupy a
subordinate judge till the end of 1926, difficult contested suits instituted in 1925 have no
chance of being decided before 1927. Whatever be the improvement in methods,
improvement in methods alone cannot be expected in such circumstances to produce a
satisfactory result even in a decade.
X-2
16. Until this burden is removed or appreciably lightened, the prospect is
gloomy. The existence of such arrears presents further a serious obstacle to improvement
in methods. It may well be asked Is there much tangible advantage gained by effecting
an improvement in process serving, pleadings, handling of issues and expediting to the
stage when parties are in a position to call their evidence, when it is a certainty that, as
soon as that stage is reached, the hearing must be adjourned to a date eighteen months
ahead or later, to take its place, in its turn, for evidence, arguments and decision? Unless
a court can start with a reasonably clean slate, improvement of methods is likely to
tantalise only. The existence of a mass of arrears takes the heart out of a presiding
officer. He can hardly be expected to take a strong interest in preliminaries, when he
knows that the hearing of the evidence and the decision will not be by him but by his
successor after his transfer. So long as such arrears exist, there is a temptation to which
many presiding officers succumb, to hold back the heavier contested suits and devote
attention to the lighter ones. The out-turn of decisions in contested suits is thus
maintained somewhere near the figure of the institutions, while the really difficult work
is pushed further into the back-ground.
[Para 13-16, Page Nos. 21-22]
X-3
Appendix-B
1949
CHIEF JUSTICE OF
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT'S REPORT AS
SOURCED FROM 14TH REPORT OF THE LAW
COMMISSION OF INDIA, (Vol.I)
ON
REFORM OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
X-4
Inadequacy of
The Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court in dealing with the
Judicial
Personnel in
aspect of inadequacy of judicial personnel has observed:--
West Bengal
There is undoubtedly great congestion of work in the subordinate

courts and particularly at Alipore. Only a very small part of that
congestion might have been avoided, but the bulk of it was bound to
occur and it will continue to persist so long as the numerical strength of
the subordinate judiciary is not adequately increased. Very recently the
High Court, after a careful consideration of the actual needs,
recommended that the strength of the Higher Judicial Service, including
the deputation posts comprised therein, should be raised from 36 to 62,
but the State Government agreed to increase it by only 9
members.....................
The learned Chief Justice went on to observe that in view of the

increasing pressure of judicial work, it has been found impossible to
spare judges for inspection work. He further stated:-
'The cadre of each of the two Services '(The West Bengal Higher
Judicial Service and the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial)' includes a
number of deputation posts which are posts outside the judicial line
proper. The number of deputation reserve or posts in the Higher Judicial
Service is 10, that of Subordinate Judges 9 and that of Munsifs 18. The
necessity of supplying officers for these posts, which are not allowed to
remain vacant, naturally reduces the number of officers available for
judicial work in the courts. If the full complement of Munsifs required
for manning all the Munsifs courts had been provided and similarly the
strength of the cadre of District and Additional District Judges as also of
the Subordinate Judges maintained at the required strength, the system
might have been worked without any difficulty being caused to the
Courts. As matters stand, however, till very recently, the numerical
strength of the Munsifs was much less than the minimum required for
officering all the courts, and when I came to office I found that as many
as 13 courts of Munsifs had been lying vacant without any presiding
X-5
officer for 8 or 9 years............. What happens and has been happening
for a long time is this. The posts of deputation reserve, included in the
cadre of the Higher Judicial Service but outside the judicial line proper,
are kept continuously filled and the necessary personnel have to be
supplied. But the higher posts in the judicial line, such as District and
Additional District Judges, cannot also be kept vacant and, therefore,
since the remainder of the permanent members of the Higher Judicial
Service are not sufficient to fill all the posts, Subordinate Judges...........
Of 34 confirmed Subordinate Judges, as many as 23 are now acting in
the Higher Judicial Service. The promotion of so many Subordinate
Judges for acting appointments in the Higher Judicial Service
necessarily creates vacancies in the ranks of the Subordinate Judges and
those have to be filled by promoting Munsifs. The drain thus caused on
the body of Munsifs cannot be made good by promotion, because there
is no lower rank of judicial officers from which promotions can be made
and therefore some of the courts of Munsifs have to lie vacant. The
recruitment of judicial officers in this State lies entirely in the hands of
the State Government. On account of the Court's insistent demands
pressed on the State Government during the last few years, they have
now recruited a fairly large number of Munsifs, although the full
complement has not yet been reached. But the officers thus made
available are still very junior officers, either officers of only a few years'
experience, or probationers who have not yet completed their training.
The accelerated promotion of a large number of Subordinate Judges
which has been forced by the circumstances has been responsible for the
depletion of officers of requisite standing, available for work either as
Subordinate Judges or as Munsifs. Munsifs of a few years' standing are
now acting as Subordinate Judges; and for the 22 stations which require
senior Munsifs with a higher pecuniary jurisdiction, it has been possible
to provide only 16. As the whole pressure of deputations to reserve
posts and promotions to the Higher Judicial Service or to the ranks of
Subordinate Judges in the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) has
fallen on the ranks of Munsifs, the Court has been compelled by sheer
necessity to withdraw probationers from their training and post them in
X-6
courts for judicial work, so that as few courts may remain unprovided
with presiding officers as possible. Of the Munsifs recruited in 1955,
none has completed his training, but all are sitting in court except one
who has been reposted to resume his training. Of the 15 recruited in
1956, 11 have had to be withdrawn to sit in Court after undergoing
training for periods ranging between 7 days and a little over 5 months
and only 4 could be kept under training, one of whom again has had to
be re-posted to sit in Court in a temporary leave vacancy. The choice
before the Court was either to keep the courts of Munsifs vacant or to
appoint probationers to preside over them. The Court has chosen the
latter alternative as the lesser of the two evils, because to leave about 15
courts without any presiding officer would create a very serious
situation.
............The State Government again, are frequently proposing that
some member or members of the Judicial Service should be spared for
some special post or duty. In the case of the members of the Higher
Judicial Service occupying the rank of District Judges, they do not even
require the concurrence of the Court. The manner in which requests for
members of the Judicial Service are made for the purpose of their
appointment in special posts outside the cadre tends to create the
impression, which I hope is unfounded that the needs of the courts are
regarded as only of a secondary importance and it is thought that they
can be properly left to carry on with such officers as may remain to
them after the needs of other departments have been met.
In conclusion, he observed--
The one measure which is called for more urgently than any other
and which will enable the High Court to fill in vacancies in the
subordinate courts is the increase of the cadre of both the Higher
Judicial Service and the West Bengal Civil Service (Judicial) to the
requisite numerical strength, as recommended by the Court. As matters
stand now, a fairly large number of the courts of the lowest jurisdiction,
viz., the courts of the Munsifs are still lying vacant and a fairly large
number of courts of both Subordinate Judges and District Judges are, in
X-7
the majority of cases, being held by persons promoted to those posts
before they had acquired the requisite length of experience and, in
certain cases, by persons whose qualifications might have been more
adequate. The state of things cannot be remedied, unless the High Court
is provided with the full complement of officers of such strength that not
only can it keep all the posts filled, but it can also accord promotion to
the higher posts only to persons who have acquired the requisite
experience and have given evidence of the requisite qualifications. The
necessity of obtaining the consent of the Executive for the creation of
Additional Judgeships does not cause any appreciable delay in this State
because, where there is congestion of work, it has not been found
difficult to persuade the Executive that Additional Judgeships are
required. But it is no use creating Additional Judgeships if no officers
are available for filling them by. The real difficulty is shortage of
personnel and the Court finds it useless to recommend the creation of
Additional Judgeships, as it knows perfectly well that no officers can be
found to preside over additional courts.
[Para 20, Page Nos. 155-158]
X-8
Appendix-C
1952
JUDICIAL REFORMS COMMITTEE

UTTAR PRADESH
AS SOURCED FROM 14TH REPORT OF THE LAW
COMMISSION OF INDIA, (Vol.I) ON
REFORM OF JUDICIAL ADMINSTRATION
X-9
Observations 18. In Uttar Pradesh, the problem of inadequacy of strength received
of U.P.
Judicial specific attention during the enquiry conducted by the Judicial Reforms
Reforms
Committee. Committee. The Committee observed :-
As we will show hereafter, the civil judiciary is under-manned
and consequently over-worked. Where a Munsif previously
handled a file of about 200 cases, he has now to deal with a file
of even 700 or 800 cases. The condition in the courts of Civil
Judges is no better.1
In dealing with the strength of the judiciary, the Committee stated:--
We are of the opinion that considering the amount and nature of work that is
coming before the civil courts, the cadre should be substantially increased as
early as possible if the arrears, which are accumulating from day to day, are
to be cleared off. It may also be mentioned that besides this temporary phase
of accumulated arrears, the work has gone up both in volume and complexity
and the old cadre of civil judicial officers will not be sufficient to deal with
the volume of work now coming before the civil courts. What is required,
therefore, is a permanent increase in cadre and also some increase for the
time being to deal with the accumulated arrears. Civil work has been falling
into arrears year by year since 1942. This is due to the fact that after the
entry of Japan into the War and the enactment of a large number of new laws
creating new offences, for example, under the Defence of India Act and
Rules, criminal work to be done by Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions
Judges increased enormously with the result that these officers who are also
District Judges and Civil Judges, were unable to give sufficient time for the
disposal of civil work. This is clearly reflected in the figures of pending file
of regular suits and civil appeals in the courts of District Judges and Civil
Judges ..................
It will be seen, therefore, that the number of pending suits in 1949 was
almost double of the number pending in 1942. Same is the case with
appeals. The reason for this is that Civil Judges and District Judges have
been busy in disposing of criminal work, with the result that many Civil
Courts remained lying vacant and many a time Civil Judges were working
as Assistant Sessions Judges without doing any appreciable civil work. The
cadre could not unfortunately be increased to cope with the increased
criminal work thrown on Sessions and Assistant Sessions Judges in the last
five years. Similarly the institution, which was just above 4,100 in 1942,
has gradually increased and was just above 5,900 in 1949, i.e. an increase of
about 40 per cent in civil suits. Institution of appeals also rose from just
over 2,200 in 1942 to over 4,300 in 1945, but then it came down to 2,900 in
1949. Even so, it is 25 per cent above the figure for 1942. The reason why
the number of appeals has come down since 1945 is that a number of
Munsifs have had to be kept vacant and additional Munsifs' Courts could
not be created and the Munsifs did thus not dispose of as much work as they
should have done. Similarly, if we compare the figures in the Munsifs'
Courts, the state of affairs will be found to be the same. 2
1 Report of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Reforms Committee (1950-1951), Page No. 15.
2 Report of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Reforms Committee/1950-1951 Page No. 21-22
X-10
Proceeding further, the Committee stated :-
In recent times there has been a great increase in the duration of cases.
This increase in duration in subordinate courts started some time after the
beginning of the last war due, to a large extent, to the fact that very many
new laws were introduced leading to new types of cases both in the criminal
and civil courts. Then came the transfer of power in 1947 leading to a
shortage in the cadre of officers required for the disposal of judicial work,
the civil, criminal and revenue. There was also an increase in crimes and
criminal work due to the troubles following in the wake of the partition of
1947. This led to a sudden appointment of a large number of young men to
make up the deficiency in the cadre with the natural result that the quality of
the officers also deteriorated to a certain extent. It has resulted in a good
percentage of the cadre consisting of inexperienced officers of less than five
years' standing. Over and above this, there is no doubt that so far as the
administration of civil justice is concerned, there is an actual shortage of
officers to carry on the day-to-day work. In old days a pending file of 200
was considered sufficient for a Munsif and whenever a file went above 300
or so, an Additional Munsif was provided. In those circumstances, it was
expected that a suit would not last for more than six months to a year in the
Munsif's court. At the present time, a pending file of 300 to 400 is not
considered too high for a Munsif while some of them have a pending file of
even 700 to 800. In the case of Civil Judges 50 used to be a normal file but
now it is generally over 100 and sometimes even 200 to 400. No option is,
therefore, left to the officer who fixes dates sometimes six months ahead and
sometimes dates have to be fixed only for the fixation of dates.
Adjournments cannot be avoided in this state of circumstances. Then if the
file of an officer is overburdened, he has to deal with interlocutary matters in
a large number of cases every day which occupies most of his time. The
cases also become old and it is common experience that with the duration of
the case parties procure more voluminous evidence and create greater
complexities. It is, therefore, imperatively necessary before the entire
administration of justice collapses because of the tremendous weight of
arrears which cannot be cleared off, to increase the cadre of judicial officers
considerably to dispose of the work lying unattended.2
2 Ibid, Page No. 127.
X-11
Shri T.R. Misra, a former Judge of the Allahabad High Court who was a Member
of the Committee made some important observations in his note of dissent :-
There is an undoubted shortage of Judges and Magistrates and there is
urgent need of making this shortage good as soon as possible. There
should be one Munsif for a file of 250 Munsiff's suits and one Civil Judge
for a file of 75 or 80 Civil Judge's regular suits. If Civil Judges are
required to do criminal work also, extra officers should be provided...... As
far as I am aware the work in most of the courts is much too heavy for a
single officer to cope with expeditiously and satisfactorily. Most of the
Munsifs have a pending file of 500 to 1000 regular suits which means the
work of two to four Munsifs. The criminal work with District and Sessions
Judges and Civil and Assistant Sessions Judges has also considerably
increased. Partly owing to this increase and partly owing to the faulty
manner in which it is arranged civil work is greatly dislocated causing
much avoidable trouble, expense and delay to the parties. So long as this
heavy burden is not removed or appreciably lightened by the appointment
of more officers, Government's object to give cheap and speedy justice to
the people of the State cannot be achieved. 3
[Para No. 18, Page Nos. 150-152]
Inadequacy of 19. ...The High Court of Allahabad has made a reference to the
Judicial
Personnel Government of Uttar Pradesh emphasising the need for a considerable
In
Uttar Pradesh increase in the strength of the judicial officers.
[Para No. 19, Page No. 152]
..The High Court has summed up the position as under :-
The existing strength of judicial officers in a district is
sufficient to cope with the institution in only nine to ten
districts; all other districts require additional help so that the
disposal should not be less than the institution. Institution of
civil suits is decreasing, largely as the result of a change in the
law on account of which suits which were previously
instituted in civil courts are now instituted in revenue courts;
consequently, the number of existing officers in more districts
may suffice to cope with the institution in future. If no regard
is to be had to this decrease in the institution (which has just
now begun to be felt), it seems that about three hundred and
fifty officers would be required to cope with the institution as
against the existing number of two hundred and sixty-five
officers; in other words, about eighty five officers more would
be required to prevent the arrears increasing. With the
expected decrease in the institution the number would be less,
but some additional officers will be required................
In all other districts one officer or more would be

required to clear off the arrears. No less than two hundred and
seventy five officers would be required if the existing arrears
were to be cleared off in one year; if they were to be cleared
off in two years, the number of officers required would be one
3 Report of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Reforms Committee (1950-51), Page No. 127.
X-12
hundred and thirty seven...............
The largest number of officers required is in the court

of Munsifs because the heaviest arrears are in suits triable by a
Munsif. Roughly about half the number of officers required to
clear off the arrears should be Munsifs, the number of civil
judges required would be about half that of Munsifs and the
number of Civil and Sessions Judges, about one-third.
The High Court proceeds to state

The Court takes a very grave view of the delay with which cases are
disposed of in civil courts and sessions courts. It reflects no credit on the
administration of Justice that sessions trials (barring those for capital
offences) take about a year and a half for disposal, civil suits take more
than a year for disposal in the trial court, civil appeals are not disposed of
for two and three years and criminal appeals also take a long time for
disposal. The delay in the disposal of a suit and a civil appeal means that
the aggrieved party is left without any redress for many years. In many
cases it would be hardly worthwhile filing a suit in a civil court for redress.
If the administration of civil justice is not to be reduced to a farce, urgent
measures are necessary to prevent the delay. The judicial officers are as a
rule making the fullest use of their time and the Court does not think they
can dispose of substantially more work. They are generally punctual in
attendance and barring a few isolated cases they do full day's work
everyday. The accumulation of arrears is due mostly to inadequacy of
officers of all grades and the Court would urge Government to take into
immediate consideration the question of increasing the number of officers
of all grades.
The Court further observed :-

There have been occasions when there has been considerable delay in the
consideration of the proposal for filling up vacancies in the Lower Judicial
Service and the Higher Judicial Service. Great delay has occurred in the
past. For instance the Public Service Commission held examination for
recruitment of officers in the Lower Judicial Service in January, 1956, but
Government orders for their appointment were received in June 1957. The
Court proposed on 28th November, 1955, the filling up of vacancies in the
Higher Judicial Service, Government sanctioned the number of officers to
be recruited on 20th April, 1956 the Selection Committee sent the list of
candidates to Government on 17th July, 1956, and it was not until on 27 th
April, 1957, that Government issued orders for their appointment and
posting. The Court wrote on 14th May, 1957, for re-employment of retired
District and Sessions Judges and Government's approval was received on
26th July, 1957.
[Para No. 19, Page Nos. 153-155]
X-13
Appendix-D
1958
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA
FOURTEENTH REPORT
REFORM OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

(Vol.I)
X-14
8ADEQUACY OF JUDICIAL STRENGTH
1. Laws' delays are proverbial and perhaps, as old as law itself. One reads
Laws, delays-
An ancient of them in Herodotus. Complaints about them are at present being loudly
complaint
voiced in Europe and America.
2. In an organized society, it is in the interest of the citizens as well as the
Importance of State that the disputes which go to the law courts for adjudication, should
speedy
disposal of be decided within a reasonable time, so as to give certainty and definiteness to
cases
rights and obligations. If the course of a trial is inordinately long, the chances of
miscarriage of justice and the expenses of litigation increase alike. Delays
result in witnesses being unable to testify correctly to events which may have
faded in their memory, and sometimes in their being won over by the opponent.
Relief granted to an aggrieved party after a lapse of years loses much of its
value and sometimes becomes totally infructuous. Such is the basis of the
ubiquity of the comment Justice delayed is justice denied.
[Para Nos. 1 & 2, Page No. 129 ]
4. The final adjudication of the dispute must, therefore, involve a certain lapse
Time lag of time from the date of its being brought before the court. The time so taken
inevitable
will depend on several factors, such as, the nature of the suit, the number of
parties and witnesses, the competence of the presiding officers and so forth. We
must not forget that however similar the facts of two cases may be, every case
is entitled to individual attention for its satisfactory disposal and any mass
production methods or assembly line techniques in the disposal of cases
would be utterly incompatible with a sound administration of justice.
Nevertheless, taking into account the normal time required for its various
Possible to stages, a proceeding should be capable of being disposed of in a given length of
lay down
time limits time. Broadly speaking, therefore, we think, it should be possible to lay down
limits of time within which judicial proceedings of various classes should, if our
system of administration of justice is to function with efficiency, be normally
brought to a conclusion in the courts in which they are instituted.
X-15
5. Having regard to the general course of judicial work in civil courts, normally, a
Time limits regular contested suit in a munsif's court should be disposed of within a year, and
in civil cases
in a subordinate judge's court within one year and a half; small cause suits should
be disposed of within three months, regular contested appeals in district courts
within six months and miscellaneous civil appeals in such courts, within three
months.
6. We are of the view, that criminal cases in magisterial courts should be disposed
In criminal of within two months and committal proceedings within six weeks from the date
cases
of the apprehension of the accused. Sessions cases should be disposed of within
three months from the date of the apprehension of the accused. Criminal appeals
and revisions should be disposed of within two months in the court of session and
within six months in the High Court from the date of their institution.
7. No doubt there is some degree of arbitrariness about the standards we suggest

Standards
arbitrary but, in the nature of things, that cannot be avoided. It may, however, be stated
that the standards laid down by us are in a way based on actual experience as
these standards have been achieved in some of the States.
8. We give below a comparative Table showing the average duration of various

Figures of
average kinds of contested matters in different classes of courts in the various States in
duration India, during the years 1953 to 1955. We have not received the administration
reports for the year 1955 from all the States, but wherever possible, we have
made use of the figures made available to us.
[Para Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8, Page No. 130]
10. Having suggested the standard time limits within which various classes of
What are judicial proceedings should be concluded in the courts of the first instance, we
arrears
may proceed to define what should be regarded as arrears. We think that all
matters which have not been disposed of within the time limits prescribed should
be treated as arrears. Thus, more than one year old suits in munsifs courts,
more than one and a half year old suits in subordinate judges' courts, small cause
suits more than three months' old, civil appeals more than six months' old and
miscellaneous appeals more than three months old, should be deemed to be
arrears........... [Para Nos. 10, Page No. 136]
X-16
Tableshowingaveragedurationindaysofcontestedsuitsandcontestedcivilappealsinthecourtsofmunsifs,subordinatejudgesanddistrictjudgesinthevariousStatesfortheyear195355
Nameof Fulltrialcasesin Fulltrialcasesincourtsof FulltrialcasesinDistrictJudges ContestedappealsbeforeSub ContestedappealsbeforeDistrict

theState munsif'scourts SubordinateJudges courts Judges Judges
1953 1954 1955 1953 1954 1955 1953 1954 1955 1953 1954 1955 1953 1954 1955
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Andhra O.S.392 O.S.365 O.S.391 O.S.578 O.S.620 O.S.523 463 386 500 211 244 279 410 424 315
S.C.139 S.C.131 S.C.147 S.C.138 S.C.227 S.C.213
Assam O.S.858 O.S.490 .. O.S.739 O.S.370 .. .. 126 .. 381 537 .. 582 310 ..
S.C.333 S.C.215 ..
Bihar O.S.498 O.S.504 .. O.S.713 O.S.763 .. 877 1114 .. 277 349 .. 534 658 ..
S.C.182 S.C.189 .. S.C.222 S.C.211 ..
Bombay O.S.662 O.S.559 O.S.448 .. .. .. 422 386 436 .. .. .. 436 518 446
(a) S.C.254 S.C.253 S.C.254
Kerala O.S.856 O.S.747 O.S.731 .. .. O.S.801 1064 1039 1048 .. .. 467 291 339 329
(Travancor S.C.191 S.C.173 S.C.251 S.C.70
eCochin)
Madras O.S.421 O.S.491 O.S.721 O.S.601 O.S.725 703 345 437 460 245 394 381 340 651 391
S.C.139 S.C.137 S.C.187 S.C.176 S.C.178 312
Madhya O.S.321 O.S.336 .. 406 522 .. 562 588 .. .. .. .. 251 249 ..
Pradesh S.C.234 S.C.243 ..
Orissa O.S.489 O.S.561 O.S.597 O.S.566 O.S.678 O.S.754 869 816 779 469 581 645 612 628 656
S.C.170 S.C.232 S.C.252 S.C.306 S.C.377 S.C.359
Punjab .. .. .. O.S.285 O.S.238 O.S.224 301 195 252 144 131 136 281 214
S.C.86 S.C.82 S.C.85
Uttar O.S.477 O.S.565 O.S.537 O.S.502 O.S.541 O.S.618 417 552 708 277 305 369 303 308 295
Pradesh S.C.154 S.C.160 S.C.154
West O.S.416 O.S.423 O.S.399 O.S.530 O.S.630 O.S.699 438 483 306 184 154 207 146 200 261
Bengal S.C.177 S.C.178 S.C.175 S.C.193 S.C.189 S.C.272
(a)InBombay,thefiguresofaveragedurationoffulltrialcasesrelatetoboththecourtsofciviljudges,seniordivisionandciviljudges,juniordivision.
NOTEThefiguresgiveninthisTablehavebeentakenfromthereportsontheadministrationofjusticepublishedbytheHighCourtsofthevariousStates.
X-17
ComparativeTableshowingtheinstitution,disposalandpendencyofcertaincategoriesofcivilproceedingsinthecourtsofmunsifsorofficers
ofcorrespondingcadreinthevariousStatesfortheyear1956.
Nameof No.of CivilSuits SmallCauseSuits

theState Officers
Pendingat Institution Disposals Balance Pendingat Institution Disposals Balance
thebeginning the
oftheyear beginningof
Below Above Belowone Aboveoneyear
theyear
one oneyear year
year
1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 1112
Andhra 57 19084 23100 23123 123818294 7894 38643 38640 7543354
Assam 16 6264 9813 9983 48151136 .. .. .. ....
Bihar 116 46620 71945 83796 286397240 4987 12137 12696 525690
Bombay N.A.
Madhya 152 18141 28807 28322 133205306 634 2420 2466 55533
Pradesh
Madras 72 20497 34602 37067 160873748 24948 76364 87482 13775447
Mysore(A) .. 8488 19187 19802 7406467 849 4354 4388 8123
Orissa 37 8957 7828 8412 50503940 1096 2863 3026 94850
Punjab N.A.
Rajasthan 62 12551 25299 24132 106253093 647 2161 2274 51321
Travancore 53 31227 27721 28535 935921054 3361 11477 11224 3182432
Cochin
(Kerala)(B)
Uttar 140 126800 139602 146988 5919160223 6111 16076 17806 27201658
Pradesh
WestBengal 87 53664 106899 113151 3370917840 3706 10007 9996 3396470
NOTEThefiguresgiveninthisTablehavebeenfurnishedtousbytheHighCourtsoftherespectiveStates.
[PageNo.137]
X-18
ComparativeTableshowingtheinstitution,disposalandpendencyofcertaincategoriesofcivilproceedingsinthecourtsofmunsifsorofficers
ofcorrespondingcadreinthevariousStatesfortheyear1956contd.
Nameofthe MiscellaneousCivilCasesandPetitions
State
Pendingatthe Institution Disposals Balance Remarks
beginningofthe
year Belowone Aboveone
year year
1 13 14 15 1617 18
Andhra 22075 166605 167433 189752272
Assam 876 2022 1988 83673
Bihar 6827 25386 17067 6006110
Bombay N.A.
Madhya 6519 14788 14959 52631085
Pradesh
Madras 10537 326014 296872 378541825
Mysore(A) 1502 3944 3879 151552 (A)ThefiguresshownagainsttheStaterelatetotheofficialyear195556
Orissa 1442 5306 5169 2380472
Punjab
Rajasthan 1956 4640 4381 1842373
Travancore 12515 567518 567402 11764867 (B)Do.
Cochin
(Kerala)(B)
UttarPradesh 16165 39072 42280 117791178
WestBengal 8769 17832 17458 77871726
[PageNo.138]
X-19
ComparativeTableshowingtheinstitution,disposalandpendencyofcertaincategoriesofcivilproceedingsinthecourts
ofsubordinatejudgesorofficersofcorrespondingcadreinthevariousStatesintheyear1956
Nameof No.of CivilSuits SmallCauseSuits MiscellaneousCivilCases&Petitions

theState Officer
s
Pending Institut Disposals Balance Pendingat Institution Disposals Balance Pendingat Institution Disposals Balance
atthe ion the thebeginning
Belowone Aboveone
beginni beginning oftheyear
Below Above Below Above year year
ngof oftheyear
oneyear oneyear oneyear one
theyear
year
1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 1112 13 14 15 1617
Andhra 38 3302 2287 2491 15481640 2508 8534 8170 2669223 11145 54109 53364 102931597
Pradesh
Assam 8 1435 718 708 584644 .. .. .. .... 283 498 463 18622
Bihar 37 4560 269 3345 20481915 1887 4120 4145 1754137 1409 3423 3306 1093170
Bombay
Madhya 152 18141 28807 28322 133205306 634 2420 2466 55533 6519 14788 14959 52631085
Pradesh
Madras 30 2907 1815 2200 12061101 2345 5963 6585 1683121 8654 53686 54424 62941622
Mysore(A) 780 804 849 543192 1148 5360 5181 131710 719 1636 1587 67890
Orissa 14 1227 590 1034 447642 770 1572 1553 66537 560 1406 1427 580243
Punjab
Rajasthan 33 7330 8655 8077 45733335 3961 7713 7966 2878830 1279 2354 2346 950337
Travancore 6 377 1077 813 336265 22 170 170 211 93 10459 10177 29877
Cochin
(Kerala)
(B)
Uttar 120 5779 5427 6254 20162936 4780 15018 14873 4234691 3893 9726 9992 1858769
Pradesh
West 36 6723 3224 3291 27814496 1307 2909 2465 1786189 1499 3926 3591 1614278
Bengal
NOTEThefiguresgiveninthisTablehavebeenfurnishedbytheHighCourtsoftherespectiveStates.
[PageNo.139]
X-20
ComparativeTableshowingtheinstitution,disposalandpendencyofcertaincategoriesofcivilproceedingsinthecourtsofmunsifsorofficersof
correspondingcadreinthevariousStatesintheyear1956
CivilAppeals CivilMiscellaneousAppeals
Nameof Pendingat Institution Disposals Balance Pendingatthe Institution Disposals Balance Remarks
theState the beginningof
Belowone Aboveone
beginningof theyear
Below Aboveone year year
theyear
oneyear year
1 18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 2627 28
Andhra 2257 1953 2062 1822526 1025 N.A. 695 29139
Pradesh
Assam 713 727 282 613319 100 231 152 1053
Bihar 1757 916 3330 10031071 124 214 646 14910
Bombay
Madhya .. .. .. .... .. .. .. ....
Pradesh
Madras 1635 956 2209 1461454 249 616 652 25037
Mysore 1401 1795 1591 1390215 125 263 273 1141 (A)ThefiguresshownagainsttheStaterelateto
(A) theofficialyear195556
Orissa 436 455 657 194165 39 64 69 382
Punjab
Rajasthan 257 497 606 8662 74 103 144 258
Travancor .. 1499 760 265474 .. .. 46 44 (B)Do.
eCochin
(Kerala)
(B)
Uttar 12172 16758 15331 63677232 1071 1792 1781 731351
Pradesh
West 2429 175 2766 9621673 332 79 1739 42899
Bengal
[PageNo.140]
X-21
Tableshowingthedifferentclassesofcivilproceedingsinstituted,disposedofandpendinginthecourtsofthedistrictJudgesinthevariousStatesintheyear1956.
CivilSuits MiscellaneousCivilCasesandPetitions
Nameofthe No.of Pendingat Institution Disposals Balance Pendingatthe Institution Disposals Balance Remarks
State Officers the beginningof
Belowoneyear Aboveoneyear
beginningof theyear
Belowone Aboveone
theyear
year year
Andhra 33 720 756 636 562278 3397 13595 13183 3477332
Pradesh
Assam 7 31 37 25 2411 143 284 159 2101
Bihar 14 87 91 52 6356 1865 2875 2548 1619499
Bombay
Madhya 37(A) 816 638 541 315598 1923 3222 3509 1036600 (A)IncludesAdd.Dt.Judges
Pradesh
Madras 15 146 144 132 9947 1499 10896 11094 121883
Mysore(x) 394 232 169 198259 394 729 664 350107
Orissa 10 56 67 36 5010 331 480 392 203185
Punjab
Rajasthan 16 308 135 127 95221 597 1308 1218 507180
Travancore 22(B) 5042 2004 2333 12213492 7785 114609 114421 7563410 (B)IncludesAdd.Dt.Judges.
Cochin
(Kerala)(y)
Uttar 39 359 974 807 836190 1886 6827 6620 1695398
Pradesh
WestBengal 30 312 643 245 447136 4160 6077 4246 41281839
[PageNo.141]
X-22
Tableshowingthedifferentclassesofcivilproceedingsinstituted,disposedofandpendinginthecourtsofthedistrictJudgesinthevariousStatesin
theyear1956.
CivilAppeals CivilMiscellaneousAppeals
Nameofthe Pendingatthe Institution Disposals Balance Pendingatthe Institution Disposals Balance

State beginningofthe beginningof Remarks
year theyear Belowone Aboveone
Belowone Aboveone
year year
year year
AndhraPradesh 1912 3596 3245 1889374 952 N.A. 568 3813 (x)Fortheofficialyear195556.
Assam 304 263 214 160127 55 121 102 683 InAdditiontoD.Js.Mysoretriedsmallcausesuitsthedetailsof
whicharegivenbelow:
Bihar 3533 4178 2009 2455534 680 1489 967 64055
Bombay
MadhyaPradesh 4979 4059 3682 27082648 944 1286 1229 707294 Pendingatthebeginningoftheyear..109
Madras 1799 2979 1909 1393166 186 518 398 22613 Instituted..97
Mysore(x) 457 213 156 391123 58 126 102 811 Disposal..206
Orissa 1106 906 823 662469 175 413 324 23824 (y)Figuresrelatetotheofficialyear195556.
Punjab
Rajasthan 1684 2729 2487 1477449 415 805 748 372100 Inaddition,theD.Js.ofTravancoreCochindisposedofsmallcause
suitsthedetailsofwhicharegivenbelow:
Travancore 7661 5286 6856 31922899 979 1143 681271
Cochin(Kerala)
(y)
UttarPradesh 11683 15300 13660 88624461 1474 3118 2736 1486370 Pendingatthebeginningoftheyear..8
Instituted..9
Disposedof..14
Balance..3
WestBengal 3218 4242 1006 29121002 1238 4987 1106 3117182
[PageNo.142]
X-23
ComparativeTableshowingtheinstitution,disposalandpendencyofvariouscategoriesofcriminalproceedingsintheCourtsofSessioninthevariousStatesintheyear1956
Name No.of SessionsCases CriminalAppeals CriminalRevisions
ofthe Officers
State
Pending Instit Disposal Balance Pendingat Institution Disposals Balance Pendingatthe Institution Disposa Balance
atthe ution s the beginningof ls
Below Above
beginnin beginning theyear
Below Abov Below Above one oneyear
gofthe oftheyear
one eone one one year
year
year year year year
Assam 13 235 490 506 2146 378 1079 1000 451.. 127 324 335 110..
Bihar 85 658 1702 1725 62213 1592 5481 5454 155267 NotShown 2719 3434 106612
Bombay
Travanc 22 73 439 370 142.. 97 462 402 157.. 174 141 99 ....
ore
Cochin
(Kerala)
Madhya 79 561 1412 1322 62229 1357 5512 5289 1359224 1241 3495 3355 1238143
Pradesh
Madras 34 231 1499 1556 215(G) 228 6413 4061 236(G) N.A. 228 232 21(G)
Mysore 10 33 171 158 46.. 184 634 624 194.. 47 119 111 55..
Orissa 19 168 428 401 1905 246 1514 1165 5887 47 279 229 27..
Punjab
Rajasth 37 363 1207 1110 43525 513 2645 2563 58015 389 2691 1520 43624
an
Uttar 169 3584 8919 8250 3593660 8450 23845 22970 79651360 1909 4994 5053 1591259
Pradesh E F E
West 59 149 969 918 1964 477 4954 1763 546.. .. 1641 1405 236..
Bengal
(E)IncludesCasespendingforoveroneyear.
(F)Includescasespendingatthebeginningoftheyear.
(G)WehavebeeninformedthatinMadrasnoCriminalproceedingofanycategorywouldbependingforoverayear.ThediscrepancyinthefiguresrelatingtoSessionsCasescannotbe
explained.ThediscrepancyinthefiguresrelatingtocriminalappealsisduetothefactthatthedisposalsbytransfertotheCourtsofMagistrateshavenotbeentakenintoconsideration.
[PageNo.143]
X-24
Courts of 11. Taking the courts of munsifs' first, it will be noticed, that in all the
Munsifs &
Subordinate States, except in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the judicial officers have
Judges.
been able to keep pace with the current institution of regular suits .........
Adequacy of
strength
12. The real problem requiring attention is the large volume of the
Old suits
in munsifs pending old suits in the States, which seem to be the accumulations of the
courts
last many years......... Thus, though the present strength of judicial officers
might, broadly speaking, be said to be adequate to deal with the current
file, intensive efforts are necessary to rid the files of the incubus of these
old suits, which has assumed alarming proportions in several States.
13. The magnitude of the problem will appear in a truer light when we
In subordinate remember that, generally, out of the total disposal, only about twenty to
Judges courts
twenty-five per cent of the suits are disposed of after full trial. The rest of
the suits are disposed of without contest, and include cases summarily
dismissed under Order IX of Civil Procedure Code or otherwise, suits
Strength adequate decided ex-parte or on admission of the claim and suits compromised
to cope with
after the defendant has entered an appearance. The major part of the
Institutions but
Not arrears courts time is naturally taken by the disposal of contested cases .............
We can, therefore, rightly infer that the large number or suits pending
over one year consists mainly of contested suits ...........
[Para Nos. 11 to 13, Page Nos. 144, 145]
16. The root cause of the progressive accumulation of old cases in several
Causes of
Accumulation States is that, in the past, in spite of the growing volume of work, the
of arrears
strength of the judiciary was not proportionately increased. The
existing accumulation of arrears is also partly due to additional work
Delay in thrown on judicial officers by recent legislation. The area of work to be
appointment of
additional covered by the judicial officers has been greatly widened ...............
judges
17. The inadequacy of the strength of the subordinate judiciary has been
Persistent
Complaints pointed out by the various High Courts from time to time in their
By High Courts X-25
administration reports. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in its report for
the year 1954, on the administration of civil justice, attributed the rise in
the average duration of cases among other things to inevitable re-
grouping of Courts, keeping of some Courts vacant for want of judges,
heavy sessions and criminal work. In Uttar Pradesh, year after year, the
High Court has observed, that the work in subordinate courts, both civil
and criminal, has been increasing rapidly but the addition to the strength
of judiciary has not kept pace with the increase in the volume of work.
They have also pointed out that courts had frequently to be kept vacant
for want of officers and that the judicial officers who were doing
magisterial work were entrusted with other work with the result that they
were unable to devote themselves to regular trial work. In West Bengal
also, the High Court has repeatedly referred to the mounting arrears in
subordinate courts, though it do not seem to have made specific
observations as to the inadequacy of the judicial officers in the annual
administration reports. In Orissa, the delay in the disposal of pending
cases was attributed to the availability of a lesser number of officers than
was necessary. Similar observations have been made by the Patna High
Court also.
It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the inadequacy of judicial

officers has been repeatedly brought to the notice of State Government
through the administration reports issued by the High Courts. The High
Courts have also from time to time made representations to the
government seeking for an increase in the cadre of the subordinate
judiciary.
21. ......... Under the Constitution administration of justice and the
Grave constitution and organisation of courts other than the High Courts are the
Conditions
responsibility of the State administration. The facts revealed indicate, on
the one hand a gross neglect by the state administration of their duty in
establishing the necessary number of courts and on the other, a complete
failure on the part of the State to carry out its obligations to provide trained
and proper judicial personnel for presiding over the courts. The States in
X-26
question cannot even urge financial stringency as an excuse for, the figures
reveal that these States have been making substantial gains out of the
revenue earned by them by way of Court fees. It is a matter for serious
consideration whether in order to prevent what appears to be virtually a
breakdown in the system of judicial administration the Central Government
should not, by an amendment of the Constitution, be given a greater
measure of control over some aspects of judicial administration in the
States. This suggestion is made on the basis that such control exercised by
the Centre would tend to prevent such deplorable conditions arising.
22. One should have thought that the problem of continually rising arrears
Failure of
State could have been easily met by a quick and watchful awareness of the
Governments
situation as it developed and the immediate creation of additional courts to
deal with the increasing work. It is surprising that some of the State
Governments should have failed to appreciate their responsibility in the
matter, notwithstanding the repeated attempts by the High Courts and other
authorities to make the State Government alive to the true situation.
Powers to 23....we would suggest that the High Courts may be generally empowered
High Court
to create by the State Governments to create additional courts subject to certain
Additional limits whenever they consider that additional work justifies the creation of
courts
a new court. As the High Court is responsible for the administration of
justice in the State and is in a better position than the State Government to
assess the need for additional courts to relieve congestion of work, it could
well be trusted to exercise this power satisfactorily. This, in our view, will
help in some measure to obviate the delays that occur in the State
Governments sanctioning proposals for the creation of additional courts.
[Para Nos. 21 to 23, Page No. 158-159]
26. We would, however, suggest that the following broad principles be borne in mind in
determining questions of the adequacy of the strength of the subordinate judiciary.
(1) The strength of the subordinate judiciary should be sufficient to enable it to
dispose of suits, criminal trials, appeals, revisions and other proceedings within
the limits of time set out in paragraphs 5 and 6 supra.
X-27
(2) The High Court should immediately undertake a careful examination of the
requirements of the judicial personnel of various classes in the light of the
volume of work in the subordinate courts.
(3) The strength of the subordinate judiciary should be fixed so that it will be
sufficient to dispose of the current institutions within the target time limits.
(4) The cadre strength of the judicial officers should be fixed after making due
allowance for leave, promotion, deputation vacancies and also for the training of
the judicial officers.
(5) Until the cadre strength is fixed inclusive of deputation requirements, the
present strength of the cadre should not be depleted for making ex-cadre
appointments.
(6) No court should be allowed to be without a presiding officer; there should be
a reserve (included in the leave and deputation reserve) to meet unforeseen
contingencies.
(7) The annual administration reports should specifically examine these features;
such periodical examination would serve to keep the attention focussed on the
adequacy of judicial personnel, which is one of the basic requirements of the
administration of justice.
(8) Temporary additional courts should be established wherever necessary to
dispose of the accumulation of arrears. This should be done without any delay.
(9) The High Courts should be empowered, subject to certain limits, to create
temporary additional courts wherever they consider it necessary, without
reference to the State Governments.
(10) The High Courts and district judges should be careful to see that a
subordinate court is not over-burdened with work. Wherever the pendency of
suits is very high, the district judge should redistribute the work or, in the
alternative ask for an additional hand to clear off the arrears.
[Para Nos. 26, Page Nos. 159, 160]
X-28
Appendix-E
THE HIGH COURTS ARREARS COMMITTEE

1972
Chairman :
Shri J.C. SHAH
(FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA)
Member:
SHRI K. VEERASWAMI
CHIEF JUSTICE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, MADRAS
X-29
(6) Inadequacy of Judge strength
9. Inability of the High Courts to cope with the inflow and disposal of rising
number of causes instituted is largely attributable to the denial of the necessary
Judge strength to the High Courts at the appropriate time. A glance at the
Annexures reveals that there has been a steep rise in the Court work, which the
judge strength could not conceivably cope with. Our attention was drawn by the
Chief Justices that even after there was a substantial increase in the institutions
and sizeable arrears have accumulated there has been no readjustment of allotted
Judge strength, and the High Courts were required to attend to a much larger
quota of work than they were equipped to cope with................ Depletion of the
normal strength of the High Courts, by deputing Judges to Commissions and
Committees for holding judicial, quasi judicial and sometimes political enquiries
and to various tribunals set up from time to time and the delay in filling vacancies
in the High Court have contributed in no small measure to the accumulation of
undisposed of causes. Before addition to the High Court strength is sanctioned
many years lapse and by the time the additional personnel take a hand in
attending to the file much larger volume has piled up necessitating further
additions................
10. In the working paper of the all India Law Seminar recently held statistics
are published at page 30 stating the delay in appointments only in the course of
one year.
[Para Nos. 9 and 10, Page No. 38]
X-30
The following vacancies of the High Court Judges had not been filled up till
August 18, 1970 from the date noted against them:
________________________________________________________________
______
Allahabad 2 Permanent July 24, 1970 1 m. 25 days.
July 1, 1970 1 m. 18 days.
Assam and 1 Permanent Jan. 31, 1970 6 m. 18 days.

Nagaland
Andhra Pradesh 1 Permanent May 9, 1970 3 m. 9 days.

1 Additional Nov.11, 1970 9 m. 7 days.
Bombay 2 Permanent April 9, 1970 3 m. 20 days

1 Additional May 28, 1970 2 m. 20 days
Calcutta 2 Permanent Jan.14, 1970 7m. 4days.

June 1, 1970 2m. 17 days.
Madras 2 Permanent Feb.3, 1970 6 m. 15 days.
Madhya Pradesh 2 Additional April 21, 1970 3 m. 27 days.
Patna 2 Additional Nov. 11, 1969 8 m. 7 days.

April 22, 1970 4 m. 27 days.
________________________________________________________________
______
These are taken from the statement of the Minister of Home Affairs before the
Rajya Sabha on August 18, 1970. The delays in 1970 are not exceptional : they conform
to the normal pattern. Annexure XV shows the number of days lost in making
appointment of Judges in the High Courts during the years 1965-1970. Illustrative of
such delays are the following statements furnished by the Allahabad and Patna High
Courts.
X-31
Statement showing the number of days lost in appointment of Judges in the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad during the years 1969 to 1971 :-
Year Days lost in appointment

1960 142
1970 100
1971 285
Statement showing the delays in filling vacancies in the High Court of Judicature
at Patna.
Date on which Date of appointment Period for which there

vacancy occurred was no Judge
9-9-66 11-11-66 2 months 2 days

9-9-66 15-11-66 2 months 6 days
11-11-66 21-3-67 4 months 10 days
11-11-66 21-3-67 4 months 10 days
1-12-66 21-3-67 3 months 20 days
31-10-67 5-2-68 3 months 4 days
31-10-67 5-2-68 3 months 4 days
31-10-67 21-3-68 4 months 20 days
31-10-67 21-3-68 4 months 20 days
1-3-68 21-3-68 20 days
3-8-68 5-2-69 6 months 2 days
6-4-68 22-4-68 16 days
1-1-69 5-2-69 1 month 4 days
5-2-69 6-4-70 1 year 2 months 1 day
5-2-69 6-4-70 1 year 2 months 1 day
26-7-69 (Post for Not filled up election cases) 2 years 5 months 5 days
6-9-69 7-11-69 2 months 1 day
7-11-69 6-4-70 4 months 29 days
12-4-70 22-4-70 10 days
22-4-70 24-5-71 1 year 1 month 2 days
5-9-70 19-4-71 7 months 14 days
15-9-70 19-4-71 7 months 4 days
11-11-70 19-4-71 5 months 8 days
12-1-71 19-4-71 3 months 7 days
X-32
19-4-71 24-5-71 1 month 5 days
19-4-71 24-5-71 1 month 5 days
19-4-71 24-5-71 1 month 5 days
19-4-71 Not filled up 8 months 12 days
16-10-71 8-11-71 22 days
8-11-71 Not filled up 1 month 23 days
17-11-71 Not filled up 1 month 14 days
Total 13 Years 1 month 6 days
[Page Nos. 39-40]
The Chief Justice of the Patna High Court has further furnished us with the
following statements showing the number of days lost due to the absence of Judges on
leave or on deputation.
Year No. of days lost on No. of days lost on account of
account of Judges deputation of Judges on
going on earned leave Commissions of Inquiry.
(1) (2) (3)
1966 261 days --
1967 61 days 171 days
1968 117 days 163 days
1969 124 days 21 days
1970 157 days 5 days
1971 148 days
Total 868 days 360 days
Annexure XVI shows the number of days lost on account of deputation of Judges
on Commissions etc., during the years 1965 to 1970.
11. Two other factors which appear to have been left out of consideration in
regard to the maintenance of adequate Judge strength in each of the High Courts are :-
1. The fact that Judges have to go out for inspection of subordinate courts,
once in a year or once in two yearseach such inspection taking about a
week's time.
2. Judges taking leave--(Annexure XVII shows the numbers of days lost
on account of Judges going on leave during the years 1965 to 1970).
Another important factor which has not been borne in mind in the
matter of maintenance of adequate Judge strength is the slowness of some
X-33
of the Judges in the matter of disposal of cases.
[Para No. 10 & 11 Page No. 41]
(xxx) Provision of Adequate Judge Strength
126. The immediate need is to refix the permanent strength of the High
Courts making it commensurate with the recent rise in the volume of work in
the several High Courts. This must be done by working out the additional
judge strength necessary for clearing the present accumulations on the basis
of the norms of disposal per judge as fixed from time to time at the Chief
Justices' Conferences and making the strength of the additional judges such
that within a specified period of reasonably short duration the accumulated
arrears could be cleared, by utilising the service of such additional or ad hoc
judges only for clearing the arrears and not for attending to other court
business. Even after the judge strength of High Courts is augmented
according to the needs of each High Court in the manner stated there should
be a periodical review of the strength so fixed as recommended by the Law
Commission. Utilisation of retired judges of the High Courts who are in
good health, mental and physical for employment as ad hoc judges would
make available a body of experienced men who may be instrumental in
reducing the arrears, and by making ad hoc appointments whenever judges
are deputed for non-judicial work for more than 4 months, depletion of the
judge strength may be obviated.
127. We may observe that in fixing the norms of disposal per judge and on
that basis fixing the permanent strength of judges in a High Court, account
should be taken of judges required for special work outside the High Court,
such as for being appointed to head commissions or other enquiries and of
days lost on account of leave and on account of trial of election petitions and
inspections of subordinate courts. Accounts should also be taken, having
regard to the special information which the Chief Justice of each High Court,
has, of the capacity and talent of particular judges in his court for speedy
disposals of cases. If the absence of a judge in the High Court exceeds a
period of three or four months, on account of the above mentioned factors, it
may be regarded as appropriate to make an appointment of an additional or
ad hoc judge, so that the work of the High Court may not be hindered and fall
into arrears.
X-34
128. We may refer to the statistics which we have quoted in relation to the
delay in the appointment of judges. A perusal of the statement is disturbing.
In each High Court, many judge-days were lost because of failure to appoint
judges in time. In the old days, it was customary for recommendations to be
made for appointment of judges well in advance of the date of retirement of
the incumbent and appointment were invariably made so as to enable the new
appointee judge to take office immediately on the retirement of the incumbent.
It is unfortunate that this convention has fallen into disuse. This convention
should again be resuscitated and appointments should be made by the
Government so that there is no time-lag between the retirement of a judge and
the new appointee taking office. For that purpose, it is necessary that the
preliminaries to the appointment of judges should be cleared well in advance
of the date on which the vacancies are likely to occur. We may recommend
that the recommendation with regard to the appointment of a judge may be
sent by the Chief Justice directly to the Governor of the State, and if within a
time to be fixed by convention, say, not exceeding a month; no objection is
raised to the appointment, the Governor must be deemed to have accepted the
recommendation, and the matter may be referred to the Central Government.
The Central Government also should take expeditious steps to clear the steps
for early appointment before the date on which the vacancy occurs. We may
also state that the scheme of consultation with the Chief Justice of the High
Court and the Chief Justice of India in appointment of judges of the High
Court will function smoothly if the recommendation made by the Chief Justice
of a High Court for appointment of a judge is treated as cleared by the
Governor if no objection has been raised by him within a month from the date
when the recommendation was received by him and the Central Government
will be entitled to deal with the recommendation on that footing.
(xxxi) Provision of Adequate Staff for the High Courts
129. We have already referred to the inadequacy and insufficiency of the staff
of the High Court. It appears that requests made by the Chief Justices to their
respective State Governments for additional staff are not infrequently turned
down on the plea of lack of finance. We have been told that in a large majority
X-35
of States, the income realised by the judicial departments by way of court-fees,
fines etc. exceed the expenditure incurred. Administration of justice is
essentially a social service which it is the duty of every civilised State to
provide: but this service is regarded as a source of revenue to be utilised for
general administrative purposes. It is illogical to put forward the plea of lack
of finance in justification for turning down the legitimate and every reasonable
requests, made by Chief Justices for additional staff.
130. We may in this connection observe that at the Chief Justices Conference
held in 1966 it was resolved as follows:--
On a true construction of the provision of Article 229 of the

Constitution, the Chief Justice of a State has the power to create
posts and appoint officers to the said posts, subject to the rules
made or to be made in accordance with the proviso to clause 2 of
the said Article.
The Chief Justices and Judges of all the High Courts were of the view that
Art. 229 of the Constitution which empowers the Chief Justice of a High Court
to appoint officers and servants of the High Court confers on him by necessary
implication the power to create posts of such officers and servants required for
Court administration : otherwise the provision empowering the Chief Justice to
appoint officers and servants for his High Court would appear to be illusory.
This view has apparently received approval by the judgment of the Supreme
Court in M. Gooroomurthy v. Accountant-General, Nagaland AIR (1971); S.C.
1850.
131. We may recommend as a practical measure the adoption of a convention

that every High Court should work out its distinctive norms, in regard to the
work turnover for different sections in the registry e.g. the Copyist section,
process section etc. and determine the strength of the staff. The Chief Justice
may then proceed to appoint the additional staff based on those norms and give
intimation to the State Government in that behalf for inclusion of provision in
the budget as a charged item. Under Art. 229 the administrative expenses of a
High Court including all salaries, allowance and pensions payable to or in
respect of officers and servants of the court, being charged upon the
X-36
consolidated fund of the State, there should be no difficulty in carrying out the
above recommendation. Any objection raised by the State Government that the
expenditure for the High Court is not part of plan expenditure is in view of
the precise term of Art. 229 misconceived.
[Para Nos. 126-131 Page No. 80-82]
X-37
Appendix-F
SEVENTY SEVENTH REPORT
ON
DELAY AND ARREARS
IN
TRIAL COURTS
NOVEMBER, 1978
X-38
1.7. There is another aspect of which also we must not lose
Need for
effective steps sight. Whatever suggestions we make for eliminating delay in the
disposal of cases can prove useful only if something effective can be
done to deal with the huge arrears which have already piled up. No
reform, and no suggestion for improvement, would make any mark if the
existing courts remain burdened with the heavy backlog of pending
cases. The existence of such heavy backlog presents an almost
insurmountable barrier to improvement in methods. Suggestions for
improvement can yield results only if something concrete is done with
regard to the already existing heavy backlog of cases and if at least some
of the courts can start with a clean slate.
As long as courts remain burdened with arrears, the other suggestions for
expediting the disposal of cases would be nothing more than palliatives and would not
provide any effective relief. The position as it emerges at present is that even if service is
effected and issues are framed within one month of the institution of a suit, the cases
would still linger on for years in most of the courts because the courts would remain pre-
occupied with the disposal of older cases which account for the backlog of arrears. Any
serious attempt to eliminate delay in the disposal of cases must, at the threshold, seek
effective remedy for clearing the huge backlog of arrears.
We have appended1 charts and statements to this Report showing the institution
and disposal of cases in various States. From the perusal of the figures mentioned
therein, it would appear that the courts at present by and large are only disposing of that
number of cases in a year as are instituted in that year. The result is that the number of
pending cases with all the heavy backlog remains as it is. To cope with the backlog of
cases, we must have additional number of courts which may deal exclusively with the old
1 Appendix 1.
X-39
cases. In some States, we also find that the existing number of judges is not enough to
cope even with the fresh institutions. In such States the number of courts would have to
be increased on a permanent basis so that the disposal may keep pace with the
institutions.
[Para No.1.7, Page No. 2 ]
X-40
TABLE-1
Table showing institution and disposal of Regular Suits and Miscellaneous Cases during the
quarter ending December, 1977 and disposal as percentage of Institution during 4 th quarter
of 1976 and 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Quarters of 1977
S. Name of the Institution and otherwise Disposal Percentage of disposal over Institution
No. State during
Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total 4th Ist 2nd 3rd 4th
Suits Cases Suits Cases quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter
of of of 1977 of of 1977
1976 1977 1977
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Andhra 21,942 1,31,211 1,53,153 23,063 1,32,478 1,55,541 105.4 107.9 92.6 96.6 101.6
Pradesh
2. Assam 1,428 1,004 2,432 1,230 762 1,992 101.9 106.0 105.1 100.4 81.9
3. Bihar 9,344 3,539 12,883 7,709 3,123 10,832 222.8 130.2 84.5 96.1 84.1
4. Gujarat 12,697 9,563 22,260 12,235 8,373 20,608 102.5 99.3 69.2 103.8 92.6
5. Haryana 9,100 1,176 10,276 9,239 1,208 10,447 124.6 110.3 86.8 89.5 101.7
6. Himachal 1,463 1,459 2,922 1,361 1,311 2,672 106.4 124.8 123.9 102.9 91.4
Pradesh
7. Jammu & ---------------------------Not received------------------------------------
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 10,168 6,788 16,956 8,656 7,190 15,846 94.2 96.7 69.2 91.0 93.5
9. Kerala 10,714 35,542 46,256 11,771 38,031 49,802 105.8 104.0 92.9 102.0 107.7
10 Madhya 18,423 4,989 23,412 18,671 4,930 23,601 109.1 114.3 74.2 89.5 100.8
Pradesh
11. Maharashtra 25,459 14,348 39,807 21,080 13,631 34,711 97.1 103.3 78.3 88.0 87.2
12. Manipur 44 88 132 38 96 134 77.1 100.4 104.1 98.2 101.5
13. Meghalaya ----------------------------------Not received-------------------------------------------
14. Nagaland 33 8 41 39 21 60 38.9 113.7 123.2 148.8 146.3
15. Orissa 3,245 2,834 6,079 3,168 2,690 5,858 115.8 132.4 67.3 105.1 96.4
16. Punjab 12,888 6,166 19,054 13,841 6,858 20,599 101.7 111.2 87.2 90.0 108.6
17. Rajasthan 7,699 3,669 11,368 7,240 4,188 11,428 109.9 104.0 86.9 83.7 100.5
18. Sikkim 39 43 82 32 49 81 111.3 102.9 93.6 115.3 98.8
19. Tamil Nadu 18,087 89,459 1,07,546 18,582 88,605 1,07,187 105.1 100.6 92.0 101.4 99.7
20. Tripura 188 103 291 369 99 468 44.5 72.5 64.4 122.1 160.8
21. Uttar Pradesh 36,996 23,008 60,004 35,017 21,511 56,528 102.4 92.3 113.5 95.1 94.2
22. West Bengal 16,625 3,523 20,148 11,409 2,801 14,210 81.2 89.3 91.0 91.0 70.5
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N Islands 22 4 26 21 10 31 168.8 166.7 77.8 82.1 119.2

2. Arunachal 2 .. 2 4 .. 4 200.0 .. 50.0 200.0 200.0
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 201 602 803 113 616 729 91.0 106.1 113.1 73.1 90.8
4. Dadra & 2 3 5 10 7 17 75.0 957.1 100.0 500.0 340.0

Nagar Haveli
5. Delhi 4,249 2,092 6,341 3,545 22,223 5,768 103.8 105.4 108.9 95.2 91.0
X-41
6. Goa, Daman 439 192 631 345 137 482 71.3 84.7 131.0 106.0 76.4
& Diu
7. Lakshadweep 5 125 130 14 107 121 108.9 91.7 80.6 94.4 93.1
8. Mizoram 56 65 121 45 64 109 117.1 83.9 120.3 126.4 90.1
9. Pondicherry 599 981 1,580 656 803 1,459 102.0 101.3 81.0 108.0 92.3
TOTAL 2,22157 3,42,584 5,64,741 2,09,50 3,41,922 5,51,425 105.9 103.4 89.4 96.0 97.6
3
[Page No.63]
X-42
TABLE II
Table showing total strength of courts functioning, disposal of Regular Suits and
Miscellaneous Cases in Units and rate of disposal per court on the basis of time
devoted by courts to civil work in original Jurisdiction during 4 th Quarter of 1976
and 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Quarters of 1977
Disposal of one Regular suits Disposal of one Misc. cases

(a) After full trial 6 Units 2 ULits
(b) Without Trial 1/4 Unit 1/12 Unit
(c) By transfer 1 Units 1/3 Unit
(d) Without contest, ex parte admission of claims, 2 Units 1/2 Unit
compromise or arbitration
S. Name of the Total Disposal in units during Average rate of disposal per court during
No. State/Union strength
Territories of courts
4th quarter of 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
76 quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter
of 77 of 77 of 77 of 77 of of 77 of 77 of 77 of 77
76
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Andhra 186 1,12,891 83,762 69,435 1,08,958 1,03,438 600.5 475.9 436.7 637.2 556.1
Pradesh
2. Assam 23 4,431 6,026 6,590 6,742 3,377 142.9 241.0 235.4 232.5 146.8
3. Bihar 213 30,484 30,950 32,106 33,235 15,891 87.3 146.0 145.3 155.3 74.6
4. Gujarat 124 38,814 37,586 22,799 42,186 33,532 320.8 308.1 262.1 357.5 270.4
5. Haryana 47 17,450 17,820 15,410 20,652 21,683 545.3 540 467.0 543.5 461.3
6. Himachal 18 5,459 4,422 8,127 5,372 5,313 303.3 245.7 451.5 298.4 295.2
Pradesh
7. Jammu & Not received
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 114 27,858 29,791 20,461 35,380 30,014 255.6 256.8 170.5 305.0 263.3
9. Kerala 96 45,653 50,866 28,203 48,797 47,977 475.6 529.9 290.8 488.0 499.8
10 Madhya 108 49,188 53,790 34,054 59,857 49,0344 268.8 275.8 181.1 328.9 454.0
Pradesh
11. Maharashtra 173 66,104 72,098 51,239 73,670 53,343 382.1 497.5 299.6 533.8 308.3
12. Manipur 5.5 379 497 619 598 246 216.6 142.0 112.6 70.4 44.7
13. Meghalaya Not received
14. Nagaland 19 108 395 184 207 248 9.0 30.4 7.7 10.4 13.1
15. Orissa 52 10,735 15,327 6,348 12,048 9,377 104.2 255.5 105.8 334.7 180.3
16. Punjab 81 29,318 31,849 25,171 30,244 34,637 451.0 513.27 364.8 373.4 427.6
17. Rajasthan 66 20,886 19,211 16,342 23,259 20,127 300.5 282.5 267.9 352.4 305.0
18. Sikkim 1.75 250 205 230 192 184 71.4 273.3 131.4 109.7 105.1
19. Tamil Nadu 150 91,292 91,729 52,904 1,03,566 92,111 656.8 764.4 397.8 699.8 614.1
20. Tripura 4 395 650 744 901 904 79.0 130.0 148.8 180.2 226.0
X-43
21. Uttar 349 94,858 99,928 77,007 1,24,472 92,422 403.7 283.1 305.6 371.6 264.8
Pradesh
22. West Bengal 126 24,472 33,935 38,264 40,609 21,773 191.2 275.9 308.6 324.9 172.8
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N 1.25 64 39 36 64 68 42.7 26.0 24.0 51.2 54.4

Islands
2. Arunachal 1 .. 4 17 19 0.7 .. .. 17.0 19.0
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 2.55 1,000 1,129 814 611 772 800.0 501.8 361.8 271.6 343.1
4. Dadra & 0.25 4 353 6 3 39 16.0 1412.0 12.0 6.0 152.0
Nag-
ar Haveli
5. Delhi 36 14,843 15,399 11,879 14,086 11,863 436.6 427.8 330.0 391.6 329.5
6. Goa, Daman 9 1,382 1,602 1,150 1,804 1,267 172.8 188.5 135.3 212.2 140.0
& Diu
7. Lakshadwee 1.25 103 32 41 15 68 51.5 128.0 41.0 15.0 55.2
p
8. Mizoram 1 588 495 519 159 372 235.2 495.0 519.0 159.0 372.0
9. Pondicherry 8.5 2,974 2,847 1,362 2,931 2,903 424.9 438.0 209.5 366.4 341.5
TOTAL 2016.75 6,92,450 7,02,733 5,22,048 7,90,645 6,53,002 325.2 349.9 272.7 393.4 323.8
[Page No.64]
X-44
TABLE III
Pendency of Regular Suits and miscellaneous Cases on the Original side as on
1-1-1977, 1-10-1977 and 31-12-1977 and rate of increase/decrease during the
4th quarter of 1976 and 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of 1977
S. Name of the Percentage
No State/Union Pendency as on Rate of increase or decrease increase or
. Territories decrease in
the period
1-1-77 1-10-77 31-1-77 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
from
quarter quarter quarter of quarter quarter
1-1-77 to
of 1976 of 1977 1977 of 1977 of 1977
31-12-77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Andhra 2,15,605 2,22,661 2,18,273 -3.7 -4.3 +4.3 +2.6 -1.1 +1.2
Pradesh
2. Assam 14,933 14,537 14,977, -0.3 -1.3 -1.3 -0.1 +3.0 +0.3
3. Bihar 1,49,877 1,49,475 1,51,526 -8.7 -3.7 +2.9 +0.6 +1.4 +1.1
4. Gujarat 1,20,348 1,26,433 1,28,085 -0.5 +0.1 +5.8 -0.8 +1.3 +6.4
5. Haryana 25,061 26,770 26,599 -5.7 -2.9 +4.7 +5.0 -0.6 +6.1
6. Himachal 17,832 16,513 16,763 -1.1 -2.9 -4.2 -0.5 +1.5 -6.0
Pradesh
7. Jammu & Not received--------------------------------------------------------------
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 1,80,014 1,87,166 1,88,276 +0.5 +0.3 +2.7 -1.0 +0.6 +4.6
9. Kerala 87,232 86,623 83,077 -2.7 -2.1 +2.5 -1.0 -4.1 -4.8
10 Madhya 1,00,352 1,06,400 1,06,211 -1.8 -3.1 +5.8 +3.4 -0.2 +5.8
Pradesh
11. Maharashtra 3,50,871 3,65,878 3,70,974 +0.4 -0.4 +3.0 +1.7 +1.4 +5.7
12. Manipur 538 531 529 +9.8 -0.2 -2.2 +1.1 -0.4 -1.7
13. Meghalaya Not received----------------------------------------------------------
14. Nagaland 381 332 313 +56.3 -4.2 -3.6 -5.7 -5.7 -17.8
15. Orissa 22,954 22,232 22,453 -3.7 -10.0 +9.4 -1.6 +1.0 -2.2
16. Punjab 53,633 56,700 55,055 -0.5 -3.0 +4.7 +4.2 -2.9 +2.7
17. Rajasthan 71,903 75,345 75,285 -1.4 -0.7 +1.8 +3.7 -0.1 +4.7
18. Sikkim 236 228 229 -3.3 -0.8 +2.1 -4.6 +0.4 -3.0
19. Tamil Nadu 1,75,507 1,79,168 1,79,527 -2.9 -0.3 +3.4 -0.9 +0.2 +2.3
20. Tripura 2,815 3,086 2,909 +12.5 +5.1 +7.3 -2.8 -5.7 +3.3
21. Uttar Pradesh 2,19,072 2,23,540 2,27,016 -0.7 +2.7 -2.5 +1.9 +1.6 +3.6
22. West Bengal 1,84,252 1,91,312 1,92,250 +1.9 +1.3 +1.2 +1.2 +3.1 +7.0
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N Islands 97 98 93 -10.2 -12.4 +7.1 +7.7 -5.1 -4.1
2. Arunachal 5 14 12 -16.7 +100.0 +28.6 -33.3 -14.3 +140.0
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 2,846 2,899 2,973 +2.6 -2.1 -3.4 +7.7 +2.6 +4.5
4. Dadra & Nag- 140 64 52 +0.7 -42.9 - -20.0 -18.7 -62.9
ar Haveli
5. Delhi 31,961 31,451 32,024 -0.9 -1.2 -1.5 +1.1 +1.8 +0.2
X-45
6. Goa, Daman 6,458 6,329 6,478 +2.8 +1.4 -2.6 -0.7 +2.4 +0.3
& Diu
7. Lakshadweep 113 142 151 -9.6 +4.4 +17.8 +2.2 +6.3 +33.6
8. Mizoram 216 180 192 -7.7 +11.6 -11.3 -15.1 +6.7 -11.1
9. Pondicherry 2,545 2,563 2,684 -1.5 -0.7 +7.3 -5.5 +4.7 +5.5
TOTAL IN THE 20,37,797 20,96,670 21,09,986 -1.6 0.9 +2.5 +1.3 +0.6 +3.5
COUNTRY
[Page No. 65]
X-46
TABLE IV
Table showing institution and disposal of Regular and Miscellaneous Appeals in district Appellate
Courts during 4th quarter of 1977 and percentage of disposal over Institution during 4 th quarter of 1976
and 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Quarters of 1977
S. Name of the State/ Institution and otherwise Disposal Percentage of disposal over Institution
No. Union Territory received during
Regular Misc. Total Regula Misc. Total 4th Ist 2nd 3rd 4th
Appeals Appea r Appeals quarte quart quarte quarte quarter
ls Appeal r of er of r of r of of 1977
s 1976 1977 1977 1977
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Andhra Pradesh 2,893 1,642 4,535 2,478 1,885 4,363 106.3 105.7 57.9 107.5 96.2
2. Assam 154 55 209 111 45 156 76.1 105.6 82.6 82.6 74.6
3. Bihar 1,432 490 1,922 1,230 481 1,711 181.9 107.2 98.6 89.1 89.0
4. Gujarat 844 413 1,257 794 359 1,153 90.0 101.8 80.8 126.8 91.7
5. Haryana 2,092 456 2,548 1,778 378 2,156 93.0 72.8 88.3 91.2 84.6
6. Himachal Pradesh 802 226 1,028 192 243 435 87.2 72.4 88.3 91.1 42.3
7. Jammu&Kashmir Not received
8. Karnataka 1,147 1,127 2,274 1,317 1,048 2,365 111.4 130.2 94.4 143.8 104.0
9. Kerala 1,966 781 2,747 2,447 866 3,313 113.1 118.6 74.1 116.9 120.6
10 Madhya Pradesh 2,293 1,188 3,481 2,068 1,081 3,149 82.8 109.4 84.8 114.6 90.5
11. Maharashtra 1,833 758 2,591 1,562 579 2,141 126.2 97.4 84.7 121.3 82.6
12. Manipur 11 11 9 3 12 100.0 141.2 100.0 114.3 109.1
13. Meghalaya Not received
14. Nagaland 20 20 12 12 59.3 66.7 19.8 425.0 60.0
15. Orissa 536 236 772 462 228 690 89.1 105.1 69.8 105.6 89.4
16. Punjab 3,310 628 3,938 3,435 692 4,127 101.0 108.6 104.6 103.0 104.8
17. Rajasthan 1,384 738 2,122 1,198 562 1,760 101.5 95.6 92.6 91.2 82.9
18. Sikkim 120.0 25.0 --
19. Tamil Nadu 3,049 1,573 4,622 3,376 1,792 5,168 105.9 112.9 80.4 115.4 111.8
20. Tripura 35 20 55 29 15 44 176.9 173.9 195.1 89.3 80.0
21. Uttar Pradesh 8,801 5,347 14,148 7,198 5,619 12,817 100.4 97.0 135.8 103.7 90.6
22. West Bengal 1,227 604 1,831 1,035 529 1,564 108.7 108.1 105.2 104.1 85.4
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N Island 200.0 100.0
2. Arunachal Pradesh 1 1 1 2 3 50.0 300.0
3. Chandigarh 17 74 91 23 59 82 69.9 116.9 130.6 121.2 90.1
4. Dadra & Nagar 1 1 1 1 100.0
Haveli
5. Delhi 369 688 1,057 308 609 917 90.7 90.5 91.6 85.9 86.8
6. Goa, Daman & 43 42 85 55 17 72 98.5 113.9 91.2 65.1 84.7
Diu
7. Lakshadweep 1 1 5 1 6 50.0 25.0 600.0
8. Mizoram 16 15 31 6 15 21 62.5 110.0 89.0 178.6 67.7
9. Pondicherry 65 50 115 57 65 122 110.1 85.6 83.5 121.2 106.1
TOTAL in the Country 34,341 17,152 51,493 31,186 17,174 48,360 105.6 103.7 96.7 107.3 93.9
X-47
[Page No. 66]
TABLE V
Table showing total strength of Courts for Appellate Civil work, disposal in Units and average rate of disposal per court on
the basis of time devoted by Courts to Appellate Civil work during 4 th quarter of 1976 and 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of
1977
Regular Appeals Miscellaneous Appeals

(a) After full hearing 2 Units 2 Units
(b) Dismissal or not prosecuted 1/6 Unit 1/12 Unit
(c) Transferred to other courts Units Unit
S. Name of the Total Disposal in units during Average rate of disposal per court on the
No. State/Union strength of basis of time devoted by courts
Territories courts for to appellate civil work during
Appellate
work
4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
quarter of quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter
76 of 77 of 77 of 77 of 77 of 76 of 77 of 77 of 77 of 77
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Andhra 26 3,683 3,355 2,036 4,444 4,454 147.3 119.8 91.0 170.9 171.3
Pradesh
2. Assam 4 223 372 354 407 191 37.2 67.6 88.5 101.8 47.8
3. Bihar 86 2,112 2,169 1,962 2,452 1,212 41.4 37.4 36.3 40.2 14.1
4. Gujarat 18 1,705 1,713 1,371 2,225 1,518 81.2 100.8 76.2 92.7 84.3
5. Haryana 11 1,556 1,701 1,101 1,229 2,314 311.2 243.0 220.2 245.8 210.4
6. Himachal 2 357 230 298 378 436 102.0 57.5 74.5 94.5 218.0
Pradesh
7. Jammu and _________________________________________________________________________________
Kashmir Not received
8. Karnataka 30 3,570 4,182 2,389 4,429 3,083 274.6 154.9 95.6 158.2 102.8
9. Kerala 21 4,476 4,737 2,036 3,733 3,998 223.8 236.9 101.8 186.7 190.4
10 Madhya 31 3,335 5,745 3,289 5,503 3,567 238.2 287.3 96.7 157.2 115.1
Pradesh
11. Maharashtra 27 4,812 3,860 2,741 3,214 2,925 209.2 175.5 137.1 120.4 108.3
12. Manipur 0.5 12 30 29 34 21 48.0 60.0 58.0 68.0 42.0
13. Meghalaya ____________________________________Not received
14. Nagaland 3 66 17 16 24 8.25 5.7 5.3 8.0
15. Orissa 8 636 1,034 449 947 625 212.0 54.4 28.1 236.8 78.1
16. Punjab 14 2,782 2,669 3,060 3,963 3,824 252.9 242.6 255.0 330.3 273.1
17. Rajasthan 11 1,431 1,721 1,160 1,876 1,392 124.4 143.4 96.7 170.5 126.5
18. Sikkim 0.25 7 1 28.0 4.0
19. Tamil Nadu 14 6,946 6,562 3,092 6,835 5,907 248.1 285.3 93.7 427.2 421.9
20. Tripura 1 57 104 114 56 42 57.0 104.0 114.0 56.0 42.0
21. Uttar Pradesh 86 12,034 13,380 10,883 14,158 10,507 218.8 142.3 143.2 168.6 122.2
22. West Bengal 30 2,161 2,896 3,090 3,301 1,534 74.5 111.4 118.8 122.3 51.1
X-48
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N Islands 0.25 3 2 8.0
2. Arunachal 1 2 2 2
Pradesh
3. Chandirgarh 0.75 93 144 91 111 81 124.0 192.0 121.3 148.0 108.0
4. Dadra & 0.25 4 2 16.0 8.0
Nag-
ar Haveli
5. Delhi 8 848 835 627 1,108 824 105.0 104.0 78.4 158.3 103.0
6. Goa, Daman 1 158 115 83 101 96 316.0 230.0 110.7 202.0 96.0
& Diu
7. Lakshadweep 0.25 4 2 3 5.3 2.7 12.0
8. Mizoram 1 27 41 139 72 26 27.0 41.0 139.0 72.0 26.0
9. Pondicherry 2 193 190 94 190 169 77.2 76.0 37.6 126.7 84.5
TOTAL in 438.25 53,332 57,792 40,512 61,787 48,775 154.3 137.3 101.8 149.9 111.3
the Country
[Page No. 67]
X-49
TABLE VI
Table showing pendency of Regular and Miscellaneous Appeals in District Courts as on 1-1-1977 and 1-
10-1977 and 31-12-1977 and rate of increase or decrease in pendency during 4th quarter of 1976 and 1st,
2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of 1977 and also the number of cases increased or decreased and percentage
increase or decrease within a period of 12 months i.e. from 1-1-1977 to 31-12-1977
S. Pendency as on Rate of increase or decrease during

No.
Name of 1-1-77 1-10-77 31-12-77 No. of Percentage
the State/ appeals increase or
Union increased decrease during
Territory or the year 1977
4th Ist 2nd 3rd 4th decreased
quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter during the
of of of of of year
1976 1977 1977 1977 1977
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Andhra 12,319 13,430 13,602 - 1.6 -1.5 + 13.1 - 2.2 + 1.3 + 1,283 + 10.4
Pradesh
2. Assam 1,870 1,992 2,045 + 3.8 - 0.9 + 3.0 + 4.4 + 2.7 + 175 + 9.4
3. Bihar 14,005 14,230 14,441 - 10.1 - 1.5 + 0.3 + 2.8 + 1.5 + 436 + 3.1
4. Gujarat 6,734 6,622 6,726 + 2.1 - 0.3 + 3.8 - 4.9 + 1.6 -8 - 0.1
5. Haryana 5,033 5, 785 6, 177 + 1.6 + 10.7 + 2.2 + 1.5 + 6.8 + 1,144 + 22.7
6. Himachal 1,524 1,703 2,296 + 3.6 + 6.6 + 2.5 + 2.3 + 34.8 + 772 + 50.7
Pradesh
7. Jammu and
Kashmir __________________________________ Not received
8. Karnataka 15,966 14,147 14,056 - 1.8 - 5.4 + 0.8 - 7.1 -0.6 - 1,910 - 12.0
9. Kerala 12,825 12,405 11,839 - 3.3 - 4.8 + 5.4 - 3.6 -4.6 - 986 - 7.7
10 Madhya 13,200 12,624 12,956 + 4.4 - 3.4 + 3.4 - 4.6 + 2.6 -244 - 1.8
Pradesh
11. Maharashtr 19,592 19,513 19,963 - 4.1 + 0.4 + 2.2 - 2.9 + 2.3 + 371 + 1.9
a
12. Manipur 45 35 34 .. 15.6 7.9 - 2.9 11 - 24.4
13. Meghalaya ___________________________________________________________________________________Not
received
14. Nagaland 4 65 73 - 14.4 + 25.0 + _ 16.7 +12.3 + 69 + 1,725.0
1,460.0
15. Orissa 2,840 2,929 3,011 + 3.2 - 1.9 + 7.1 - 1.9 + 2.8 + 171 + 6.0
16. Punjab 8,381 7,948 7,759 - 6.1 - 1.9 - 1.6 - 1.8 - 2.4 - 622 - 7.4
17. Rajasthan 7,878 8,260 8,622 - 0.3 + 1.0 + 1.4 + 2.4 + 4.4 + 744 + 9.4
18. Sikkim 6 10 10 .. + 33.3 - 12.5 + 42.9 +4 + 6.6
19. Tamil Nadu 15,954 15,235 14,689 - 2.0 - 3.9 + 4.7 - 5.1 - 3.6 - 1,265 - 7.9
20. Tripura 325 258 269 - 5.8 - 10.5 - 13.4 + 2.4 + 4.3 - 56 - 17.2
21. Uttar 38,858 35,452 36,783 -0.2 + 1.3 - 8.4 - 1.7 + 3.8 - 2,075 - 5.3
Pradesh
22. West 9,309 8,776 9,043 - 2.0 - 2.6 - 1.8 - 1.5 + 3.0 - 266 - 2.0
Bengal
X-50
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N 3 2 2 100.0 - 50.0 + +
Islands 100.0 100.00
2. Arunachal .. 3 1 - 66.7 +1
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 229 167 176 + 17.4 - 9.6 - 10.6 - 9.7 + 5.4 - 53 - 23.1
4. Dadra & 27 55 55 - 11.5 - 85.2 + + 1.9 + 28 + 103.7
Nag- 1250.0
ar Haveli
5. Delhi 4,471 4,809 4,949 + 2.0 + 2.1 + 1.4 + 3.9 + 2.9 + 478 + 10.7
6. Goa, 600 651 664 + 0.5 - 1.7 + 1.7 + 8.5 + 2.0 + 64 + 10.7
Daman &
Diu
7. Lakshadwe 14 20 15 + 27.3 + 21.4 + 23.5 - 4.8 - 25.0 +1 + 7.1
ep
8. Mizoram 67 54 64 + 15.5 - 3.0 + 16.9 - 28.9 + 18.5 -3 - 4.5
9. Pondicherr 453 469 462 - 3.0 + 6.2 + 3.5 - 5.8 - 10.5 +9 + 2.0
y
TOTAL in 1,92,532 1,87,649 1,90,782 - 1.7 - 1.1 + 0.7 - 2.2 + 1.7 - 1,749 - 0.9
the Country
[Page No. 68]
X-51
TABLE VIII
General result of trial of Civil in District/Additional Judges Courts on the Original
side during the year 1977
Name of the Pendency as on 01-01-1977 Institution during 1977 Disposal during 1977 Pendency as on 31-12-76-77
State/
Union Territory Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total
Suits Cases Suits Cases Suits Cases Suits Cases
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13
1. Andhra 517 8,301 8,818 869 36,572 37,441 896 37,293 38,189 490 7,580 8,070
Pradesh
2. Assam 245 882 1,127 224 1,044 1,268 164 906 1,070 305 1,020 1,325
3. Bihar 748 4,324 5,072 438 3,553 3,991 426 3,579 4,005 760 5,295 5,055
4. Gujarat 120 5,558 5,678 63 6,069 6,132 91 5,782 5,873 92 5,845 5,937
5. Haryana 573 618 1,191 673 892 1,565 520 575 1,095 726 935 1,661
6. Himachal --------------------------------------------------Not available separately--------------------------------------------------------------

Pradesh
7. Jammu & -------------------------------------------------------Not available--------------------------------------------------------------------

Kashmir
8. Karnataka 90 3,640 3,730 324 3,988 4,312 314 3,639 3,953 100 3,989 4,089
9. Kerala 46 4,684 4,730 573 10,268 10,841 313 9,007 9,320 306 5,945 6,251
10. Madhya 5,439 3,875 9,314 6,200 4,839 11,039 5,600 4,511 10,111 6,039 4,203 10,242
Pradesh
11. Maharashtra 43,847 4,848 48,695 10,743 3,952 14,695 8,803 3,393 12,196 45,787 5,407 51,194
12. Manipur 23 19 42 43 32 75 45 42 87 21 9 30
13. Meghalaya -------------------------------------------------------Not available--------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Nagaland --------------------------------------------------Not available separately--------------------------------------------------------------
15. Orissa 33 777 810 27 956 983 36 802 838 24 931 955
16. Punjab 1,518 1,323 2,841 531 3,085 3,616 1,679 2,557 4,236 370 1,851 2,221
17. Rajasthan 3,061 3,716 6,777 2,056 3,586 5,642 1,490 3,218 4,708 3,627 4,084 7,711
18. Sikkim 24 29 53 37 105 142 30 97 127 31 37 68
19. Tamil Nadu 688 5,058 5,746 694 24,245 24,939 1,197 24,177 24,374 185 5,126 5,311
20. Tripura 75 266 341 46 308 354 46 226 272 75 348 423
21. Uttar Pradesh 2,089 8,225 9,314 3,961 17,969 21,930 4,074 17,441 21,515 1,976 7,753 9,729
22. West Bengal 10,443 9,424 19,867 11,353 5,490 16,843 9,851 5,425 15,276 11,945 9,489 21,434
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A.N. Islands 3 6 9 7 14 21 6 13 19 4 7 11
2. Arunachal ---------------------------------------------------Not received separately--------------------------------------------------------------

Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 3 562 565 .. 409 409 .. 549 549 3 422 425
4. Dadra & -----------------------------------------------------------Nil ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nagar Haveli
5. Delhi 817 3,803 4,620 814 2,875 3,689 718 3,438 4,156 913 3,420 4,153
6. Goa, Daman & 183 430 613 36 164 200 52 155 207 167 439 606
Diu
7. Lakshadweep - - - - - - - - - - - -
8. Mizoram ---------------------------------------------------Not received separately--------------------------------------------------------------

9. Pondicherry 6 175 181 6 319 325 4 363 367 8 131 139
TOTAL in the 70,591 69,543 1,40,1 39,718 1,30,734 1,70,452 36,355 1,27,188 1,63,543 73,954 73,086 14,740
country 34
*Pendency of Miscellaneous Cases in Bihar on 31-12-1977 ought to be 4298 instead of 4295
[Page No. 70]
X-52
TABLE IX
General result of Trial of cases in Senior/Subordinate Judges Courts on the original side during the year 1977
S. Name of the
No States/union Pendency as on 1-1-1977 Institution during 1977 Disposal during 1977 Pendency as on 31-12-77
. Territory
Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total Regula Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total
Suits cases Suits cases r Suits cases Suits cases
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Andhra 10,114 33,080 43,194 7,877 1,01,103 1,08,980 6,504 98,189 1,04,693 11,487 35,994 47,881
Pradesh
2. Assam 2,248 489 2,737 1,227 447 1,674 1,138 388 1,526 2,337 548 2,885
3. Bihar 27,141 13,230 40,371 15,356 7,594 22,950 16,773 7,541 24,314 25,724 13,285 39,009
4. Gujarat 42,911 12,306 55,217 27,162 12,391 39,553 23,423 11,268 34,691 46,650 13,429 60,079
5. Haryana 2,856 1,259 4,115 4,956 1,509 6,465 5,376 1,453 6,829 2,436 1,315 3,751
6. Himachal Not available separately
Pradesh
7. Jammu & N.A
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 7,953 23,332 31,285 4,660 14,588 19,248 3,183 13,397 16,580 9,430 24,523 33,953
9. Kerala 6,503 19,008 25,511 5,837 35,899 41,736 5,770 35,626 41,396 6,570 19,281 25,851
10 Madhya 8,135 2,642 10,777 8,683 3,524 12,027 7,998 3,421 11,419 8,820 2,743 11,563
Pradesh
11. Maharashtra 37,310 17,420 54,730 19,743 11,495 31,238 15,849 9,505 25,354 41,204 19,410 60,614
12. Manipur 151 39 190 179 230 409 154 200 354 176 69 245
13. Meghalaya N.A.
14. Nagaland Not available separately
15. Orissa 4,554 3,545 8,099 3,461 4,494 7,955 3,628 4,455 8,083 4,387 3,584 7,971
16. Punjab 1,850 2,843 4,693 4,098 5,302 9,400 3,285 4,407 7,692 2,663 3,778 6401
17. Rajasthan 4,198 1,072 5,270 2,311 1,005 3,316 2,117 1,024 3,141 4,392 1,053 5445
18. Sikkim 149 34 183 93 65 158 114 66 180 128 33 161
19. Tamil Nadu 30,588 39,523 70,111 23,186 1,16,583 1,39,769 20,826 1,15,681 1,36,507 32,948 40,425 73,373
20. Tripura 378 131 509 136 131 267 151 137 288 363 125 488
21. Uttar Pradesh 22,726 9,362 32,088 19,281 15,669 4,947 18,868 13,994 32,862 23,139 11,034 34,173
22. West Bengal 27,119 3,996 31,115 15,446 3,162 18,608 14,582 3,058 17,640 27,983 4,100 32,083
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& NIslands 82 6 88 75 14 89 81 14 95 76 6 82
2. Arunachal Not available separately
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 177 369 546 165 486 651 84 558 642 258 300 558
4. Dadra & 121 19 140 11 8 19 87 20 107 45 7 52
Nagar Haveli
5. Delhi 8,475 4,407 23,152 12,781 3,943 16,724 12,121 3,727 15,848 19,405 4,623 24,028
6. Goa, Daman 2,590 1,129 3,719 913 423 1,336 801 679 1,480 2,702 873 3575
& Diu
7. Lakshadweep 30 41 71 3 98 100 7 70 77 26 68 94
8. Mizoram Not available separately
9. Pondicherry 428 629 1,057 733 1,708 2,441 662 1,714 2,376 499 623 1,122
TOTAL 2,59,05 1,89,91 4,48,96 1,78,373 3,41,867 5,20,240 1,63,58 3,30,592 4,94,174 2,73,84 2,01,1 4,75,03
7 1 8 2 8 89 7
*Pendency of Misc. cases on 31-12-1977 in Bihar ought to be 13283 instead of 13285, in Madhya Pradesh
2745 instead of 2743 and Chandigarh 297 instead of 300. [Page No. 71]
X-53
TABLE X
General result of Trial of Civil Cases in Munsif Courts on the original side during the year 1977
Pending as on 1-1-1977 Institution during 1977 Disposal during 1977 Pending as on 31-12-77
Name of
the States/
Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total
Union
Suits cases Suits cases Suits cases Suits cases
Territory
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Andhra 66,301 92,872 1,59,173 75,860 3,18,917 3,94,777 74,190 3,22,409 3,96,599 67,971 89,380 1,57,351
Pradesh
2. Assam 9,058 2,011 11,069 6,583 3,553 10,136 7,205 3,233 10,438 8,436 2,331 10,767
3. Bihar 73,520 9,959 83,479 42,278 7,318 49,596 36,655 6,464 43,119 79,143 10,813 89,956
4. Gujarat 28,361 10,772 39,133 21,529 11,340 32,869 19,616 10,322 29,938 30,274 11,790 42,064
5. Haryana 17,839 1,916 19,755 27,999 2,215 30,214 26,495 2,287 2,8782 19,343 1,844 21,187
6. Jammu
& Not available separately.
Kashmi
r
7. Himach
al
Pradesh
8. Karnata 54,243 90,756 1,44,999 35,777 8,395 44,172 31,222 7,715 38,937 58,798 91,436 1,50,234
ka
9. Kerala 35,739 21,252 6,991 35,202 80,203 1,15,405 39,613 81,808 1,21,42 31,328 19,647 50,975
1
10 Madhya 59,789 10,212 70,001 48,107 9,816 57,923 44,438 9,462 53,900 63,458 10,566 74,024
Pradesh
11 Mahara 1,24,343 45,386 1,69,729 63,849 26,817 90,666 52,450 25,434 77,884 1,35,742 46,769 1,82,511
. shtra ,
12 Manipu 190 116 306 209 292 501 229 324 553 170 84 254
. r
13 Meghal Not available
. aya
14 Nagalan Not available
. d
15 Orissa 9,224 3,776 13,000 8,544 6,434 14,978 8,960 6,527 15,487 8,808 3,683 12,491
.
16 Punjab 31,701 14,100 45,801 44,249 17,568 61,817 43,875 17,678 61,553 32,075 13,990 46,064
.
17 Rajasth 46,810 11,006 57,816 26,084 10,087 36,171 23,438 10,365 33,803 49,456 10,728 60,184
. an
18 Sikkim Nil
.
19 Tamil 55,818 40,678 96,496 43,651 1,93,57 2,37,229 43,188 1,93,182 2,36,37 56,281 41,074 97,355
. Nadu 8 0
20 Tripura 1,708 257 1,965 1,023 180 1,203 1,018 152 1,170 1,713 285 1,998
.
21 Uttar 1,15,684 35,168 1,50,852 1,25,25 47,721 1,72,980 1,27,887 44,853 1,72,74 1,13,056 38,036 1,51,092
. Pradesh 9 0
22 West 1,04,275 22,215 1,26,490 45,808 10,238 56,046 36,332 8,940 45,272 11,3,751 23,513 1,37,264
. Bengal
X-54
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N
Islands
2. Arunac
hal Not available separately
Pradesh
3. Chandig 642 1,093 1,735 510 1,706 2,216 420 1,541 1,961 732 1,258 1,990
arh
4. Dadra Nil
&
Nagar
Haveli
5. Delhi Nil
6. Goa, 1,895 231 2,126 831 163 994 655 168 823 2,071 226 2,297
Daman
& Diu
7. Lakshad 26 16 42 15 237 252 17 220 237 24 33 57
weep
8. Mizora Not available separately
m
9. Pondich 805 502 1,307 1,815 1,287 3,102 1,741 1,245 2,985 879 544 1,423
erry
TOTAL 8,37,971 4,14,294 12,52,265 6,55,182 7,54,065 1,413,247 6,19,644 7,54,329 1,373,973 8,73,509 4,18,030 12,91,539
[Page No. 72]
X-55
TABLE XI
General result of Trial of Civil Cases in Small Cause Courts on the original side during the year 1977
Name of the
States/union Pendency as on 1-1-1977 Institution during 1977 Disposal during 1977 Pendency as on 31-12-
Territory 77
S. Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total Regular Misc. Total Regula Misc. Total
No. Suits cases Suits cases Suits cases r Suits cases
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Andhra Pradesh 1,211 3,209 4,420 2,149 10,262 12,411 2,089 9,371 11,460 1,271 4,100 5,371
2. Assam ____________________Nil________________________
3. Bihar 20,917 38 20,955 4,916 59 4,975 8,391 33 8,424 17,442 64 17,506
4. Gujarat 15,590 4,730 20,320 9,253 7,654 16907 9,195 8,027 17,222 15,648 4,357 2,005
5. Haryana ____________________Nil________________________
6. Himachal Pradesh ______________________Not available separately___________________
7. Jammu & Kashmir ____________________Not available________________________
8. Karnataka ____________________Nil________________________
9. Kerala ____________________Nil________________________
10 Madhya Pradesh 8,750 1,690 10,260 16,635 2,502 19,137 16,512 2,503 19,015 8,693 1,689 10,382
11. Maharashtra 51,694 26,023 77,717 22,744 24,986 47,730 22,573 26,219 48,792 51,865 24,79 76,655
0
12. Manipur ____________________Nil________________________
13. Meghalaya ______________________Not available separately___________________
14. Nagaland ____________________Nil________________________
15. Orissa 1,038 7 1,045 2,412 31 2,443 2,420 32 2,452 1,030 6 1,036
16. Punjab 251 47 298 424 27 451 346 35 381 329 39 368
17. Rajasthan 1,896 144 2,040 1,519 171 1,690 1,633 152 1,765 1,782 163 1,945
18. Sikkim ____________________Nil________________________
19. Tamil Nadu 3,154 .. 3,145 5,417 .. 5,417 5,083 .. 5,083 3,488 .. 3,488
20. Tripura ____________________Nil________________________
21. Uttar Pradesh 23,535 3,283 26,818 26,233 7,257 33,490 22,622 5,664 28,286 27,146 4,876 32,022
22. West Bengal 6,573 207 6,780 2,611 277 2,888 2,990 2,09 3,199 6,194 275 6,469
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N Islands ____________________Nil________________________
2. Arunachal ______________________Not available separately___________________
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh ____________________Nil________________________
4. Dadra & Nagar ______________________Not available separately___________________
Haveli
5. Delhi 2,391 1,798 4,189 3,187 2,365 5552 3,480 2,418 5,898 2,098 1,745 3,843
6. Goa, Daman & Diu ____________________Nil________________________
7. Lakshadweep ____________________Nil________________________
8. Mizoram ______________________Not available separately___________________
9. Pondicherry ____________________Nil________________________
TOTAL 1,36,820 41,176 1,77,99 97,500 55,591 1,53,0 97,334 54,663 1,51,9 13,698 42104 1,79,09
6 91 97 6 0
[Page No. 73]
X-56
TABLE XII
General Result of Trial of Civil Cases on the appellate side in the Courts functioning at District
level in 1977
Name of the Pendency on 1-1-1977 Institution during 1977 Disposal during 1977 Pendency on 31-11-77
State
Appeal Appeals Appeals Appeals Appeal Appeal Appeals Appeal
s
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Andhra 7,994 4,325 12,319 9,715 5,724 15,439 7,827 6,329 14,156 9,882 3,720 13,602
Pradesh
2. Assam 1,481 389 1,870 923 388 1,311 838 298 1,136 1,566 479 2,045
3. Bihar 11,171 2,834 14,005 8,619 2,378 10,997 8,079 2,490 10,569 11,716* 2,725* 14,441*
4. Gujarat 5,588 1,146 6,734 3,448 1,705 5,153 3,357 1,804 5,161 5,679 1,047 6,726
5. Haryana 4,384 649 5,033 5,469 1,127 6,596 4,503 949 5,452 5,350 827 6,177
6. 752 772 1,524 1,485 680 2,165 717 676 1,393 1,520 776 2,296
Himachal
Pradesh
7. Jammu ---------------------------Not Available--------------------
and
Kashmir
8. 10,819 5,147 15,966 5,258 4,503 9,761 6,228 5,443 11,671 9,849 4,207 14,056
Karnataka
9. Kerala 10,275 2,550 12,825 8,098 3,325 11,423 8,912 3,497 12,409 9,461 2,378 11,839
10. Madhya 9761 3439 13,200 10,354 5,147 15,501 10,459 5286 15745 9656 3,300 12,956
Pradesh
11. 17,031 2,561 19,592 7,978 3,213 11,191 7,764 3,056 10,820 17,245 2,718 19,963
Maharashtr
a
12. Manipur 36 9 45 66 10 76 73 14 87 29 5 34
13. ---------------------------------Not Available--------------------
Meghalaya
14. 4 .. 4 73 45 118 33 16 49 44 29 73
Nagaland
15. Orissa 2,134 706 2,840 2,387 1,089 3,476 2,229 1,076 3,305 2,292 719 3,011
16. Punjab 6,814 1,567 8,381 10,715 2,588 13,303 11,077 2,848 13,925 6,452 1,307 7,759
17. 6,142 1,736 7,878 5,150 2,478 7,628 4,677 2,207 6,884 6,615 2,007 8,622
Rajasthan
18. Sikkim 4 2 6 9 2 11 5 2 7 8 2 10
19. Tamil 10,857 5,087 15,954 12,496 5,987 18,483 13,235 6,513 19,748 10,118 45,71 14,619
Nadu
20. Tripura 266 59 325 112 86 198 171 83 254 207 62 269
21. Uttar 19,753 19,105 38,858 34,831 22,546 57,377 33,195 26,257 59,452 21,389 15,394 36,783
Pradesh
22. West 6,866 2,443 9,309 7,403 3,673 11,076 7,447 3,895 11,342 6,822 2,221 9,043
Bengal
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A & N 2 1 3 2 .. 2 2 1 3 2 .. 2
Islands
X-57
2. .. .. .. 2 4 6 1 4 5 1 .. 1
Arunachal
Pradesh
3. 104 125 229 146 232 378 183 248 431 67 109 176
Chandigarh
4. Dadra & .. 27 27 50 2 52 .. 24 24 50 5 55
Nagar
Haveli
5. Delhi 1,995 2,476 4,471 1,522 2,570 4,092 1,354 2,260 3,614 2,163 2,786 4,949
6. Goa, 478 122 600 260 156 416 239 113 352 499 165 664
Daman &
Diu
7. 14 .. 14 8 1 9 7 1 8 15 .. 15
Lakshadwe
ep
8. Mizoram 65 2 67 54 125 179 98 84 182 21 43 64
9. 312 141 453 268 282 550 212 329 541 368 94 462
Pondicherry
TOTAL in 1,35,10 57,430 1,92,53 1,36,901 70,066 2,06,96 1,32,92 75,803 2,08,72 1,39,086 51,696 1,90,782
the Country 2 2 7 2 5
* Pendency on 31-12-1977 in Bihar ought to be 11,711 Regular Appeals and 2,722 Miscellaneous Appeals.
[Page No. 74]
X-58
TABLE XIII
General Result of Trial of Civil Cases in District/Additional District Judges Courts on the
appellate side during the year 1977
State
Appeal Appeals Appeals Appeals Appeal Appeal Appeals Appeals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Andhra 4,516 848 5,464 6,610 2,190 8,800 6,004 2,094 8,098 5,222 944 6,166
Pradesh
2. Assam 228 120 348 149 105 254 97 78 175 280 147 427
3. Bihar 4,886 1,638 6,524 4,887 1,515 6,402 4,128 1,556 5,684 5,652* 1,596* 7,248*
4. Gujarat 4,677 880 5,557 2,965 1,384 4,349 2,966 1,428 4,394 4,676 836 5,512
5. Haryana 1,862 283 2,145 3,619 509 4,128 2,904 502 3,406 2,577 290 2,867
6. Himachal -----------------Not Reported Separately--------------
Pradesh
7. Jammu ---------------------------Not Available--------------------
and Kashmir
8. Karnataka 797 3,452 4,249 484 2,392 2,876 560 3,538 4,098 721 2,306 3,027
9. Kerala 4,377 887 5,264 3,866 1,371 5,237 4,561 1,453 6,014 3,682 805 4,487
10. Madhya 9,761 3,439 13,20 10,354 5,147 15,50 10,459 5,286 15,74 9,656 3,300 12,956
Pradesh 0 1 5
11. 17,031 2,560 19,59 7,978 3,213 11,19 7,764 3,055 10,81 17,245 2,718 19,963
Maharashtra 1 1 9
12. Manipur 36 9 45 66 10 76 73 14 87 5 29 343
13. ---------------------------------Not Available--------------------
Meghalaya
14. Nagaland -----------------Not Reported Separately--------------
15. Orissa 1,129 511 1,640 1,322 684 2,006 1,233 702 1,935 1,218 493 1,711
16. Punjab 3,667 939 4,606 8,289 2,027 10,31 5,551 1,661 7,212 6,405 1,305 7,710
6
17. Rajasthan 5,092 1,471 6,553 3,809 2,031 5,840 3,892 1,880 5,772 5,009 1,622 6,631
18. Sikkim 4 2 6 9 2 11 5 2 27 8 2 10
19. Tamil 3,893 1,867 5,760 5,612 2,270 7,882 6,056 2,291 8,347 3,449 1,846 5,295
Nadu
20. Tripura 97 18 115 74 29 103 73 27 100 98 20 118
21. Uttar 13,911 12,539 26,45 27,727 19,463 47,19 26,991 21,896 48,88 14,647 10,106 24,753
Pradesh 0 0 7
22. West 5,174 2,044 7,218 6,354 3,239 9,593 6,248 3,391 9,639 5,280 1,892 7,172
Bengal
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A & N 2 1 3 3 .. 2 2 1 3 2 .. 2
Islands
2. Arunachal -----------------Not Reported Separately--------------
Pradesh
3. 98 125 223 130 232 362 171 248 419 57 109 166
Chandigarh
4. Karnataka 27 27 50 2 52 24 24 50 5 55
5. Delhi 920 916 2,836 777 2,101 2,878 859 1,847 2706 838 2,170 3,008
X-59
6. Goa, 478 122 600 260 156 416 239 113 352 499 165 664
Daman &
Diu
7. -----------------Not Reported Separately--------------
Lakshadweep
8. Mizoram
9. 297 88 385 232 146 378 176 214 390 353 20 373
Pondicherry
TOTAL in 83,033 35,785 11,81 95,625 50,218 1,45,8 91,012 53,301 144,3 87,653 32,702 120,355
the Country 9 43 13
*Pendency on 31-12-1977 in Bihar ought to be Regular Appeals 5,645 and Miscellaneous Appeals 1597.
[Page No. 75]
X-60
TABLE XIV
General Result of Trial of Civil Cases in Senior Civil Judges/Sub-Judges Courts on the
appellate side during the year 1977
State/ Union
Territory
Appeal Appeals Appeals Appeals Appeal Appeal Appeals Appeals
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Andhra 3,378 3,477 6,855 3,105 3,534 6,639 1,823 4,235 6,058 4,660 2,776 7,436
Pradesh
2. Assam 1,253 269 1,522 774 283 1,057 741 220 961 1,286 332 1,617
3. Bihar 6,285 1,196 7,481 3,732 863 4,595 3,951 934 4,885 60,64* 1,129* 7,193*
4. Gujarat 911 266 1,177 483 321 804 391 376 767 1,003 211 1,214
5. Haryana 2,522 366 2,888 1,850 618 2,468 1,599 447 2,046 2,773 537 3,310
6. Himachal -----------------------------------------Not Reported Separately-----------------------------------------------
Pradesh
7. Jammu and ------------------------------------------Not Available-----------------------------------------------------
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 10,022 1,695 11,717 4,774 2,111 6,885 5,668 1,905 7,573 1928 1,901 11,029
9. Kerala 5,898 1,663 7,561 4,232 1,954 6,186 4,351 2,044 6,395 5,779 1,573 7,352
10. Madhya ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pradesh ----------------
11. Maharashtra .. 1 1 .. Nil .. .. 1 1 .. Nil ..
12. Manipur ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Meghalaya ---------------------------------------------Not Available----------------------------------------------------
14. Nagaland ------------------------------------Not Reported Separately-----------------------------------------
15. Orissa 1,005 195 1,200 1,065 405 1,470 996 374 1,370 1,074 226 1,300
16. Punjab 3,147 628 3,775 2,426 561 2,987 5,526 11,87 6,713 47 2 499
17. Rajasthan 1,050 265 1,315 1,341 447 1,788 785 327 1,112 1,606 385 1,991
18. Sikkim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Tamil Nadu 6,964 3,230 10,194 6,884 3,717 10,60 7,179 42,22 11,401 6,669 2,275 9,394
1
20. Tripura 169 41 210 38 57 95 98 56 154 109 42 151
21. Uttar 5,842 6,566 12,408 7,104 3,083 10,18 6,204 10,565 4,361 6,742 5,28 12,030
Pradesh 7
22. West Bengal 1,692 399 2,091 1,049 434 1,483 1,199 504 1,703 1,542 329 1,871
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A & N ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Islands
2. Arunachal -------------Not Available Separately------------------------------------------------------------------
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 6 .. 6 16 .. 16 12 .. 12 10 .. 10
4. Dadra & --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagar Haveli
5. Delhi 1,075 560 1,635 745 469 1,214 495 413 908 1,325 616 1,941
6. Goa, Daman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
& Diu
7. Lakshadweep 14 .. 14 8 1 9 7 1 8 15 .. 15
X-61
8. Mizoram ---------------------------------Not Available Separately---------------------------------------------
9. Pondicherry 15 53 68 36 136 172 36 115 151 15 74 89
Total in the 51,248 20,870 72,118 39,662 18,994 58,65 41,061 21,722 62,783 49,847 18,146 67,993
Country 6
*Pendency on 31-12-1977 in Bihar ought to be 6,066 Regular 1,125 Miscellaneous Appeals.
[Page No. 76]
X-62
TABLE I
Table showing institution and disposal during the 4th quarter ending December, 1977 and
disposal as percentage of institution during the 4th quarter of 1976, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th
quarter of 1977 in the Session Courts.
1 Original = 5 Appeals or 5 Revisions
Name of State/ Union Institution Disposal
Territory during during quarter
quarter Disposal as percentage of institution during
4 quarter 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter 4th quarter
th
of 1976 of 1977 of 1977 of 1977 of 1977

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1. Andhra Pradesh 1,042 1,101 99.1 97.2 113.8 98.7 105.7
2. Assam 322 238 75.0 78.3 83.0 82.6 73.9
3. Bihar 2,579 1,613 84.0 85.1 83.6 79.8 62.5
4. Gujarat 605 654 90.3 99.2 128.3 80.7 108.1
5. Haryana 718 729 96.3 58.8 140.7 84.9 101.5
6. Himachal Pradesh 99 102 91.4 65.9 120.8 114.5 103.0
7. Jammu & Kashmir N.A. N.A. 91.7 85.5 N.A. N.A. N.A.
8. Karnataka 352 377 114.7 98.7 113.9 125.2 107.1

9. Kerala 420 472 101.7 102.6 60.9 114.2 112.4
10. Madhya Pradesh 1,899 1,961 99.5 110.1 102.7 97.2 103.3
11. Maharashtra 1,253 1,259 118.9 101.9 111.9 92.7 100.5
12. Manipur 47 29 74.3 96.5 96.2 104.7 59.6
13. Meghalaya N.A. N.A. 57.1 32.0 N.A. N.A. N.A.
14. Nagaland 26 70 79.2 120.0 107.4 76.9 169.2
15. Orissa 385 378 100.0 106.9 77.8 89.6 98.2
16. Punjab 1,040 1,002 114.0 113.9 110.9 91.8 96.3
17. Rajasthan 1,320 1,124 86.2 101.7 97.4 78.8 85.2
18. Sikkim 12 13 84.6 91.7 80.0 33.3 108.3
19. Tamil Nadu 851 752 118.3 100.0 68.9 112.7 88.4
20. Uttar Pradesh 13,984 14,377 77.7 88.9 94.6 100.4 102.8
21. Tripura 42 49 92.3 108.0 144.1 135.6 116.7
22. West Bengal 632 731 90.4 97.8 105.2 109.2 115.7
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A. & N. Islands 5 4 66.7 20.00 100.0 150.0 80.0
2. Arunachal Pradesh 21 8 64.2 63.6 92.3 100.0 38.1
3. Chandigarh 12 15 77.8 68.2 92.3 150.0 125.0
4. Dadra & Nagar 4 5 300.0 50.0 150.0 133.3 125.0
Haveli
5. Delhi 315 301 109.4 125.8 147.4 106.5 95.6
6. Goa, Daman & Diu 36 33 100.0 193.3 76.2 120.5 91.7
7. Lakshadweep .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
8. Mizoram 108 25 91.8 200.0 29.5 118.5 23.2
9. Pondicherry 17 17 155.6 90.9 59.3 100.0 100.0
Total in the Country 28,146 27,438 91.9 95.5 97.1 96.8 97.5
[Page No. 77]
X-63
TABLE II
Table showing the number of courts available for criminal work in Sessions Courts,
disposal in units and average rate of disposal per Court during 4 th Quarter of 1976 and 1st,
2nd, 3rd, and 4th Quarters of 1977
Name of the State/ Number of
Union Territory Courts available Disposal in Units during Average rate of disposal per court during
for criminal
th rd th th
work 4 3 4 4 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter
of 1976 of 1977 of 1977 of 1976 of 1977 of 1977 of 1977 of
1977
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Andhra 32 783 754 1,101 26.1 19.6 18.1 23.6 34.4

Pradesh
2. Assam 9 228 280 238 32.6 28.9 25.4 31.1 26.4
3. Bihar 87 1,754 2,657 1,613 18.3 22.3 25.3 25.8 18.5
4. Gujarat 22 558 613 654 29.4 24.5 28.6 29.2 29.7
5. Haryana 14 287 231 729 41.0 47.1 70.6 33.0 52.1
6. Himachal 3 170 63 102 48.6 36.7 38.7 21.0 34.0

Pradesh
7. Jammu & N.A. 110 N.A. N.A. 15.7 16.0 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 15 422 477 377 12.4 22.5 20.8 28.1 25.1
9. Kerala 16 436 491 472 27.3 29.3 17.0 28.9 29.5
10 Madhya 73 1,782 2,172 1,961 25.5 31.8 24.6 31.0 26.8

Pradesh
11. Maharashtra 55 1,530 1,519 1,239 26.8 29.6 21.6 23.0 22.9
12. Manipur 2 26 45 28 13.0 27.5 25.5 22.5 14.0
13. Meghalaya N.A. 116 N.A. N.A. 8.0 4.0 N.A. N.A. N.A.
14. Nagaland 5 19 30 70 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.0 14.0
15. Orissa 20 363 395 378 14.0 11.3 8.4 18.8 18.9
16. Punjab 20 922 983 1,002 57.6 61.8 47.8 49.2 50.1
17. Rajasthan 30 849 1,189 1,124 30.3 38.0 36.3 45.7 37.5
18. Sikkim 0.5 33 1 13 66.0 44.0 32.0 2.0 26.0
19. Tamil Nadu 20 939 978 752 67.1 34.9 30.0 65.2 37.6
20. Tripura 4 84 80 49 28.0 37.3 21.3 20.0 12.3
21. Uttar 203 4,691 16,127 14,377 24.1 30.4 67.1 84.4 70.8
Pradesh
22. West Bengal 48 782 1,500 731 19.1 22.6 24.1 28.8 15.2
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N 0.5 2 6 4 4.0 2.0 6.0 12.0 8.0

Islands
2. Arunachal 3 9 12 8 2.2 1.8 3.0 3.0 2.7
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 1 14 12 15 14.0 15.0 12.0 12.0 15.0
X-64
4. Dadra & 0.5 3 4 5 .. 20.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Nag-
ar Haveli
5. Delhi 13 420 396 301 30 35.2 30.2 33.0 23.2
6. Goa, Daman 1 38 53 33 38.0 87.0 32.0 53.0 33.0

& Diu
7. Lakshadwee 1 .. .. .. .. 2.0 .. .. ..
p
8. Mizoram 2 493 32 25 493.0 3.3 4.3 10.7 12.5
9. Pondicherry 1 14 16 17 14.0 5.0 2.3 8.0 17.0
TOTAL in 701.5 17,777 31,116 27,438 25.3 27.5 35.5 44.0 39.
the country
[Page No. 78]
X-65
TABLE III
Table showing pendency in Sessions Courts on 1-1-1977, 1-10-1977 and 31-12-1977 and
rate of increase or decrease during 4 th quarter of 1976 and 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of
1977
S. Name of the %age
No. State/Union Pendency as on Rate of increase or decrease in pendency during
increase or
Territories decrease in
th st nd rd th pendency in
1-1-77 1-10-77 31-12-77 4 quarter 1 2 3 4
the period
of 1976 quarter quarter quarter quarter
from 1-1-77
of 1977 of of of 1977
to 31-12-77
1977 1977
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Andhra 1,064 934 875 -0.1 -0.1 -10.8 -1.5 -6.3 -17.8
Pradesh
2. Assam 1,572 1,752 1,836 +5.0 +4.4 +3.2 +3.5 +4.8 +16.8
3. Bihar 17,275 18,766 19,732 +2.0 +2.3 +2.4 +3.7 +5.1 +14.2
4. Gujarat 917 892 842 +7.0 -0.6 -19.3 +19.9 -5.6 -8.2
5. Haryana 1,226 1,355 1,344 +0.8 +18.8 -9.8 +3.1 -0.8 +9.6
6. Himachal 378 407 405 +4.1 +15.1 -4.6 -1.9 -0.5 +7.1
Pradesh
7. Jammu & NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 798 663 638 -6.3 +0.5 -5.4 -12.6 -3.8 -20.0
9. Kerala 518 619 567 -1.3 -2.3 +34.4 -9.0 -8.4 +9.5
10 Madhya 3,089 2,900 2,837 +3.0 -6.6 -1.6 +2.2 -2.2 -8.2
Pradesh
11. Maharashtra 3,264 3,192 3,186 -6.9 -0.8 -5.1 +3.9 -0.2 -2.4
12. Meghalaya NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
13. Manipur 45 47 66 +25.0 +2.2 +4.3 -2.1 +40.4 +46.7
14. Nagaland 82 85 41 +82.2 -4.9 -3.6 +10.5 -51.8 -50.0
15. Orissa 1,147 1,248 1,255 -0.1 -20.4 +7.9 +3.4 +0.6 +9.4
16. Punjab 1,669 1,550 1,588 -12.0 -7.6 -5.2 +6.0 +2.5 -4.8
17. Rajasthan 3,167 3,498 3,695 -10.4 -0.6 +0.9 +10.1 +5.6 +16.7
18. Sikkim 54 62 60 +10.2 +3.7 +7.1 +3.3 -3.2 +11.1
19. Tamil Nadu 715 809 908 -16.9 Nil +28.5 -12.0 +12.2 +27.0
20. Tripura 216 158 151 +3.8 -5.6 -12.7 -11.2 -4.4 -30.1
21. Uttar Pradesh 32,924 36,341 35,948 +4.2 +2.1 +1.3 -0.2 -1.1 +9.2
22. West Bengal 3,315 3,148 3,049 +2.6 +0.8 -1.9 -3.9 -3.1 -7.8
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N Islands 4 6 6 Nil +75.0 +14.3 -25.0 .. +50.0
2. Arunachal 37 41 55 .. +10.8 .. .. +34. +48.7
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 19 23 20 +18.8 +36.8 +3.8 -14.8 13. +5.3
4. Dadra & 7 7 6 -22.2 +28.6 -11.1 -12.5 -14.3 -14.3
Nagar
Haveli
5. Delhi 1,082 830 844 -3.2 -9.3 -12.9 -2.8 +1.7 -22.0
X-66
6. Goa, Daman 165 124 127 Nil -25.5 +8.1 -6.8 +2.4 -23.0
& Diu
7. Lakshadweep .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
8. Mizoram 177 198 281 +22.6 -2.8 +18.0 -2.5 + +58.8
9. Pondicherry 14 21 21 -26.3 +14.3 +31.3 .. .. +50.0
TOTAL in 74,941 79,676 80,383 +1.3 +1.1 +0.9 +1.3 +0.9 +7.3
the Country
[Page No. 79]
X-67
TABLE IV
Table showing institution and disposal of cases during the 4 th Quarter of 1977 in the Magisterial Courts and disposal as
percentage of institution during 4th Quarter of 1976 and 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Quarters of 1977
Institution during the 4th Disposal during the 4th Disposal as percentage of institution
Name of the State/ quarter of 1977 quarter of 1977 during
Union Territory Police Complaint Total Police Complai Total 4th I st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th
Challans cases Challans nt quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter
cases of of of of 1977 of 1977
1976 1977 1977
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Andhra 63,627 27,545 91172 65,499 28,153 93,652 103.9 99.8 94.8 101.9 102.7
Pradesh
2. Assam 12,228 12,849 25,077 7,290 10,590 17880 91.1 77.1 88.1 89.7 77.3
3. Bihar 33,523 19,450 52,973 28,113 17743 45,856 81.3 155.5 107.0 100.1 86.6
4. Gujarat 91,738 1,41,427 2,33,16 88,860 178,665 2,67,52 90.5 87.6 113.8 92.7 114.7
5 5
5. Haryana 9,775 2,470 12,245 10,179 2,199 12,378 95.7 101.3 98.7 94.0 101.1
6. Himachal 2,315 1,799 4,114 1,905 2,028 3,933 92.8 98.5 82.0 100.6 95.6
Pradesh
7. Jammu .. .. .. .. .. .. 98.4 85.0 N.A. N.A. N.A.
&Kashmir
8. Karnataka 56,040 7978 64,018 51,646 7544 59,190 97.4 95.5 92.5 99.7 92.5
9. Kerala 38,900 12,090 50,990 36,111 12,283 48,394 104.4 106.5 100.2 97.9 94.9
10 Madhya Pradesh 84,441 12,941 97,382 72,275 11,942 84,217 103.4 143.7 91.3 96.6 86.5
11. Maharashtra 1,80,046 57,180 2,37,22 1,73,295 56,670 29,965 96.3 107.4 111.6 121.2 96.9
6
12. Manipur 242 796 1,038 479 381 860 142.8 21.6 69.8 120.8 82.9
13. Meghalaya N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 66.0 122.0 N.A. N.A. N.A.
14. Nagaland 272 17 289 294 14 308 101.2 64.3 63.1 108.9 106.6
15. Orissa 16,789 10,849 27,638 13,805 8,657 22,462 80.2 263.5 78.6 180.9 81.3
16. Punjab 17,592 3,446 21,038 16,554 3,766 20320 83.0 101.4 76.8 96.1 96.6
17. Rajasthan 27,856 18,987 46,843 24,691 20,110 44,801 88.4 94.1 101.8 89.2 95.6
18. Sikkim 417 39 456 1,077 39 1,116 193.5 82.0 86.2 101.3 242.7
19. Tamil Nadu 1,98,669 36,432 2,35,10 2,09,343 42,342 251685 106.7 90.5 96.7 103.7 107.1
1
20. Tripura 3,305 971 4,276 11,208 910 12,118 157.9 102.8 116.7 124.6 283.4
21. Uttar Pradesh 1,00,813 71532 1,72345 1,04,540 75,426 1,79,96 88.8 91.9 96.2 97.3 104.4
6
22. West Bengal 88,340 23,691 1,12,03 84,501 26,319 1,10,82 85.9 97.3 117.2 72.8 98.9
1 0
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N Islands 1,383 67 1,450 1,538 66 1,604 96.1 111.7 135.2 161.0 110.65
2. Arunachal 148 51 199 133 26 159 94.8 88.4 135.0 67.3 79.9
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 204 81 285 182 100 292 89.0 103.0 84.8 85.0 102.5
4. Dadra & Nagar 90 4 94 123 5 128 71.9 190.0 123.8 196.3 136.2
Haveli
5. Delhi 1,09,413 32,322 1,41735 98,674 20,267 1,18,94 78.9 71.7 115.6 132.5 83.5
1
X-68
6. Goa, Daman & 915 205 1,120 1,070 170 1,240 3746.2 992.8 335.6 311.9 110.7
Diu
7. Lakshadweep 11 2 13 5 .. 5 566.7 85.7 50.0 66.7 38.9
8. Mizoram 197 18 215 149 19 168 38.6 35.7 175.2 129.7 78.1
9. Pondicherry 3,811 87 3,898 4,062 91 4,153 128.0 104.8 106.1 95.7 106.5
Total in the 11,43,100 4,59,326 16,38,42 11,07,611 5,26,525 16,34,13 96.4 100.6 103.3 100.2 99.7
country 6 6
[Page No. 80]
X-69
TABLE V
Table showing number of Magisterial Courts functioning during 4 th Quarter of 1977
and average rate of disposal per Court in units on the basis of time devoted by
Courts to criminal work during 4th quarter of 1976 and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, Quarters
of 1977 in Magisterial Courts.
Disposal of-
(i) One Police Challan or complaint cases after full trail. . . . . . . . . . --1 unit
(ii) 20 Police Challan cases by receiving and accepting FR/FF, Compounding or withdrawal. . . . . --1 unit
(iii) 20 Complaint cases by dismissal, absence of complaint, compounding or withdrawal. . . . . . . . --1 unit
(iv) 10 Police Chalan or Complaint cases by committal to Sessions Courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1 unit
(v) 50 Uncontested Police Chalan or complaint cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --1 unit
No. of Disposal in units during Average rate of disposal per court in

Name of the courts
State/Union Territories availabl
4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
e for
quarter quarter quarter quarter quarter quarte quarte quarte quarte quarter
criminal
of 1976 of of of of r of r of r of r of of
work
1977 1977 1977 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Andhra Pradesh 184 13,157 11,428 12,182 14,015 12,145 74.3 62.4 61.8 72.6 66
2. Assam 53 2,984 2,748 3,335 3,502 2,423 50.6 50.0 59.6 67.4 45.7
3. Bihar 410 8,759 16,879 13,452 15,952 9,465 22.5 43.2 34.5 42.0 23.1
4. Gujarat 118 30,422 23,674 23,303 25,032 21,852 257.8 217.2 173.9 218.0 185.2
5. Haryana 41 3,309 3,305 2,880 3,124 3,881 103.4 106.6 87.3 82.2 94.7
6. Himachal 18 756 1,063 790 781 701 42.0 59.1 43.9 43.3 58.9
Pradesh
7. Jammu & N.A. 7,121 5,714 N.A. N.A. N.A. 192.5 154.4 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 88 7,609 6,798 6,752 7,742 7,148 65.0 70.1 69.5 88.0 81.2
9. Kerala 107 13,662 12,720 12,625 11,137 13,157 131.4 123.5 123.8 111.4 123.0
10 Madhya Pradesh 221 17,782 20,452 13,730 16,335 13,765 91.7 146.1 92.8 111.1 62.3
11. Maharashtra 330 33,065 34,600 33,769 37,369 24,780 114.4 125.8 102.0 121.3 82.6
12. Manipur 4 180 94 121 176 142 36.0 47.0 30.3 44.0 35.3
13. Meghalaya N.A. 115 71 N.A. N.A. N.A. 61.0 10.1 N.A. N.A. N.A.
14. Nagaland 15 377 88 113 140 93 15.1 4.2 5.4 6.7 6.2
15. Orissa 120 5,580 14,153 6,241 7,166 5992 67.2 132.3 50.7 49.4 49.9
16. Punjab 76 5,498 5,484 4,246 6,173 6,409 100.0 96.2 66.3 63.4 84.3
17. Rajasthan 192 9,300 8,239 8,182 9,072 7,802 65.2 58.4 54.9 52.7 4.6
18. Sikkim 4.5 38 43 140 50 46 8.4 9.6 31.1 11.1 10.8
19. Tamil Nadu 221 35,864 23,784 27,208 34,123 34,217 169.2 112.7 126.0 155.1 154.8
20. Tripura 25 549 611 518 665 1,281 25.2 27.8 21.6 26.6 51.2
21. Uttar Pradesh 619 38,729 37,502 42,531 47,039 39,623 79.4 70.4 68.6 75.1 64.0
22. West Bengal 172 8,721 9,183 9,139 25,905 8,607 52.2 54.7 53.8 154.2 50.0
X-70
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N Islands 3 147 172 194 177 185 49.0 57.3 64.7 59.0 61.7
2. Arunachal 5 17 223 24 20 31 1.2 2.6 2.7 6.7 6.2
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 2 112 97 70 83 94 56.0 48.5 35.0 41.5 47.0
4. Dadra & Nagar 0.5 6 10 12 22 25 60.0 100 120.0 220.0 50.0
Haveli
5. Delhi 48 4,560 5,962 4,678 5,866 5,127 108.6 145.4 95.3 119.7 106.8
6. Goa, Daman & 7.5 1,118 540 336 363 318 159.7 72.0 44.8 48.4 42.4
Diu
7. Lakshadweep 1 4 1 1 2 1 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
8. Mizoram 8 90 7 102 127 55 45.0 0.9 12.8 15.9 6.0
9. Pondicherry 6 391 239 354 401 323 65.2 34.1 50.6 66.8 53.8
TOTAL. . . . . . . 3,069,5 2,50022 2,45,68 226342 2,72,559 2,19,668 88.2 88.0 76.0 91.5 716
4
[Page No. 81]
X-71
TABLE VI
Table showing pendency of Police Challan and Complaint cases in Magisterial Courts as on 1-1-1977, 1-10-1977 and
31-12-1977 and rate of increase or decrease in pendency during 4 th quarter of 1976 and 1 st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of
1977
Rate of increase or decrease Increase or
Name of the State/Union Pendency as on in pendency during decrease in
Territories th st Nd rd th pendency in
1-1-77 1-10-77 31-12-77 4 1 2 3 4
a period of
quarter quarter quarte quarter quarter
1-1-77 to
of of r of of of
31-12-77
1976 1977 1977 1977 1977
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Andhra Pradesh 69,430 72,840 70,360 -5.3 +0.3 +7.4 -2.6 -3.4 +1.3
2. Assam 95,856 106,899 114,096 +2.3 +5.6 +3.0 +2.6 +6.7 +19.0
3. Bihar 504,283 472,737 479,854 +2.1 -5.5 -0.8 .. +1.5 -4.8
4. Gujarat 425,260 450,516 416,156 +8.0 +9.3 -8.0 +5.3 -7.6 -2.1
5. Haryana 35,286 35,963 35,830 +1.3 -0.3 +0.4 +1.9 -0.4 +1.5
6. Himachal Pradesh 14,895 15,732 15,913 +2.7 +0.4 +5.3 -0.2 +1.2 +6.8
7. Jammu & Kashmir Not applicable
8. Karnataka 61,983 70,817 75,643 +3.1 +5.7 +7.8 +0.3 +6.8 +22.0
9. Kerala 60,119 57,984 60,580 -3.5 -5.2 -0.2 +1.9 +4.5 +0.8
10 Madhya Pradesh 281,660 257,542 270,707 -1.3 -12.2 +2.8 +1.3 +5.1 -3.9
11. Maharashtra 721,861 605,829 613,090 +1.7 -3.0 -4.5 -9.4 +1.2 -15.1
12. Manipur 18,243 20,778 20,956 -4.4 +13.2 +2.1 -1.4 +0.9 +14.9
13. Meghalaya Not applicable
14. Nagaland 867 1,204 1,185 +5.5 +19.7 +20.4 -3.7 -1.6 +36.7
15. Orissa 184,475 144,060 149,164 +4.1 -28.5 +4.6 +4.4 +3.5 -19.1
16. Punjab 46,570 51,315 52,033 +7.0 -0.4 +9.0 +1.5 +1.4 +11.7
17. Rajasthan 245,556 253,602 255,644 +3.3 +1.2 -0.3 +2.4 +0.8 +4.1
18. Sikkim 1,874 2,087 1,427 -10.3 +5.7 +5.9 -0.4 -31.6 -23.8
19. Tamil Nadu 81,518 111,062 94,478 -21.6 +33.8 +11.3 -8.5 -14.9 +15.9
20. Tripura 17,396 15,769 7,927 -15.5 -0.7 -2.8 -5.5 -49.7 -54.4
21. Uttar Pradesh 533,591 592,157 584,536 +4.7 +3.3 +1.3 +1.1 -1.3 +9.5
22. West Bengal 712,112 755,607 756,818 +3.4 +0.6 -3.0 +3.8 +0.2 +6.3
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N Islands 3,832 2,310 2,156 +2.5 -7.8 -11.9 -26.1 -6.7 -43.7
2. Arunachal 223 189 229 -1.8 +5.8 -15.3 +17.0 +21.2 +2.7
Pradesh
3. Chandigarh 1,715 1,822 1,815 +2.6 -0.7 +3.3 +3.5 -0.4 +5.8
4. Dadra & Nag- 400 209 175 +13.0 -22.0 -7.7 -27.4 -16.3 -56.2
ar Haveli
5. Delhi 260,454 245,167 267,961 +9.7 +12.2 -4.4 -12.3 +2.9 +2.9
6. Goa, Daman & Diu 18,164 4,073 3,953 -66.9 -51.9 -28.1 -35.2 -2.9 -78.2
7. Lakshadweep 15 25 33 -48.3 +6.7 +37.5 +13.6 +32.0 +120.0
8. Mizoram 716 701 748 +84.0 +21.6 -13.5 -6.9 +6.7 +4.5
9. Pondicherry 1,804 1,576 1,321 -41.3 -9.8 -13.9 +12.5 -16.2 -26.8
TOTAL 44,00,158 43,50,572 43,54,790 +1.7 -0.2 -1.3 -0.1 +0.1 -1.1
[Page No. 82]
X-72
TABLE VII
Table showing number of Police Challan cases pending for want of FF/FR or charge
sheet at the end of 4th quarter of 1977 alongwith percentage thereof during the 1 st, 2nd,
3rd and 4th quarters of 1977 and number of cases increased or decreased in the period
from 31-12-76 and 31-12-77 and percentage thereof :-
Name of the Police challan cases Police challan cases pending for No. of Police challan No. of cases %age
State/Union pending on 31-12-77 want of FR/FF or Charge-sheet as cases pending for increase or decrease in
Territory percentage of total Police Challan want of FR/FF or decrease in the period
cases at the end of Charge-sheet the period from
st nd rd th from 31-12-76 to
For Otherwi Total 1 2 3 4 On 31- on
31-12-76 to 31-12-77
want of se quarter quarter quarter quarter 12-76 31-12-77
31-12-77
FR/FF of of of of
or 1977 1977 1977 1977
charge-
sheet
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Andhra 27,225 29,089 56,314 45.2 46.4 49.0 48.3 26,662 27,225 +563 +2.1
Pradesh
2. Assam 24,505 38,638 63,143 30.6 29.2 30.8 38.8 13,922 24,505 +10583 +76.0
3. Bihar 90,414 1,82,84 2,73,2 30.6 31.8 32.0 33.1 89,186 90,414 +1228 +1.4
8 62
4. Gujarat 630 73,594 74,224 4.5 4.5 1.1 0.8 5,717 630 -5087 -89.0
5. Haryana 2,505 26,850 29,355 14.4 8.7 9.8 8.5 4,608 2,505 -2103 -45.6
6. Himacha 1,167 9,020 10,187 13.2 11.3 12.7 11.5 1,280 1,167 -113 -8.8
l
Pradesh
7. Jammu Not applicable
&
Kashmir
8. Karnata 12,677 51,338 64,015 18.2 15.0 16.0 19.8 9,124 12,677 +3553 +38.9
ka
9. Kerala 20,293 24,923 45,216 42.4 43.4 44.0 44.9 20,829 20,293 -536 -2.9
10 Madhya 1,545 2,30,64 2,32,1 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 2,282 1,545 -737 -32.3
Pradesh 8 93
11 Maharas 6,745 4,63,16 4,69,9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 4,484 6,745 +2261 +50.4
. htra 8 13
12 Manipur 2,804 4,906 7,710 44.1 56.6 38.0 36.4 2,454 2,804 +350 +14.3
.
13 Meghala Not applicable
. ya
14 Nagalan 67 1,083 1,150 2.3 1.0 25.7 5.8 127 67 -60 -47.2
. d
15 Orissa 9,710 80,104 89,814 8.7 8.8 9.4 10.8 10,178 9,710 -468 -4.6
.
16 Punjab 1,599 41,571 43,170 6.0 2.3 2.4 3.7 1,776 1,599 -177 -10.0
.
17 Rajastha 34,995 1,34,88 1,69,8 20.4 19.5 21.1 20.6 31,736 34,995 +3259 +10.3
. n 0 75
18 Sikkim .. 1,297 1,297 0.3 .. .. .. 9 .. -9 -100.0
.
19 Tamil 13,664 66,161 79,825 12.2 11.5 10.2 17.1 9,821 13,664 +3843 +39.1
. Nadu
X-73
20 Tripura 1,235 4,521 5,756 9.3 11.9 13.9 21.5 1,199 1,235 +36 +3.0
.
21 Uttar 17,699 3,68,31 3,86,0 4.6 5.1 5.0 4.6 24,977 17,699 -7278 -29.1
. Pradesh 1 10
22 West 42,063 2,54,23 2,96,3 11.4 13.7 14.1 14.2 44,486 42,063 -2423 -5.4
. Bengal 9 02
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N 799 1,198 1,997 17.1 25.0 30.7 40.0 631 799 +168 +26.6
Islands
2. Arunach 23 147 170 14.8 12.2 6.8 13.5 49 23 -26 -46.4
al
Pradesh
3. Chandig .. 834 834 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
arh
4. Dadra & .. 163 163 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Nag-
ar
Haveli
5. Delhi 974 1,68,49 1,69,4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.6 2,207 974 -1233 -55.9
4 68
6. Goa, .. 2,466 2,466 0.1 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Daman
& Diu
7. Lakshad 19 3 22 27.3 55.6 93.8 86.4 9 19 +10 +111.1
weep
8. Mizora 82 649 731 13.7 9.0 10.7 11.2 91 82 -9 -9.9
m
9. Pondich 941 292 1,233 63.3 76.5 79.7 76.3 1,174 941 -233 -19.8
erry
TOTAL 3,14,38 22,61,4 25,75, 10.5 11.0 11.6 12.2 3,09,018 3,14,380 +5362 +1.7
0 35 815
[Page No. 83]
X-74
TABLE VIII
Table showing number of complaint cases pending on account of enquiries not completed
u/s 202 Cr.P.C. at the end of 4th quarter of 1977 along with percentage thereof during 1st, 2nd,
3rd and 4th quarters of 1977 and number of cases increased or decreased in the period from
31-12-1976 to 31-12-1977 and percentage thereof :-
Name of the Complaint cases pending Complaint cases pending on No. of complaint No. of %age
State/Union on 31-12-1977 account of enquiries not cases pending on cases increase
Territory completed u/s 202 Cr.P.C. account of increase or
percentage of total complaint enquiries not or decrease
cases completed u/s decreas in the
202 Cr.P.C. e in the period
period from 31-
On Other Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th On 31- on 31-
from 12-76 to
account wise quarter quarter quarter quarter 12-76 12-77
31-12- 31-12-
of of of of of
76 to 77
enquirie 1977 1977 1977 1977
31-12-
s not
77
complet
ed u/s
202
Cr.P.C.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Andhra 170 13,876 14,046 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.2 18 170 +152 +844.4
Pradesh
2. Assam 126 50,82 50,953 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 66 126 +60 +90.9
7
3. Bihar 27,304 1,79,2 2,06,59 10.7 10.2 14.9 13.2 23,914 27,304 +3390 +14.2
88 2
4. Gujarat 374 3,41,5 3,41,93 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 501 374 -127 -25.3
58 2
5. Haryana 190 6,285 6,475 8.8 0.8 4.4 2.9 363 190 -173 -47.7
6. Himachal 47 5,679 5,726 1.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 85 47 -38 -44.7
Pradesh
7. Jammu & Not applicable.
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 432 11,198 11,630 5.5 5.8 5.1 3.7 537 432 -105 -19.6
9. Kerala 11 15,353 15,364 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.1 13 11 -2 -15.4
10 Madhya 1,386 37,128 38,514 4.4 3.8 3.8 3.6 1,299 1,386 +87 +6.7
Pradesh
11. Maharashtra 1,238 1,41,9 1,43,17 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.9 1,197 1,238 +41 +3.4
39 7
12. Manipur .. 13,246 13,246 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
13. Meghalaya Not applicable.
14. Nagaland .. 35 35 6.3 14.3 12.5 .. ... ... .. ..
15. Orissa 464 58,886 59,350 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 444 464 +20 +4.5
16. Punjab 164 8,699 8,863 2.4 1.6 1.2 1.9 162 164 +2 +1.2
17. Rajasthan 11,881 73,888 85,769 6.1 5.9 13.0 13.8 4,980 11,881 +6901 +138.6
18. Sikkim .. 130 130 10.1 57.1 .. .. 25 .. -25 -100.0
19. Tamil Nadu 128 14,525 14,653 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.9 44 128 +84 190.9
20. Tripura 4 2,167 2,171 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 14 4 -10 -71.4
X-75
21. Uttar 14,341 1,84,1 1,98,52 7.3 7.7 6.8 7.2 12,147 14,341 +2194 +18.1
Pradesh 85 6
22. West 4,547 4,55,9 4,60,51 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.0 2,300 4,547 +2247 +97.7
Bengal 69 6
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N 8 151 159 10.7 8.2 3.8 5.0 21 8 -13 -61.9
Islands
2. Arunachal .. 59 59 40.0 25.0 7.4 .. 1 .. -1 -100.0

Pradesh
3. Chandigarh .. 981 981 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
4. Dadra & .. 12 12 6.7 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Nag-
ar Haveli
5. Delhi 195 98,298 98,493 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 434 195 -239 -55.1
6. Goa, 26 1,467 1,487 2.0 1.6 1.2 1.7 24 26 +2 +8.3
Daman &
Diu
7. Lakshadwee .. 11 11 40.0 .. 55.6 .. .. .. .. ..
p
8. Mizoram .. 17 17 .. 5.9 .. .. .. .. .. ..
9. Pondicherry 5 83 88 5.2 .. 4.4 5.7 3 5 +2 +66.7
TOTAL 63,041 17,95, 17,77,8 2.9 2.8 3.6 4.5 48,592 63,041 +1449 +297
134 15
[Page No. 84]
X-76
TABLE IX
Statement of work done in the Session Courts during the year 1977
Name of the
States/union Pendency as on 1-1- Institution during the year Disposal during the year Pendency as on 31-12-
Territory 1977 1977
Origin Revis- Appeal Original Revi- Appe Origina Revi- Appeal Origin Revi- Appeals
al sion s sion als l sion s al sion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Andhra 722 312 1,399 2,796 1,276 5,936 2,945 1,308 6,103 573 280 1,232
Pradesh
2. Assam 1,297 514 863 1,046 648 527 783 564 610 1,560 598 780
3. Bihar 13,76 4,941 12,616 8,716 5,017 7,148 6,291 4,790 7,218 16,189 5,168 12,546
4
4. Gujarat 725 380 582 1,869 1,576 1,991 1,994 1,354 1,964 600 602 609
5. Haryana 953 349 1,017 1,283 814 2,283 1,172 758 2,307 1,064 405 993
6. Himachal 301 175 212 325 162 297 299 204 253 327 133 256
Pradesh
7. Jammu & Not applicable.
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 521 433 951 1,010 701 1,403 1,095 728 1,750 436 406 604
9. Kerala* 255 556 759 973 1,468 2,428 944 1,356 2,441 284 649 765
10 Madhya 1,840 2,294 3,953 5,470 3,901 8,268 5,561 4,116 8,858 1,749 2,079 3363
Pradesh
11. Maharashtr 2,557 1,485 2,049 3,718 4,796 5,132 3,953 4,415 4,725 2,322 1,866 2,456
a
12. Manipur 32 50 14 157 174 40 139 166 33 50 58 21
13. Meghalaya Not applicable.
14. Nagaland 77 12 15 110 2 6 150 3 14 37 11 7
15. Orissa* 587 705 2,097 1,020 693 2,341 986 722 1,938 622 676 2,490
16. Punjab 929 1,000 2,702 2,506 1,589 4,713 2,500 1,830 4,909 935 759 2,506
17. Rajasthan 1952 1,586 4,491 3,118 2,416 7,164 2,890 2,529 5,555 2,180 1473 6,100
18. Sikkim 54 .. 2 56 6 6 52 2 3 58 4 5
19. Tamil 423 261 1,199 1,387 1,230 7,694 1,299 1,013 7,394 511 478 1,499
Nadu
20. Tripura 166 145 103 226 247 117 288 236 141 104 156 79
21. Uttar 31,27 2,922 5,336 51,813 7,882 11,11 50,955 7,550 11,995 34,398 3,282 4,467
Pradesh* 2 1
22. West 3,163 468 290 3,861 1,509 1,172 4,134 1,541 1,102 2,890 436 360
Bengal
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N 4 .. 1 13 6 14 12 4 11 5 2 4
Islands
2. Arunachal 36 1 2 57 .. 2 39 1 1 54 .. 3
Pradesh
3. Chandig- 11 11 31 28 44 87 30 32 85 9 23 33
arh
4. Dadra & 7 .. 1 11 2 8 13 2 6 5 .. 3
Nagar
Haveli
5. Delhi 857 206 921 922 502 1,609 1,116 505 1,830 663 203 700
6. Goa, 113 84 177 67 146 353 101 149 371 79 81 159
Daman &
X-77
Diu
7. Lakshadwe 1 .. .. .. 2 .. 1 .. .. .. 2 ..
ep
8. Mizoram 177 .. .. 184 2 .. 80 .. .. 281 2 ..
9. Pondicherr 2 14 47 21 37 140 16 42 124 7 9 63
y
TOTAL 62,79 18,90 41,830 92,763 36,848 71,99 89,838 35,920 71,741 67,992 19,841 42,103
4 0
*The figures of Kerala, Orissa and Uttar Pradesh do not tally as the revised figures were submitted by
those States/High Courts.
[Page No. 85]
X-78
TABLE X
Statement of work done in the Magisterial Courts during the year 1977
Name of the
State/Union Police Challan Cases Complaint Cases
Territory
Pendency Institutio Disposal Pendenc Pendency Institution Disposal Pendency as
as on 1- n during during y as on as on 1- during the during the on 31-12-77
1-77 the year the year 31-12-77 1-77 year year
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Andhra 56,797 2,69,036 2,69,519 56,314 12,633 1,08,727 1,07,314 14,046
Pradesh
2. Assam 51,120 45,226 33,203 63,143 44,736 54,386 48,169 50,853
3. Bihar 2,74,335 1,35,612 1,36,685 2,73,262 2,29,948 83,666 1,07,022 2,06,592
4. Gujarat 84,715 4,15,545 4,26,036 74,224 3,40,545 7,15,837 7,14,450 3,41,932
5. Haryana 29,159 35,287 35,091 29,355 6,127 7,401 7,053 6,457
6. Himachal 9,431 8,965 8,209 10,187 5,464 8,130 7,868 5,726
Pradesh
7. Jammu & Not available.
Kashmir
8. Karnataka 52,486 2,50,285 2,38,756 64,015 9,497 30,747 28,614 11,630
9. Kerala* 45,502 1,35,240 1,35,626 45,216 14,617 56,892 56,145 15,364
10 Madhya 2,44,568 3,05,198 3,17,573 2,32,193 37,092 44,959 43,537 38,514
Pradesh
11. Maharashtr 5,64,475 8,11,720 9,06,282 4,69,913 1,57,386 2,87,904 3,02,113 1,43,177
a
12. Manipur 5,910 3,668 1,868 7,71 12,333 3,247 2,334 13,246
13. Meghalaya Not available.
14. Nagaland 804 1,557 1,211 1,150 63 300 328 35
15. Orissa* 1,11,933 69,474 91,065 89,814 72,542 49,273 63,223 59,350
16. Punjab 37,173 59,901 53,904 43,170 9,397 13,301 13,835 8,863
17. Rajasthan 1,60,571 1,06,720 97,416 1,69,875 84,985 88,169 87,385 85,769
18. Sikkim 1,719 2,242 2,664 1,297 155 314 339 130
19. Tamil Nadu 66,926 1,05,586 9,92,686 79,825 14,593 1,69,747 1,69,687 14,653
20. Tripura 14,563 11,243 20,050 5,756 2,833 3,745 4,407 2,171
21. Uttar 3,60,456 4,87,574 4,87,562 3,86,010 1,73,135 3,36,379 3,08,657 1,98,526
Pradesh*
22. West 3,11,815 4,33,076 4,48,589 2,96,302 4,00,297 1,83,653 1,23,434 4,60,516
Bengal
UNION TERRITORIES
1. A& N 3,683 6,276 7,977 1,997 149 264 254 159
Islands*
2. Arunachal 204 400 382 170 19 118 85 59
Pradesh*
3. Chandigarh 855 1,000 1,021 834 860 477 356 981
4. Dadra & 384 354 575 163 16 20 24 12
Nag-
ar Haveli
5. Delhi 1,69,746 3,35,119 3,35,397 1,69,468 90,708 1,07,122 99,337 98,493
X-79
6. Goa, 16,816 3,436 17,786 2,466 1,348 894 755 1,487
Daman &
Diu
7. Lakshadwe 12 26 16 22 3 15 7 11
ep
8. Mizoram 714 659 642 731 2 129 114 17
9. Pondicherr 1,740 14,863 15,370 1,253 64 431 407 88
y
TOTAL 26,78,611 49,55,288 50,83,161 25,75,815 17,21,547 23,56,947 22,97,253 17,78,975
*The figures of Orissa, U.P., Kerala, A & N Islands and Arunachal Pradesh do not tally.
[Page No. 86]
X-80
Appendix-G
SEVENTY EIGHTH REPORT
OF
ON
CONGESTION OF UNDER-TRIAL
PRISONERS IN JAILS
FEBRUARY, 1979
X-81
II. MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
1.5. Figures made available to us 6reveal not only that the number of
High percentage
of undertrial
under-trial prisoners in Indian jails is large, but also that their percentage
prisoners is high enough. Thus, on 1st January, 1975, the total population of
prisoners in Indian Jails was 2,20,146 as against a total capacity of
1,83,369. Out of these 2,20,146 the number of under trial prisoners was
1,26,772. This represents a percentage of 57.58.
Figures as on 1-4-1977 in the jails are as follows7 :
Undertrials ......................................1,01,083
Convicted ........................................83,086
Total .........................................1,84,169
[Undertrials thus constitute 54.9 percent of the total jail population on 1st April, 1977]
[Para No. 1.5, Page No. 1]

3.3. We may first mention the recommendations made for strengthening
Strengthening
the subordinate the subordinate judiciary. These are :-
judiciary
(a) Long delays in filling up vacancies of judicial officers should be
avoided.2
(b) Every recommendation of the High Court for increase in judicial

strength should receive prompt consideration from the State
Government and in the absence of some compelling reasons, should
not be turned down.3
(c) To clear the heavy backlog, the services of retired judicial officers
known for their integrity, efficiency and quick disposal should be
utilised the appointment being made only on the recommendation of
the High Court.4
(d) In addition, some special recruitment may have to be made from
6 Figures contained in the papers forwarded by the Ministry of Home Affairs filen No. 20012/3/78-GAP-
IV
7 Information obtained from the National Institute of Social Defence, New Delhi, on 8-1-1979.
2 77th Report, para 9.11
4 77th Report, para 9.13 to 9.15
X-82
bright young members of the Bar who have practised for at least
seven years, for the disposal of old cases. They should be given a
higher start and, on satisfactory performance, be ultimately absorbed
in service as District and Sessions Judges or Additional District and
Sessions Judges.5
(e) Some of the serving judicial officers can also be asked to deal
exclusively with old cases.6
(f) The number of additional courts should be such as to make it

possible that all arrears are cleared within a period of about three
years.7
We may state that these recommendations do not require elaborate changes in

legislation and it should be possible to implement them by suitable administrative
measures.

X-83
Appendix-H
SEVENTY-NINTH REPORT
ON
DELAY AND ARREARS IN HIGH COURTS
AND
OTHER APPELLATE COURTS
MAY 10, 1979
X-84
VIII. NATURE AND MAGNITUDE STATISTICS
Comparison of 1.39. The nature and magnitude of the problem will be further
pendency at the appreciated if the position regarding arrears in the High Courts in 1977 is
end of 1977
with pendency noted. It would appear that in the country as a whole 2, the pendency of
at end of 1972
cases in the High Courts at the end of 1977 was much higher than the
pendency at the end of 1972. High Court-wise also, when one contrasts
the pendency at the end of 1977 with pendency at the end of 1972, the
trend is found to be upward excepting in four High Courts, namely,
Andhra Pradesh (18.6% decline), Gujarat (6.7% decline), Calcutta (8.10%
decline) and Orissa (6.6% decline). The percentage mentioned for these
four high Courts represents a decline, and not an increase.
1.40. The increase of pendency at the end of 1977 over the pendency at
Quantum of the end of 1972 is
Increase in
pendency
(a) more than 50% in the case of nine High Courts and
(b) less than 50% but more than 20% in the case of three High
Courts. The exact percentages are given below alphabetically :34
Comparison of pending cases in the High Courts on 31-12-77 with those pending on
31-12-72
S.No. Name of the High Pending on Pending on Percentage of increase or decrease

Court 31-12-1972 31-12-1977
1 Allahabad 78,617 1,32,749 +68.9
2 Andhra Pradesh 19,527 15,887 -18.6
3 Bombay 41,442 52,592 +26.9
4 Calcutta 78,820 72,448 -8.1
5 Delhi 16,561 26,587 +60.5
6 Gauhati 5,796 6,548 +12.9
7 Gujarat 12,560 11,722 -6.7
8 Himachal Pradesh 1,564 5,019 +220.9
9 Jammu & Kashmir 1,726 4,677 +171.0
10 Kerala 29,353 42,739 +45.6
11 Karnataka 10,727 36,449 +229.7
12 Madhya Pradesh 20,653 46,613 +225.7
2 Department of Justice figures.

3 Figures of Sikkim High Court are not given in this case.
4 Based on figures given in Department of Justice letter No. 36/1/78-Jus(M), dated 2-6-78, Table XII.
X-85
13 Madras 32,678 51,763 +58.4
14 Orissa 6,470 6,042 -6.6
15 Patna 23,704 29,435 +24.2
16 Punjab & Haryana 25,150 46,069 +83.2
17 Rajasthan 13,359 10,558 +53.9
18 Sikkim - 21 -
Total in the country 4,10,707 6,07,918 +48.0
[Para Nos. 1.39 & 1.40, Page Nos. 10, 11]
Three 1.45. From the above sample figures about arrears, three characteristics
principal of arrears stand out. In the first place, speaking chronologically, arrears,
characteristics
of arrears in the sense of increased pendency at the end of the year, has been
continuous for the years represented by 1973-19774..............
II. INCREASE IN JUDGE STRENGTH
3.6. A close scrutiny of the figures reproduced above would show that
Disposal less
than
the number of cases disposed of by the High Courts in the country as a
institution whole was less than the number of cases instituted during the year 1977.
This resultedas it mustin further piling up of the huge backlog of
arrears. Any scheme which aims at clearing of the backlog of arrears and
eliminating delay in the disposal of cases must take into account the
imperative need to achieve two objectives, namely: (i) the disposal of
cases in the High Courts in the country must not be less than the
institution during the year, and (ii) effective steps must be taken to reduce
and lighten the heavy backlog of arrears.
To attain the above objectives, increase in the judge strength of the

High Courts cannot be avoided. It has to be borne in mind that the
disposal of cases, whether pending in the High Court or in any other court,
needs the observance of certain procedural requirements. In the absence
of such observance, any attempt to accelerate the disposal of cases would
be only at the cost of rules of fair play and natural justice. Such an
attempt would thus be substituting a much worse evil, compared with the
evil manifested by delay in the disposal of cases. We are, therefore,
4 Para No. 1.42, Supra
X-86
opposed to attempts at expediting the disposal of cases at the cost of the
requirements of fair play and substantial justice.
3.7 ...........We recommend that the judge strength of the High Courts
Recommendation should be kept at that level as ensures--
as to Judge
strength
(a) that the disposal in the year is not less than the institution,1 and
(b) also that one-quarter of the backlog of old cases may be

cleared2 in a period of one year.
[Para Nos. 3.6-3.7, Page No. 19]
3.8. So far as the permanent strength of each High Court is concerned,

Fixation of
Permanent
we are of the opinion that it should be fixed keeping in view the average
strength
institution during the preceding three years. As and when necessary, the
permanent strength may be reviewed. The permanent strength would
thus be in a position to cope with the fresh institution 1 and prevent any
further accumulation in the heavy backlog of cases.
3.9. As regards2 the clearance of arrears of old cases, it would plainly

Additional and be not necessary to increase the permanent strength of the judges in a
Ad-hoc judges
High Court on that account. For this purpose, we would necessarily have
to take recourse to appointing additional judges and ad hoc judges.3
We have considered the alternative of appointing only additional

judges for clearing the arrears but, on further reflection, we have arrived
at the conclusion that it would not be advisable to have only additional
judges for this purpose. The reason which has prevailed with us in
arriving at this conclusion is the necessity of adhering to a rule that
ordinarily, and, in the absence of any special reason, persons appointed
additional judges from amongst the members of the Bar practising in
court and the District Judges should not be sent back to the profession to
practise in that court or reverted to their substantive post ...............
1 See para 3.8, infra

2 See para 3.9, infra
1 Para 3.7 (a), supra.
2 Para 3.7 (b), supra.
3 Para 3.13, infra.
X-87
3.10....though the sanctioned judge strength of the High Courts in the
Filling of country during the year 1977 was 352, only 287 judges on an average
vacancies
were in position. Like wise, in the year 1976, even though the sanctioned
strength was 351, only 292 judges were in position. Leaving aside the
judges who were entrusted with work outside their normal duties, the fact
remains that the number of judges in position in both the years was less
than the sanctioned strength. This disparity between the sanctioned
strength and the number of judges in position was apparently due to the
fact that vacancies in the posts were not filled in as soon as they
occurred. It is our considered opinion that delay in filling in the
vacancies is one of the major contributing factors responsible for the
piling accumulation of arrears. In our opinion, when a vacancy is
expected to arise out of the retirement of a judge, steps for filling in the
vacancy should be initiated six months in advance. The date on which
such a vacancy will normally arise is always known to the Chief Justice
of the High Court and also to others concerned. It should be ensured that
necessary formalities for the appointment of a Judge to fill the vacancy
are completed by the date on which the vacancy occurs.
[Para Nos. 3.8 to 3.10, Page Nos. 19-20]
X-88
Appendix-I
SATISH CHANDRA COMMITTEE REPORT
X-89
C H A P T E R II
******************
CAUSES FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF ARREARS IN THE HIGH COURTS
1. Inevitably one must first diagnose the disease before prescribing the
remedy therefor. Undoubtedly, there has been an unprecedented rise in the
accumulation of arrears in all the High Courts over the last 30 years. This is
evident from the factual matrix that whilst in 1956 the total pendency in all the
High Courts was 1,91,972, it rose to 3,79,593 by the year 1970 and has spiralled
and crossed the one million mark to peak at the figure of 12,37,566 cases as on 31 st
December, 1984. There has been thus a six fold rise in the pendency in the High
Courts. This stems from a wide variety of causes of which only the salient ones
deserve notice.
The Litigation Explosion:

2. Necessarily litigation is linked and related to the Country's population.
According to the 1961 census, the population of India was 43,97,26,000. In the
following decade by the year 1971, the total population of the Country increased
to 54,64,56,000. The last census of 1981 again exhibited a consistent rise to, at the
average rise of 2% to 3% per year, this figure would have been further added to by
15% at the end of 1985. It is but natural that the increase in the population would
give rise to at least a proportionate increase in the number of disputes to be settled,
civil claims to be decided and the criminal cases to be tried and determined. In
turn, these matters have necessarily to come up to the High Courts.
More than this, is perhaps the greater awareness of the citizens now about
their leal rights. What may have earlier gone unchallenged is now contested right
upto the final Court. The Population explosion in India has, in fact been out-
distanced by the litigation explosion stemming therefrom.
Radical change in the pattern of Litigation:

3. The conventional civil litigation earlier in India arose primarily from
disputes relating to partition, adoptions, mortgage suits, money claims, rent suits
and similar claims. Whilst these have now comparatively declined, there has
occurred a sea-change in the pattern of litigation, since the commencement of the
X-90
Constitution. In the wake of fundamental change in the concept of State functions
resulting in control over economic activity, restriction on money lending, agrarian
reforms, control on industrial enterprises, legislation to improve the labour
conditions, broad-based taxation aimed at preventing the concentration of wealth,
and changes in the personal and matrimonial laws, have generated an altogether
different class of litigation from the traditional one which had earlier occupied the
times the High Courts a few decades ago.
4. With the advent of Independence, the State launched a vast programme of

social and economic reforms which were effectuated by legislative processes both
by Parliament and State Legislatures, inevitably accompanied by delegated
legislative powers in the shape of rules, regulations orders and bye-laws. The
result has been a tremendous increase in the output of the laws which as a rule
rather than exception are indicative of inefficient draftsmanship. These laws
inevitably affect the rights of Corporations, individuals, and groups of
individuals. The execution of the laws is now invariably challenged in the High
Courts. This gives rise to complicated questions of the validity of the statutes, of
the permissible limits of delegated legislation and of the exercise of the executive
powers.
5. Article 12 of the Constitution enlarges the concept of the State and it has
now become the most important single litigant in the High Court. The State
activity, legislative, executive and quasi-judicial, is challenged in the largest
number of matters coming before the High Courts by Writ Petitions. The
Constitution has also guarantees certain fundamental rights by Part III and on a
plea of infringement thereof, a vast group of cases is instituted in which the
validity of rules and notifications, circulars and executive orders, relating even to
the Public Sectors are challenged. The Reorganisation of States, the
nationalisation of industry, and elections to the local bodies, as also the validity of
the actions of the tax custom and excise authorities, have all become a very
fruitful source of litigation in the High Courts.
6. The steepest rise of litigation in the High Courts has been in the number of
petitions for the issue of writs. In this category, perhaps the Service matters have
X-91
taken the pride of place. We would wish to reiterate the view expressed by the
Law Commission, that no case is made out for restricting the justifiable writ
jurisdiction of the High Courts. Nevertheless, criticism has come to be voiced
that there is now an intrusion by the Courts into the fields which are purely and
primarily administrative. In the recent Joint Conference of the Chief Justices and
the Chief Ministers, the misuse and the abuse of the writ jurisdiction was strongly
highlighted on behalf of the Executive. In particular, what has been labelled as
merely the stay litigation arising, as it does from the gross delay in the final
adjudication of the writ matters had come in for strong criticism.
Increase in Legislative activity
7. A significant cause for the rise in the number of cases instituted in the
various High Courts is the exceptional increase in Parliamentary, State, delegated
and Subordinate Legislation. Even in the period from 1955 to 1970, nerely 1,000
Acts were passed by the Parliament, and 6,358 statutes were passed by the State
Legislatures. Though the latest figures are not available, it would appear that
there has been a continued proportionate rise in such legislation. Interpretation of
the various provisions of the statutes and equally the challenge to their very
constitutionality now occupies a great deal of time of the High Courts.
Inevitably, the increase in Parliamentary and State Acts has led to a corresponding
increase in orders, rules, bye-laws and regulations which themselves call for
interpretation. The Constitution being Federal in nature, the very competence of
the respective Parliamentary or State Legislation is also frequently put in issue.
Election Petitions
8. The amendments made in the Representation of the Peoples Act in 1966
have added to the file of the High Courts, another form of litigation which from
their very nature involve a long drawn out and hotly contested trials. In the wake
of every Parliamentary election and those to the State Legislatures, a spate of
election petitions for setting aside the elections now invariably follows. They
have to be tried by the High Courts as a Court of Original Jurisdiction and by the
mandates of Section of the Representation of Peoples Act have to be disposed of
speedily by 6 months. The High Courts, constituted as they are at present, seem
to be ill-equipped to carry this additional burden of trial of a large number of
election petitions, in which there is rarely a settlement and which are invariably
X-92
fought out to the bitter end. Cases are not lacking where the parties have sought
to examine as many as 1,000 witnesses in a single election petition apart from a
mass of documentary evidence brought on the record. Where allegations of
corrupt practices are levelled, even the dissolution of the House does not
necessarily abate such election petitions. These undoubtedly have contributed in
no small degree to the alarming accumulation of arrears in the High Courts.
Clogging of First Appeals:-
9. In all the High Courts, there is a huge backlog of First Appeals going back
sometime beyond even two decades. This, in a way, stems from the continuing
erosion in the value of the rupee. The purchasing power of the rupee is but a
fration of what it was a few decades ago. Very recently, it was calculated that in
economic terms, the present rupee is only worth paise 17 of yester times.
Consequently, on this account there has been not only a corresponding increases,
but geomatrical rise in the value of immovable properties and commodities.
Disputes concerning transactions of immovable properties and commodities are
being brought before the High Courts by way of First Appeals which did not
reach it in the earlier decades because of lower monetary values. The pecuniary
jurisdiction of the High Courts in the First Appeals has not kept pace with the
rapid economic changes and the inflationary spiral.
Continuance of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Some High
Courts :-
10. The ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts is a legacy of
history, which is somewhat anachronistic in the context of the present pressure on
High Courts. At present as many as six High Courts exercise such a jurisdiction
within certain specified areas. Consequently, these High Courts are burdened
with considerable and indeed impossible load of original trials which today
cannot possibly carry. The luxury of trial work being conducted by the superior
courts is a one which a country of India's dimension and population can no longer
possibly afford. We have adverted to this specialised aspect in some detail, in
Chapter 13.
X-93
Inadequacy of Judge strength :-
11. The inability of the High Courts to cope with the burden of the litigation
explosion therein is largely attributable to the denial of the necessary Judge
strength to the High Court at the appropriate time. It is plain that the steep rise in
the work of the High Courts could not conceivably be met with the existing Judge
strength of the High Courts fixed many decades ago. Till the other day, there was
no matching readjustment of the sanctioned Judge strength and the High Courts
were compelled to attend to a disproportionately larger quantity of work than they
were originally equipped to cope with. Even the sanctioned Judge strength comes
to be considerably depleted by deputing Judges to Commissions and Committees
for holding judicial, quasi-judicial and sometimes political inquiries and also to
various Tribunals set up from time to time. This has contributed in no small
measure to the accumulation of the undisposed cases. The fixation of the Judge
strength of the High Courts on the basis of pendency of 650 main cases per Judge,
per year is also somewhat unrealistic. It does not seem to take into account the
deputation of Judges for Commissions, the spate of election petitions that
invariably come in after the general elections and the bye-elections as also that
the Judges have to go out for inspection of Subordinate Courts once in a year
involving loss of judicial time from a week to a fortnight, and equally the factor
of Judges going on earned or medical leave.
Delays in filling vacancies on the High Court Bench:

12. The largest single factor for the accumulation of arrears is the gross delay
in making appointments to the vacancies arising on the Bench in due course.
There is impeccable data to show that the enormous loss of Judge days caused
thereby has primarily contributed to the present alarming situation of
arrears..................
[Para Nos. 1 to 12, Page No. 35-42]
X-94
CHAPTER-III
GROSS DELAYS IN FILLING UP VACANCIES ON THE HIGH
COURT BENCH
2.........It has to be regretfully noticed that from the dawn of Independence, this
malady of delays in making appointments commenced and vacancies remained
unfilled for months. Thereafter, there has been a progressive deterioration in that
situation, and of late gravest delays have taken place in making the appointment
for not only years, but sometimes going into nearly a decade. There has, thus been
an irremediable and enormous loss of Judge-days inevitably resulting in the huge
accumulation arrears. Way back in 1958, the Law Commission, in its 14 th Report,
noticed the disturbing trend in the following words :-
It appears that the delay in filling vacancies in the Court has been
responsible in a considerable measure for the accumulation of arrears
in these courts. It used to be the practice in the past to select persons
appointed to fill vacancies well ahead of the expected vacancy, so that
the successor would take his seat immediately on the retirement of his
predecessor. Of late, however, vacancies have remained unfilled for
months. We set out below a few instances of the delays that have taken
place between the occurrence of the vacancy and its being filled up.
Naturally, such delays have resulted in a considerable loss of
Judge-days in the working of the High Courts, with the necessary
consequence of a rise in the volume of accumulated work.
3. The aforesaid opinion was rested on the following impeccable data

provided by the delays in filling up the vacancies of three sample High Courts of
Allahabad, Punjab and Patna :-
[Para Nos. 2 & 3, Page Nos. 58-59]
X-95
(1) ALLAHABAD
Date on which vacancy occurred Date of Appointment Period for which there was no Judge
(1) (2) (3)
28.12.1950 01.06.1951 5 months
26.01.1951 01.06.1951 4 months
03.07.1951 08.08.1952 13 months
21.10.1951* 14.11.1952 13 months
20.05.1952 23.12.1952 7 months
15.10.1952 06.04.1953 6 months
04.11.1952 06.04.1953 5 months
24.12.1952 14.12.1953 12 months
09.02.1953 06.05.1954 15 months
20.02.1953 23.08.1954 18 months
31.03.1953 23.08.1954 17 months
12.02.1954 11.11.1954 9 months
24.03.1954 11.11.1954 8 months
15.09.1954 31.03.1955 7 months
11.01.1955 31.03.1955 3 months
14.03.1955* 31.03.1955 2 weeks
TOTAL : 142 months
* Additional posts sanctioned.
X-96
(2) PUNJAB
Date on which vacancy occurred Date of Appointment Period for which there was no Judge
(1) (2) (3)
8.12.1952 13.3.1953 3 months 5 days
28-10-1953 24-5-1954 6 months 26 days
01-04-1956 14-1-1957 9 months 13 days
14-1-1957 05-08-1957 6 months 21 days
19-3-1957* 05-08-1957 4 months 17 days
TOTAL : 26 months 1 day
(3) PATNA
Date on which vacancy occurred Date of Appointment Period for which there was
no Judge
(1) (2) (3)
19.02.1951 13.04.1951 2 months 4 days
01.06.1952 11.12.1952 6 months 10 days
September, 1952$ 12.12.1952 2 months 11 days
09.01.1953 04.04.1953 2 months 25 days
03.02.1953 13.4.1953 5 months 10 days
03.09.1953 29.08.1954 11 months 26 days
01.12.1954 12.05.1955 5 months 11 days
10.01.1955 13.05.1955 4 months 3 days
30.04.1956 03.09.1956 4 months 3 days
20.01.1956 $ 03.09.1956 7 months 14 days
17.05.1957 20.10.1957 5 months 13 days
03.02.1952 08.01.1953 (None appointed in vacancy
on leave preparatory to
retirement)
11 months 5 days
TOTAL : 5 years, 8 months, 15 days
[Para No. 3, Page No. 60-61]

* Recommended for two additional posts, but only one Additional Judge sanctioned.
$ Additional posts sanctioned.
X-97
4. It would appear that despite the highlighting of the problem by the Commission in
its 14th Report and the recommendations to eliminate the same, the situation far from
improving has continued to grow worse. The High court Arrears Committee of 1972
again based its opinion on the authoritative data with regard to five years period from
1965 to 1970 for all the High Courts, which is as under :-
Name of the High Court 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Average in six years
Allahabad - 120 267 31 142 100 110
Andhra Pradesh 199 443 325 NIL 27 153 191
Assam & Nagaland NIL NIL 92 NIL NIL 330 70
Bombay 368 214 958 254 127 807 454-1/2
Calcutta 554 653 171 603 82 280 390
Delhi NIL 28 317 869 829 208 450
Gujarat NIL 65 9 NIL 101 38 35-1/2
Jammu & Kashmir NIL NIL NIL 129 NIL NIL 21-1/2
Kerala 100 76 350 366 106 61 176-1/2
Madhya Pradesh 299 NIL 226 132 NIL 145 133-1/2
Madras 75 220 169 51 144 569 204-1/2
Mysore 74 42 16 NIL 89 235 76
Orissa NIL NIL 82 61 20 NIL 27
Patna 547 503 473 218 1256 901 649-1/2
Punjab & Haryana 399 889 1491 621 915 478 799
Rajasthan NIL NIL 123 134 83 237 96
5. The aforesaid figures evidently display a dismal picture and, on its basis, the
Committee had rightly opined as follows :-
We may refer to the statistics which we have quoted in relation to
the delay in appointment of Judges. A perusal of the statement is
disturbing. In each High Court, many Judge days are lost, because of
failure of appointment of Judges in time. In the old days, it was
customary for recommendation to be made for appointment of Judges
well in advance of the date of retirement of the incumbent and
appointments were invariably made so as to enable the new appointed
X-98
Judge to take office immediately on the retirement of the incumbents.
It is unfortunate, that this convention has fallen into disuse. This
convention should again be resuscitated and the appointment should
be made by the Government, so that there is no time gap between the
retirement of the Judge and the new appointee taking the office.
Despite the aforesaid exhortation, no change for the better has followed in the
decade and a half thereafter. The sanctioned strength of both permanent and additional
Judges in the whole of the Country was 352 in the year 1977. However, out of this
sanctioned strength, only 287 Judges on an average were in position. A further inroad
into this was made by as many as 7 Judges on an average being entrusted with work
outside their normal duties like Commissions, etc., during the year 1977. Thus, the
effective strength for the purpose of Court work in 1977 was 280 only. There was, thus,
as many as 72 vacancies in the whole country in the year 1977..................
Despite the passage of 7 years, since the aforesaid observations were made, the
situation in this context far from improving had on one stage, arisen to the alarming level
of nearly 97 vacancies all over the Country on the High Court Benches.................
It must be regretfully observed that no meaningful change in the situation is still

visible................
6...............On the data collected, the said committee came to the conclusion that as
many as 19, 735 Judge days had been lost by delay in making appointments in that High
Court against the existing vacancies. It came to the conclusion that there would have
been no arrears whatsoever in the High Court, if merely the vacancies arising in the
normal course by the retirement of the Judges had been duly filled in time................
That it is, so is made apparent again by a reference to the chart Annexure-I, which
shown that when calculated from 1-1-1950 to December 1984, there has been 19, 735
Judges days loss. The average disposal for all these years comes to 4 cases per Judge per
day. The figure of 78, 940 which represents the number of cases which could have been
additionally decided by this Court, if actual strength of the Bench had been equal to its
sanctioned strength..............
X-99
7. ....from the under mentioned figures, it would appear that as many as 11, 500
days were lost due to this factor alone between the years 1975 and 1984 :-
PERIOD SANCTIONED ACTUAL JUDGES DAYS YEAR WISE

STRENGTH OF STRENGTH OF LOST DUE TO LOSS OF DAYS
JUDGES JUDGES DELAY IN
APPOINTMENT
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
01-01-1975 to 24 22 340
20-10-1975 1975
-------
21-10-1975 to 27 21 240
580
31-12-1975
01-01-1976 to 27 21 600
30-06-1976 1976
-------
01-07-1976 to 27 24 330
930
31-12-1976
01-01-1977 to 27 25 192
17-06-1977
18-06-1977 to 30 25 20
30-06-1977
01-07-1977 to 30 25 375 1977
31-10-1977 ------
01-11-1977 to 30 24 78 755
22-11-1977
23-11-1977 to 30 25 10
24-11-1977
25-11-1977 to 30 26 80
31-12-1977
01-01-1978 to 30 26 328
30-04-1978
01-05-1978 to 30 25 75
26-05-1978
27-05-1978 to 30 24 NIL
29-05-1978
30-05-1978 to 30 26 4 1978
26-06-1978 ------
823
27-06-1978 to 30 27 216
15-10-1978
16-10-1978 to 30 26 NIL
22-10-1978
23-10-1978 to 30 25 200
31-12-1978
01-01-1979 to 30 24 138
31-01-1979
X-100
01-02-1979 to 30 23 175
07-03-1979
1979
08-03-1979 to 30 26 208
------
30-06-1979
1071
01-07-1979 to 30 25 550
31-12-1979
01-01-1980 to 30 26 348
05-05-1980 1980
-------
06-05-1980 to 35 26 1107
1455
31-12-1980
01-01-1981 to 35 24 1100
14-06-1981
15-06-1981 to 35 23 540
31-08-1981
01-09-1981 to 35 22 364 1981
31-10-1981 ------
01-11-1981 to 35 21 322 2466
03-12-1981
04-12-1981 to 35 25 140
31-12-1981
01-01-1982 to 35 24 374
19-02-1982
20-02-1982 to 35 23 132
12-03-1982
1982
13-03-1982 to 35 22 760 ------
10-07-1982 2439
11-07-1982 to 35 21 1092
17-11-1982
18-11-1982 to 35 32 81
31-12-1982
01-01-1983 to 35 32 285
27-05-1983
28-05-1983 to 35 31 284
31-08-1983
01-09-1983 to 35 32 84 1983
09-10-1983 -------
10-10-1983 to 35 32 18 737
06-11-1983
07-11-1983 to 35 32 28
28-11-1983
29-11-1983 to 35 33 38
31-12-1983
01-01-1984 to 35 33 62
14-02-1984
X-101
15-02-1984 to 35 34 101
12-08-1984
1984
13-08-1984 to 35 35 NIL
------
08-09-1984
238
09-09-1984 to 35 34 15
09-10-1984
10-10-1984 to 35 34 11
06-11-1984
07-11-1984 to 35 34 15
27-11-1984
28-11-1984 to 35 33 34
31-12-1984
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
T O TAL : 11,494 11,494
-------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
------
NOTE : (I) Number of Cases that could have been disposed of at the standard rate : 34,482
(II) Pending cases excluding Miscellaneous cases as on 31.12.1984 : 46,048
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---
Even at the average disposal of three cases by a Judge per day, the aforesaid figures
when multiplied by three would come to 34.482. This minimally represents the number
of cases which would have been decided by the Patna High Court in a period of only 9
years from 1975 to 1984, if the actual strength of the Bench had continued to be equal to
its sanctioned strength. The total pendency in the Patna High Court upto December, 1984
excluding the Miscellaneous cases is 46, 048. This would mean that if there had been no
depletion of the Bench by reason of such vacancies even for a period of 10 years only,
then indeed there would have been actually no arrears at all in the said Court now.
7. We have in some detail referred to the two High Courts in the east and the west and
there is no manner of doubt on the basis of the available data that the situation in all the
X-102
other High Courts in the Country is identical if indeed not worse than the picture that
emerges above..................
8...............A feeling grows in the Bench that the Executive is not interested in the quick
disposal of cases and efficient working of the administration of justice, and therefore,
their arduous labours are lost in a void.
.............The bunch appointments of Judges prevents any such possibility and at the
very threshold affects the quality and the future traditions of the High Courts. The
proverbial delays in appointments have now started inhibiting the promising members of
the Bar from coming forward to be considered for Judgeship................
9. ..............However, experience over the last four decades has shown that despite
exhortations from the highest authorities the position far from improving has indeed
deteriorated in this context. .............
10. ........... there can be no hope whatsoever of meeting the challenge of the arrear........
11. We would consequently recommend :-

(i) that on principle, there should exist no vacancy on the Sanctioned Strength of a
High Court and there should be no time gap between the retirement of a
Judge and the swearing-in of his successor;
(ii) that the Chief Justice under Article 224A of the Constitution may, at the time
of making the recommendation against a vacancy, also recommend that the
retiring Judge may be appointed as an ad hoc Judge in the event of his
successor's name not being finalised by the actual date of retirement; and
(iii) that in the event of the successor Judge being not appointed on the date of the
retirement, the incumbent, if recommended by the Chief Justice, should
automatically continue as an ad hoc Judge of the Court upto the date his
successor on the bench is sworn in.
[Para Nos. 4-11, Page Nos. 62-74]
X-103
Appendix-J
ONE HUNDRED TWENTIETH REPORT
ON
MANPOWER PLANNING IN JUDICIARY : A

BLUEPRINT
JULY 1987
X-104
8. ..........First, we may try to correlate the general increase in population rate with the
question of the number of Judges in all cadres. In regard to political representation in
Parliament, the demographic factor has been frozen to the levels of population as at 1971
[See article 81 (3) ]. India has today only 10.5 Judges per million population; Australia,
which had roughly ten million population in 1975, had 577 Judges giving an average of
41.6 Judges per million population; Canada with her 1,812 Judges with a population of
roughly 25 million as of 1973, had the rate of 75.2 Judges per million population;
England with 2,504 Judges for roughly 50 million people in 1973 had the rate of 50.9
Judges per million population and the United States with three times less population than
India has 25,087 Judges as at 1981 giving an average of 107 Judges per million of
population. 4 This information filed by the Union of India expert Prof. Marc Gallanter has
been endorsed by the Union of India. Clearly the total Judge strength of 7,675 is grossly
inadequate for India.
9. Given the overall resource constraints, it is not possible for us even to suggest that
we immediately rise to a total Judge strength of 25,087 which the U.S. commanded as of
1981. But certainly there is strong justification for the recommendation that we increases
immediately the present ratio from 10.5 Judges per million of Indian population to at
least 50 Judges per million of Indian population. We recommend accordingly.
10. It is difficult to envisage that the Judge strength can be raised five-fold within a
short span. The process will have to be spread over a period of five years but in any case
it should not exceed ten years................
11. This would, of course, raise the question of the ultimate optimum number of
Judges. The Commission recommends that by the year 2,000, India should command at
least the ratio that the U.S. commanded in 1981, i.e. 107 Judges per million of Indian
population. The inter se distribution of the enhanced number among various cadres
State-wise would ordinarily proceed on the basis of population in each State and the
institution of cases.
[Para Nos. 8-11, Page Nos. 2-3]

15. As to the possible accusation that the working out of the ratio of Judges
strength per million of Indian population is a gross measure, the Commission wishes to
say that this is one clear criterion of manpower planning. If, legislative representation
4 Supra note 2 at 208.

X-105
can be worked out, as pointed out earlier, on the basis of population and if other services
of the Statebureaucracy, police, etc.-can also be similarly planned, there is no reason at
all for the non-extension of this principle to the judicial services. It must also be frankly
stated that while population may be a demographic unit, it is also a democratic unit. In
other words, we are talking of citizens with democratic rights including the right to
access to justice which it is the duty of the State to provide.
X-106
Appendix-K

ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FIRST REPORT
ON
A NEW FORUM FOR JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
JULY 1987
X-107
3.5 If the assumption was that the system is sound and peripheral changes would
make it resilient, effective and functional, it is in the fitness of things to find out, what is
the present factual situation nearly eight years after the report was submitted. The
statement extracted hereunder tells its own tale :-
I. STATEMENT SHOWING THE STRENGTH AND VACANCIES IN VARIOUS

HIGH COURTS AS ON 30.6.861
Sl. High Court Sanctioned Total Actual strength Total Vacancies Total
Strength
No.
Pmt. Addl. Pmt. Addl. Pmt. Addl.
Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges Judges
1 54 6 60 45 - 45 9 6 15
Allahabad
2 Andhra Pradesh 24 2 26 18 - 18 6 2 8
3 Bombay 40 3 43 38 1 39 2 2 4
4 Calcutta 41 - 41 38 - 38 3 - 3
5 Delhi 25 2 27 22 - 22 3 2 5
6 Gauhati 8 1 9 8 - 8 - 1 1
7 Gujarat 18 3 21 17 - 17 1 3 4
8 Himachal 5 1 6 5 1 6 - - -
Pradesh
9 Jammu & 5 2 7 5 2 7 - - -
Kashmir
10 Karnataka 24 - 24 21 - 21 3 - 3
11 Kerala 15 3 18 15 3 18 - - -
12 Madhya 23 6 29 22 4 26 1 2 3
Pradesh
13 Madras 25 - 25 21 - 21 4 - 4
14 Orissa 11 1 12 9 - 9 2 1 3
15 Patna 35 - 35 29 - 29 6 - 6
16 Punjab & 23 - 23 16 - 16 7 - 7
Haryana
17 Rajasthan 21 1 22 19 1 20 2 - 2
18 Sikkim 3 - 3 2 - 2 1 - 1
400 31 431 350 12 362 50 19 69
Against the sanctioned strength of 431,362 judges were in position, leaving 69
vacancies unfilled..............
1 Source : Report of the Ministry of Law & Justice.

X-108
Even though Judges strove hard to keep abreast of the rising tide of inflow of
work by almost doubling the output yet the court dockets remained unmanageable as
would be evident from the figures herein quoted. The disposal per Judge in 1977 was
742.5 which rose to 1221.1 in 1978 and mildly tapered down to 1130.0 in 1979, yet
during these very years, the arrears almost doubled2 ....
One can say at a glance that during this period there was a rising crescendo in the
backlog of cases, a substantial part of which can be attributed to the delay in filling in
vacancies3................
3.6 Even though there was an unexplained failure on the front of filling in vacancies,
the Government realising that the sanctioned strength of the Judges of the Supreme Court
and the High Courts is inadequate, raised the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court
of India from 1+17 to 1+251 and of the High Courts by sanctioning 81 additional posts
raising the permanent strength of Judges as well as sanctioning additional posts. The
Table hereunder sets out increase in the strength of permanent and additional Judges by
the Government of India with the position as on 20th March, 1987.
DECISIONS TO CREATE POSTS
Position as on 20.3.87
S. No. High Court Permanent Judges Additional Judges Total
1 Allahabad - 2 2
2 Andhra Pradesh 6 4 10
3 Bombay 2 10 12
4 Calcutta 3 5 8
5 Delhi - 6 6
6 Gauhati - 1 1
7 Gujarat 5 4 9
8 Himachal Pradesh - 1 1
9 Jammu & Kashmir 1 3 4
10 Karnataka 4 2 6
11 Kerala - 7 7
12 Madhya Pradesh - 2 2
13 Patna 4 - 4
14 Punjab and Haryana - 3 3
15 Rajasthan - 6 6
Total 25 56 81
2 R. Dhawan, Litigation Explosion in India, 60, (1986)

3 31st Report, Estimates Committee, 18.
1 The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, came into effect from 9-5-1986
X-109
3.7 At this stage certain peculiar features of the mechanics employed in filling in
vacancies must be unravelled. To start with, in the year 1980, five Judges of the Supreme
Court retired in quick succession. The first vacancy in that year occurred on 1-8-1980,
that followed by the next one on 12-9-1980, the third on 15-10-1980, the fourth on 15-
11-1980 and the fifth soon after on 16-1-1981. None was filled in till January 1981.
Similarly, in the year 1985, five vacancies occurred in quick succession. The first
occurred on 9th May, 1985, the second on 12th July, 1985, the third on 16th August, 1985,
the fourth on 1st October, 1985, and the last on 22nd December, 1985. The sanctioned
strength of the Judges of the Supreme Corut has been raised from 18 to 26 Judges,
including the Chief Justice of India, with effect from 9-5-19862. Analysing the position
of the vacancies, there were 12 vacancies as on 31-3-1986. It may be stated that two
vacancies have been filled in May 1987. However, it may be recalled that two Judges are
to retire during vacation in June 1987 and two sitting Judges are busy with a Commission
leaving the effective working strength at 12 i.e. half of the sanctioned strength.
3.8 In order to substantiate the inescapable conclusion that there is long unexplained
delay in the matter of filling in vacancies in the Supreme Court and High Courts, two
separate tables are compiled showing the date on which vacancy occurred and the date on
which it is filled in, covering the period 1981-86 in the Supreme Court and 1980-85 in
the High Courts. Tables are set out in Annexures II and III, respectively.
Applying the law of averages, the delay in filling in vacancies in the Supreme
Court on an average comes to 3 months approx. as per the information supplied
(Annexure II). Similarly, delay in the matter of appointment in various High Courts is
tabulated on the information supplied by the High Courts and the average is worked out
for each High Court in respect of which the information was made available :-
2 The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, came into effect from 9-5-1986
X-110
1. Andhra Pradesh - 3 years
2. Delhi - 6 months
3. Gujarat - Average can't be worked out
4. Himachal Pradesh - 5 years 4 months 11 days
5. Jammu and Kashmir - 2 years
6. Karnataka - 1 year 6 months
7. Kerala - 1 year 3 months
8. Madhya Pradesh - 1 year 6 months
9. Orissa - 9 months
10. Patna - 2 years
11. Punjab & Haryana - Average can't be worked out
3.10 Leaving aside any other considerations, there is a minimum requirement of 650
regular cases to be disposed of per Judge per year. It is not necessary to set out how this
figure is arrived at save saying a committee of three senior most Chief Justices have
compiled the same1. Applying the yardstick, apart from any other cause, the failure on
the front of filling in vacancies within a reasonable time has affected disposal in the
manner set out in the Annexure IV, for the Supreme Court and in Annexure V for the
High Courts.
[Para Nos. 3.5 to 3.8 & 3.10, Page Nos. 15-18]
3.14 Recalling that mechanism for processing a proposal for appointment of a person
as a Judge of a High Court is complex and complicated and involves nearly six
constitutional functionaries, the delay is inherent in it .................
3.15 Failure to fill in the vacancy is failure to perform a constitutional duty. It is the
responsibility of the State not only to set up adequate number of courts but to provide
manpower for its functioning. It is the duty cast by the Constitution and failure to
perform the same can surely be styled as failure to perform the said constitutional duty.
Disposal of cases amongst other things, is directly proportionate to the number of the
Judges in position. Unfilled vacancies is one of the prime causes for mounting arrears.
Schedules at Annexures IV & V would show the delay in filling in vacancies in the
1 Quoted in Conference of Chief Justices of High Courts and Chief Ministers and Law Ministers of the
States.
X-111
Supreme Court and the High Courts and its impact on the disposal of cases and the
mounting graph of arrears.
3.17 Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the mechanics, as devised in the
constitutional provisions for making appointment to the superior judiciary, appear to be
inadequate and incapable of providing the manpower inputs within a reasonable time.
This experience would make it difficult to continue to subscribe to the view that the
present constitutional scheme as to the method of appointment of Judges is basically
sound or that it has on the whole worked satisfactorily and does not call for any radical
change. A new approach has become inevitable otherwise the system is likely to be
crushed under the weight of its own debris.
[Para Nos. 3.14, 3.15 & 3.17, Page Nos. 19-20]
4.8 After working of the mechanism for four decades, the situation on this front is
depressing and has reached such a critical stage which provoked a former Chief Justice
of India to send a warning that the system of administration of justice is about to
collapse.2
4.9.......the review of the manpower strength for superior judiciary is not undertaken
regularly and at regular intervals. Even when such a review is done, as in the case of
Supreme Court of India where the strength has undergone upward revision at the hands
of Parliament on four different occasions 1956 (7 to 10), 1960 (10 to 13), 1977 (13 to
17) and 1986 (18 to 25), it more or less remains a paper exercise....... The fact situation as
disclosed in Annexures IV and V showing the linkage between the Judges in position and
disposal of cases and deemed disposal of cases if vacancies were filled in time, would
unquestionably show that the failure on the front of appointments is largely responsible
for total dislocation in the functioning of the superior judiciary........
[Para Nos. 4.8-4.9, Page Nos. 25-26]
2 P.N. Bhagwati, Law Day Speech on 26th November, 1986

X-112
Appendix-L

ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOURTH REPORT
ON
THE HIGH COURT
ARREARS-A FRESH LOOK
1988
X-113
1.20 ........The present Commission, having carefully studied all the past reports,
analysed and evaluated the recommendations, made an enquiry about their
implementation as best as one could make, looked at the present depressing and
distressing the situation of arrears and backlogs in High Courts and the Supreme Court
and posed to itself the first question whether any cosmetic changes are at all likely to
improve the situation. Having regard to the past attempts and consistent with its broadly
stated approach as set out in its first report, it came to an affirmative conclusion that not
only radical restructuring of the courts from the grassroot level is necessary which itself
would provide a regulatory mechanism in the inflow of work to the High Courts and then
reaching the Supreme Court, but also to have a close look at the vast jurisdiction enjoyed
by the High Court and then to have a second look at the hitherto holistic view that the
jurisdiction enjoyed by the High Court is a holy cow. Keeping in view the experience
gained all over the world that the generalist courts have to some extent yield their place
to specialist courts/tribunals, simultaneously effectively curtailing the jurisdiction of the
generalist courts, that is, the High Courts. To take only one illustration : in Australia,
'New tribunals outside the established courts have been created to administer these areas.
Administrative Appeal Tribunals, Arbitration Tribunals, Workers' Compensation
Tribunals, Pension Tribunals, Planning Appeal Tribunals 'Equal Opportunity Tribunals' to
name a few. This activity of creating tribunals is founded on a belief that : 'the
established courts are too remote, too legalistic, too expensive and, above all too slow. 16
Unless, therefore, the jurisdiction of the High Court is substantially curtailed,
simultaneously providing effective forum for juridical review enjoyed by the High
Courts,.... [Para No. 1.20, Page No.6]
3.2 Recalling that the delay in filling in vacancies, both existing and those created by
the upward revision of the strength, being largely responsible for piling up arrears, one
specific suggestion can be made till such time as the National Judicial Service
Commission is set up.
3.4 .......... the retiring Judge shall continue to be in position till such time as the
successor is appointed and is ready to be sworn in.
16 The Hons. Sir Francis Burt, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, ' The Moving
Finger or the Irremovable Digit, 61(9) Aust. L.J. (1987) p. 468.
X-114
3.6 The Law Commission formulated a tentative proposal about the continuance
of the retiring Judges in position as ad hoc Judge and requested the Chief Justice of India
and the Chief Justice of each High Court to submit their critical response to the proposal
after having deliberations with their colleagues.2 The response has been highly
encouraging. There is almost near unanimity amongst Chief Justices of various High
Courts in support of this proposal. [Para Nos. 3.2, 3.4 & 3.6, Page No. 11, 18]
3.18 ....The Benches of retired Judges may start functioning at about 8.30 A.M. and work
up to 12 or 12.30 noon. The High Court Judges will assemble from 12 or 12.30 noon, as
the case may be, and work up to 5.30, claiming their half an hour lunch hour ....
3.19 The Chief Justice, depending upon the pendency of old matters, should draw a
line of the base year and then direct that all matters pending up to the base year and
admitted before the base year should be exclusively assigned to the retired Judges. Where
the Bench is of two Judges, the burden of writing judgments will be equitably distributed.
These retired Judges will have whole of afternoon to their credit so that they do not suffer
any excessive load. Correspondingly, the sitting Judges will have the whole of morning
to their credit to write their judgments, to dispose of their administrative work and even
to read the matters in the evening after returning home. The Law Commission is
confident that this recommendation, if carried out, would make a deep dent into the
arrears because 3 to 4 Benches will simultaneously deal with old matters only.
[Para Nos. 3.18-3.19, Page No.20]
2 Copy of the letter to the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of each High Court (Appendices II
and III)
X-115
Appendix-M
REPORT
OF
THE ARREARS COMMITTEE
1989-1990
CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CHIEF
JUSTICES' CONFERENCE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. S. MALIMATH ... CHAIRMAN

CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. DESAI, MEMBER

CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE A.S. ANAND, MEMBER

CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
X-116
Judge Strength Determination-Defect in Existing Mechanism
2.8 Against the aforesaid background, there is justification for reviewing the
existing constitutional mechanism for determining the judge-strength for each High
Court. The power presently vests in the President, that is, the executive. Unlike the power
of appointment of judges, it is not required to be exercised in consultation with any
constitutional functionary of the judicial organ. True, there is nothing to prevent the
Chief Justices of the High Courts from taking up the question of augmenting the judge-
strength with the executive in the light of the existing guidelines in that behalf and this in
fact is being done. However, as observed in the 14th Report of the Law commission, such
exercise on the part of the Chief Justices of various High Courts has not always yielded
desired results and the efforts has actually been thwarted on account of apathy or
unawareness of the realities of the situation on the part of the executive. This is amply
borne out from what has been demonstrated in paragraph 2.7 The Law Commission
suggested that the requisite judge-strength should be fixed in consultation with the Chief
Justices of the High Courts concerned and the Chief Justice of India. The solution
accordingly mooted has apparently not proved effective.
Power to Determine Judge-Strength-Committee's view
2.9 The Committee is, therefore, of the view that the power to determine the judge-
strength required for each High Court from time to time should be entrusted to the Chief
Justice of India who will exercise the same in consultation with the Chief Justice of the
High Court concerned to enable the President to appoint the requisite number of judges
in accordance with such determination. We shall propose an appropriate amendment, on
these lines, to Article 216 at the appropriate place hereafter.
Formula for Determining Permanent Judge Strength
2.10 According to the existing guidelines followed by the Government of India, the
Judge strength of the High Courts is calculated with reference to the institution and
pendency of main cases and the working norm of average disposal per judge. The
working norm adopted by the Government of India is 650 main cases per judge per year,
or the average actual dispoal of main cases per judge per year over the preceding three
years, whichever is higher. The strength of permanent judges of each High Court is
X-117
calculated taking into account this norm of disposal and average number of main cases
instituted over the preceding three years. Posts of additional judges are sanctioned for
clearing arrears. The number of additional posts to be sanctioned depends upon the
decision to clear the arrears within a period of two, three or four years, as the case may
be, using the same working norm of disposal. Main cases pending over two years are
treated as arrears for this purpose. [Para Nos. 2.8-2.10, Page Nos. 57-58]
Perspective Planning
2.13 The Committee's views expressed in the preceding two paragraphs relate to
determining the judge strength required in foreseeable future in the light of the existing
circumstances. However as in all other spheres of State activity, perspective planing is a
concept which has to apply to the judicial organ of the State as well. The Law
Commission in its 120th Report has emphasised the need for manpower planning in
judiciary and it has also suggested a perspective planning for the increase of judge
strength on the basis of a certain percentage of population and, in the alternative, on the
basis of litigation and pendency rates, bearing in mind the need and requirement for the
next 20 years period. It is high time that the suggestion made by the Law Commission
was implemented and a blue print prepared in the light of the past experience, available
data and the financial resources on the basis of which the future need can be reasonably
assessed and increased judge-strength over a period of time projecting into the future can
be provided for. The assessment of judge strength required for the next decade taking
into consideration the demographic factor and the judge strength obtaining in other
countries made by the Law Commission has already been adverted to in paragraph 1.14.
Financial Resources
2.15 The expenditure presently incurred on judges, staff and other miscellaneous items
of the Supreme Court of India and of the High Court is set out in Appendices 1(1) and
1(2) of the 121st Report of the Law Commission. In Appendix 1(3) have been set out the
total tax receipts of each State for the year 1981-82 and the expenditure incurred on the
State judiciary. The data accordingly furnished shows at a glance that the expenditure
incurred on the State judiciary is only a negligible portion of the tax receipts of each
State, including receipt from court fees. There should, therefore, be no grudge or
hesitation on the part of the State to lay out more expenditure for efficient management
X-118
of the judiciary in the light of the assessed requirement. Financial constraint shall not be
an excuse not to meet the needs of judicial organ.
Article 216 Amendment Suggested

2.17 In the light of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs, the conclusion is
irresistible that Article 216 has failed to achieve the objective for which it was enacted.
The Committee has highlighted the shortcomings which have manifested in the working
of the said article. The Committee has expressed the view that the power to determine the
judge-strength required for each High Court should be entrusted to the Chief Justice of
India, to be exercised by him in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court
concerned on the basis of the objective criteria recommended in the next chapter. In the
light of such determination, the President would exercise the power to appoint the
required number of judges for each High Court. To achieve this objective, it therefore
becomes necessary to amend Article 216. The Committee proposes that the present
Article 216 be replaced by the following article:
216. Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such number of other
Judges as the President deems it necessary to appoint from time to time;
Provided that the number of Judges required for each High Court shall be
determined from time to time by the Chief Justice of India in consultation with the
Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.
Article 224-
2.18 Article 224 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the appointment of
Additional and Acting Judges, reads thus:
224. (1) If by reason of any temporary increase in the business of a High Court
or by reason of arrears of work therein, it appears to the President that the number of
the Judges of that Court should be for the time being increased, the President may
appoint duly qualified persons to be additional Judges of the Court for such period
not exceeding two years as he may specify.
(2) When any Judge of a High Court other than the Chief Justice is by reason of
absence or for any other reason unable to perform the duties of his office or is
appointed to act temporarily as Chief Justice, the President may appoint a duly
qualified person to act as a Judge of that Court until the permanent Judge has
resumed his duties.
X-119
(3) No person appointed as an additional or acting Judge of a High court shall
hold office after attaining the age of sixty two years.
[Para Nos. 2.13, 2.15, 2.17, 2.18 Page Nos. 58-59]
X-120
Appendix-N
FIRST NATIONAL JUDICIAL

PAY COMMISSION REPORT
Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty

Former Judge, Supreme Court of India
Chairman
Justice P.K. Bahri (Rtd.) Justice A.B. Murgod (Rtd.)

Judge, Delhi High Court Judge, Karnataka High Court
Member Member-Secretary
NOVEMBER, 1999
X-121
13. This Commission, by survey of the subordinate courts, has found that there is a
large scale dissatisfaction in the Subordinate Judiciary all over the country.
14. The major cause for this dissatisfaction appears to be the burgeoning judicial
work-load and the financial pressure due to inadequate compensation.
[Volume I, Para Nos. 13-14, Page No. v]
X-122
Appendix-O
MARCH 31, 2002
REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION
TO
REVIEW THE WORKING OF THE CONSTITUTION
(VOLUME I)
X-123
7.10.4. The Government should ensure basic infra-structure needed to all courts
and arrange to ensure that courts are not handicapped for want of infra-structural
facilities, Governments, both at the Centre and in the States, should constitute committee
of secretaries to review government litigation with a view to avoid adjudication wherever
possible, give priority in filing of written statements, wherever required, and instruct
government advocates to seek early decision on government litigation.
[Para No. 7.10.4, Page No. 213]
X-124
Appendix-P
COMMITTEE ON
REFORMS
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
REPORT
(VOLUME-I)
INDIA
March 2003
X-125
1.19. Since Independence and the promulgation of our Constitution rapid strides
have been made in almost all fields. The communication revolution has opened the eyes,
ears and minds of millions of people, resulting in increasing expectations of an ever
growing population. The desire for quick, fair and affordable justice is universal.
Protection of life and liberty have been given a pre-eminent position in our Constitution
by enacting article 21 as a fundamental right and imposing a duty on the State to protect
life and personal liberty of every citizen. Any deprivation or breach of this valuable right
is not permissible unless the procedure prescribed by law for that purpose is just, fair and
reasonable. Has the State been able to keep up to this promise in a substantial measure?
The ground reality, however, is that this precious fundamental right is turning out to be a
mere pipe dream to the many millions to whom justice is delayed, distorted or denied
more than its delivery in accordance with the ideals enshrined in the Constitution. The
entire existence of the orderly society depends upon sound and efficient functioning of
the Criminal Justice System. [Para No. 1.19, Page No. 10]
1.23. These figures show that the courts have not been able to cope up with the
number of cases that come before them for trial every year. According to Table 1 the
total number of complaints received by the Police and cases registered during the year
2000 in India is 56,62,773. It is a matter of common knowledge that several persons who
are victims of crimes do not complain to the police. During the year 2000 the total
number of cases charge-sheeted after investigation is 50,98,304. The total number of
cases disposed of by the courts in the year 2000 is 9,32,774. So far as the cases under
IPC are concerned, the analysis in the report on page 1 of the NCRB report shows that
79% of IPC cases were investigated in the year 2000, 78.4% of them were charge-
sheeted, 18.3% of them were tried and 41.8% of them resulted in conviction..............
1.24. Quality of justice suffers not only when an innocent person is punished or a
guilty person is exonerated but when there is enormous delay in deciding the criminal
cases. It is a trite saying that justice delayed is justice denied. Table 25 (b) of the NCRB
report, 2000 furnishes the duration of trial of cases during 2000. It is seen that 10,382
cases of the duration of 3 to 5 years, 6,503 cases of the duration of 5 to 10 years and
2,187 cases of the duration of over 10 years were disposed of by all the courts in India
during 2000. Taking more than 3 years (sometimes even 10 years) amounts to denying
fair trial. Speedy trial is a right of the accused that follows from article 21 as held by the
Supreme Court................ [Para No. 1.23 & 1.24, Page No. 13]
X-126
1.32. The number of Judges in India per million population is about 12 to 13.
Corresponding figures available for USA is 107, for UK is 51, for Canada is 75 and for
Australia was about 41 about 12 years ago. This shows how grossly inadequate is the
judge strength per million of population in India. That is the reason why the Supreme
Court has in its recent decision in (2002) 4, S.C.C.247, All India Judges Association &
Others vs. Union of India and Others directed that the existing judge population ratio of
10:5 or 13 judges per million people should be raised to 50 Judges per million people in a
phased manner within five years. [Para No. 1.32, Page No. 18-19]
1.37. .......Delay in disposal of cases affords greater opportunity for the accused to win
over the witnesses to his side by threats, or inducements. There is no law to protect the
witnesses. The treatment given to the witnesses is very shabby. Even the basic amenities
like shelter, seating, drinking water, toilets etc. are not provided. He is not paid TA/DA
promptly. He is often paid much less than what he spends and nobody bothers about it.
The cases are adjourned again and again requiring the witnesses come to court several
times leaving aside all his work. Witness who are treated in this manner become an easy
prey to the machinations of the accused and his family.
COURTS AND JUDGES

9.1 Huge pendency of cases and poor rate of convictions are the twin
problems of the Judiciary. The major area that needs attention for Improving the situation
is providing adequate number of judges who are proficient in dealing with criminal cases.
9.2 APPOINTMENT TO SUBORDINATE COURTS

9.2.1 The statistics reflect gross inadequacy of the judge strength at all levels.
The Supreme Court has recently examined the issue and given directions, in its decision
in (2002) 4 S.C. 247, All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India to
increase the judge strength from the existing judge population ratio of 10.5 or 13 judges
per million of people to 50 judges per million people in a phased manner within five
years. Right to speedy trial, as held by the Supreme Court flows from Article 21 of the
Constitution. Therefore it is expected that the directions of the Supreme Court would be
implemented within a reasonable time. Once that happens, problem of inadequacy of
judge strength will be solved. Hence it is not necessary for the Committee to examine the
X-127
question of inadequacy of judge strength. However, the Committee would like to observe
that within the standard set for determining the number of Judges required, it may be
necessary for each State to make an estimate of the number of judges required to be
appointed keeping in mind the pendency and the inflow of fresh cases and nature of
litigation etc.
9.3 APPOINTMENT TO HIGH COURTS

9.3.1 It is unfortunate that large number of vacancies in the High Court remain
unfilled for a long time in spite of the formula given by the Arrears Committee for
determining the judge strength and for expediting the appointment process. Now that the
appointment process is mainly under the control of the Judiciary the blame for this delay
is largely on it. The Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justices of the High Courts must
take immediate steps to curb this unconscionable delay in appointments.
[Para Nos. 9.1-9.3, Page No. 133]
Arrears Eradication Scheme
13.2 ...........As the object of the proposed scheme is to eradicate arrears it would like
to name the proposed scheme as Arrears Eradication Scheme.
13.3 The arrears for the purpose of the scheme should mean cases which are pending
for more than two years as on the date the new scheme comes into force. Cases pending
for less then two years shall be current cases. This shall be a one time temporary scheme
for clearing the existing arrears of criminal cases in all the courts.
13.4 Some of the measures recommended by the Committee in this report would be
useful in eradicating the backlog of cases. The Committee has recommended increase in
the number of offences that can be compounded. Benefit of this should be extended to
the pending cases as well. Good many old cases can be disposed of by settlement.
13.5 The Committee has recommended that all the 'Summons' cases shall be tried
summarily under section 262 of the Code. Pending cases falling under this category can
also be disposed of expeditiously by following the summary procedure.
13.6 SCHEME FOR ERADICATING ARREARS

13.6.1 For the purpose of eradicating arrears a separate scheme shall be prepared on the
X-128
lines of the 'Fast Tract Courts Scheme' on the following lines :-
(1) The scheme shall be called the 'Arrears Eradication Scheme'.
(2) The object of the scheme shall be to eradicate the arrears pending on
appointed day in five year's time.
(3) For the Arrears Eradicating Scheme to come into force appointed day shall be
fixed by the Chief Justice of the High Court. That is the day when the courts shall
start hearing the cases under this Scheme. Therefore, all arrangements for that
purpose should be completed before that day.
(4) Arrears for the purpose of this Scheme shall be the cases pending for more
than two years on the appointed day.
(5) The Scheme will lapse once 'Arrears' are disposed of.
(6) Current criminal cases are those that are pending for less than two years on the
appointed day. Responsibility of disposing these current cases within two years
shall be on the regular courts. This scheme is recommended so that from here on
at least the current criminal cases can be disposed of within a maximum period of
two years. The High Court shall take steps to have enough regular courts for
achieving this object.
(7) Implementation of the Arrears Eradication Scheme requires coordination

between the High Courts and the Government in the matter of finding suitable
persons to be appointed as Judges and finding suitable accommodation and other
infrastructure for the courts. The Committee recommends that a retired judge of
the High Court should be appointed for implementation of the Arrears Eradication
Scheme. He should be appointed in consultation with the High Court. Only
persons with considerable experience in criminal cases who are known for quick
disposal are ability to motivate others should be selected for implementing the
scheme. The choice of the Judge for this purpose is of crucial importance. He
should be given a free hand in the matter of suggesting the names of persons to be
X-129
appointed to these courts, identifying accommodation and finding staff to do the
work. The success of the scheme would depend upon the vision and dynamism of
such person. Therefore, great care should be taken in the matter of selecting and
appointing a person for this important job.
(8) His overall responsibility shall be to implement the scheme in the entire State.
He shall coordinate with all the functionaries and take necessary steps in
consultation with the Chief Justice to implement the Arrears Eradication Scheme.
His services may also be utilized in the matter of compounding or settlement of
cases.
(9) Quick decisions and prompt action are the key for the success of this scheme.
It is therefore, suggested that at the State level there should be a Coordination
Committee consisting of the Chief Justices, Chief Minister and Advocate General
and at the Central level such Committee may consist of the Chief Justice of India,
Minister for Law and Justice and the Attorney General of India.
(10) The Judge appointed in each State for implementing the scheme should at the
end of every year prepare a report about the implementation of the scheme, giving
all relevant information, about the problems if any that need to be solved and send
it to the Coordination Committee for taking remedial measures. Copy of the
report should be sent to the Chief Justice of India and the Minister for Law and
Justice, Government of India. They may take such measures as are needed for
smooth and effective operation of the scheme.
(11) Such number of additional Courts of Magistrates First Class, Chief Judicial
Magistrates and Session Judges as may be required to clear up arrear of cases
pending for more than two years be established.
(12) Ad hoc or contractual appointment of Judges shall be made for these courts
from among available retired judges and members of the Bar.
(13) Benefit of compounding of offences recommended by this Committee shall

be extended to pending cases as well. A concerted effort should be made to
X-130
dispose of the cases by compounding or settlement wherever that is permissible in
law.
(14) To meet the problem of accommodation, timings of the court may be so
modified so as to have two shifts of courts to be able to use the same
accommodation, say, from 9 am to 2 pm and 2.30 pm to 7.30 p.m.
(15) It may also be examined if such court can function on part-time basis with
part-time Judges at the same premises with some adjustment of timing of the
regular courts. The part-time courts may also sit on holidays. Part-time courts
can conveniently be assigned compoundable cases for settlement. The Judge
should make effort to settle the cases failing which they may be sent to the court
doing regular hearing work.
(16) Where there are large numbers of petty cases they may be posted exclusively
before one judge so that they can be expeditiously disposed.
(17) This scheme may mutatis mutandis be extended to the High Courts and the
Supreme Court. The Chief Justices of the respective courts shall classify the
criminal cases into two categories. Those which are pending for more than two
years shall be treated as arrears cases and assigned to specially constituted
benches for clearing the arrears. If necessary ad hoc Judges should be appointed
until the old cases are disposed. So far as cases pending for less then two years
are concerned they shall be disposed by regular benches. Such number of regular
benches should be constituted as may be necessary to dispose of current case
within two years. It shall be the responsibility of the concerned Governments to
extend such assistance as is necessary. It is advisable for the Chief Justices to
constitute special cells to be responsible for assisting the Chief Justice in
achieving these objectives.
(18) The Committee urges the Governments concerned to provide the funds
required for successful implementation of the scheme. The Government of India
may extend the requisite financial support in a generous way as it has done in
respect of Fast Track Court Scheme.
X-131
(19) Commitment and aggressive pursuit at all levels is the key to solving the
problems. Requisite finance, manpower and infrastructure should be made
available without cringing. This is a very small price to pay to mete out justice to
the people. It is now time to act, here and now.
12. VACATION FOR COURT

In view of the large pendency and mounting arrears of criminal cases, the
long vacations for the High Courts and Supreme Courts in the larger public
interest, the Committee feels that here should be a reduction of the vacations.
Hence, the following recommendations are :-
(90) i) The working days of the Supreme Court be raised to 206 days.
ii) The working days of the High Courts be raised to 231 days.
iii) Consequently, the Supreme Court and the High Courts shall reduce
their vacations by 21 days on the increase in their working days.
13. ARREARS ERADICATION SCHEME

The recommendations made by the Committee in this report would help in
reducing the arrears and speeding up the trials; but to tackle the huge arrears a
complementary strategy is recommended. Government of India, Ministry of Law
and Justice has created a Fast Track Courts Scheme for dealing with the
sessions cases. Though the scheme is good it is beset with many practical
problems besides being limited to dealing with sessions cases. The Committee is
in favour of working out an Arrears Eradication Scheme for the purpose of
tackling all the cases that are pending for more than 2 years on the appointed day.
To carry out the scheme, the Committee feels that a retired Judge of a
High Court who is known for effective and expeditious disposal of criminal cases
should be put in charge of the Arrear Eradication Scheme as the sitting Judges
may not find the time for it. Hence the following recommendations are made :-
(91) Arrears Eradication Scheme should be framed on lines suggested in the Section
Arrears Eradication Scheme.
(92) There should be a cell in the High Court whose duty shall be to collect and
X-132
collate information and particulars from all the subordinate courts in regard to
cases pending in the respective courts for more than two years, to identify the
cases among them which can be disposed of summarily under section 262 of the
Code or as petty cases under section 206 of the Code and cases which can be
compounded with or without the leave of the court.
(93) On the coming into the force of the scheme, arrangements shall be made for
sending all the compoundable cases to the Legal Service Authority for settling
those cases through Lok Adalats on priority basis.
(94) The courts constituted under the Arrears Eradication Scheme shall dispose of
cases on priority basis. The arrears of cases triable under section 262 and under
section 206 shall be disposed of expeditiously.
(95) The courts constituted under the Arrears Eradication Scheme shall dispose of the
cases expeditiously.
(96) A case taken up for hearing should be heard on a day-to-day basis until
conclusion. Only such number of cases as can be conveniently disposed of shall
be posted for hearing every day as far as possible in consultation with the
concerned lawyers.
(97) Once the case is posted for hearing it shall not be adjourned. If under special
circumstances a case is required to be adjourned, it should be done for reasons to
be recorded in writing subject to payment of costs and also the amount of
expenses of the witnesses. The court in its discretion shall award costs to the other
party or direct that the same shall be credited to the victim compensation fund if
one is constituted.
(98) The (retired) Judge in charge of the Arrears Eradication Scheme shall make an
estimate of the number of additional courts required to be constituted for
eradication of the arrears at each place including the requirement of staff, number
of Public Prosecutors and other infrastructure required and move the concerned
authorities to appoint them.
(99) The High Court shall take effective measures to ensure that the current cases are
disposed of expeditiously and that no current cases would be pending for more
than two years. Additional Courts, if needed for this purpose, should be
sanctioned expeditioulsy.
[Page No. 285-287]
X-133
Appendix-Q
189TH REPORT
ON
REVISION OF COURT FEES STRUCTURE
FEBRUARY, 2004
X-134
......In other words, the Central Government is bringing forward legislation in
Parliament and burdening the subordinate Courts established by the State Governments
with cases arising out of the Central legislation. The Central Government has however
not been making any contribution for establishing the trial and appellate Courts in the
States. This lacuna has been pointed out by the Commission for Review of the
Constitution. There is an immediate need for the Central Government to come forward
with a package which will substantially increase the number of our subordinate Courts.
Today, more than seventy per cent of those who are detained in our jails are
undertrials whose guilt is yet to be declared. By detaining such persons for unreasonable
terms without providing adequate number of criminal Courts, the Union and the States
are in a continuing breach of the 'right to access' to justice in our Criminal Courts and the
right to 'speedy justice' guaranteed by Art. 21. Speedy justice, the Supreme Court, has
held is a fundamental right within the meaning of the words 'right to life' referred to in
Article 21.
[Page Nos. 33- 34]
X-135
Appendix-R
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
LAW COMMISSION
OF
INDIA
Report No. 245
Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial

(wo)manpower
July, 2014
X-136
CHAPTER II
DEFINING KEY CONCEPTS: PENDENCY, DELAY,

ARREARS, AND BACKLOG
There is no single or clear understanding of when a case should be counted as delayed.

Often, terms like delay, pendency, arrears, and backlog are used
interchangeably. This leads to confusion. To avoid this confusion and for the sake of
clarity, these terms may be understood as follows:
a. Pendency: All cases instituted but not disposed of, regardless of when the case
was instituted.
b. Delay: A case that has been in the Court/judicial system for longer than the
normal time that it should take for a case of that type to be disposed of.
c. Arrears: Some delayed cases might be in the system for longer than the normal
time, for valid reasons. Those cases that show unwarranted delay will be referred
to as arrears.
d. Backlog: When the institution of new cases in any given time period is higher
than the disposal of cases in that time period, the difference between institution
and disposal is the backlog. This figure represents the accumulation of cases in
the system due to the system's inability to dispose of as many cases as are being
filed.
Therefore, as is evident, defining terms like delay and arrears require
computing normal case processing time standards. How should the normal time
frame be determined? It may be noted that since the Supreme Court had directed
the Law Commission to recommend a rational and scientific definition of
arrears and delay, the Commission clarified to the Hon'ble Court at the outset
that there exists no single objective standard or mathematical formula by
reference to which normal case processing time and hence delay can be defined
or calculated. However, Commission is of the view that various methods, drawing
on statistics, social science research techniques and experiential inputs can help
make rational determination of normal case disposal times, and hence of
delay.............
[Page No. 3]
X-137
Chapter III
COMPUTING JUDGE STRENGTH
.................
C. Methodologies for Computing Adequate Judge Strength
..........................
4. The Rate of Disposal Method
In the present scenario, especially in the absence of complete and scientific
approach to data collection that the commission finds the use of the Rate of Disposal
Method to calculate the number of additional judges required to clear the backlog of
cases as well as to ensure that new backlog is not created as more pragmatic and useful.
This method generally speaking addresses two important concerns: (a) a large existing
backlog of cases and (b) new being instituted daily which are adding to the backlog.
To address both these concerns, the Rate of Disposal Method can be applied to
provide for two sets of judges: (a) Number of judges required to dispose of the existing
backlog and (b) Number of judges required for ensuring that new filings are disposed of
in a manner such that further backlog is not created.
It may not be out of context to briefly explain what constitutes Rate of Disposal
Method. Under the Rate of Disposal Method, one first looks at the current rate at which
judges dispose of cases. Next one determines how many additional judges working at a
similar level of efficiency would be required so that the number of disposals equals the
number of institutions in any one year time frame. As long as the institution and disposal
levels remain as they currently are, the Courts would need these many additional judges
to keep pace with new filings in order to ensure that newly instituted cases do not add to
the backlog.
Second, working with the current rate of disposal of cases per judge one is also
required to look at how many judges would be required to dispose of the current backlog.
Backlog, for the present, has been defined as those cases which have been pending in the
system for more than a year.30
It has to be noted that in the past the Law Commission and other Committees
have suggested that since the judges required to dispose of the backlog are needed only
till the backlog is cleared, therefore short-term ad hoc appointments be made from
30 Though the analysis in this report uses 1 year as the time frame for determining whether a case is
backlogged or not, this time period can be modified to suit the needs of different High Courts. The
formula for analysis would remain the same.
X-138
amongst retired judges, for the purpose of clearing backlog 31. Most recently, the National
Vision Statement and Action Plan presented by the Law Minister in October 2009, also
recommended that retired judges and eminent lawyers may be appointed as ad hoc judges
for a period of one year for dealing with arrears 32. However, as previous experiences
with appointing ad hoc judges has shown, there are serious concerns about such
appointments, especially the lack of accountability in the functioning and performance of
ad-hoc judges, since these are short term appointments.
Further, even if ad hoc judges were to be appointed, additional infrastructure for
these Courts would have to be created. Though the National Vision Statement
recommended adopting a shift system to overcome the infrastructure problem 33, this
proposal has been resisted by members of the Bar since it significantly increases their
working hours.34
Significantly, the Central Government, the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief
Ministers, and the Advisory Council of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and
Legal Reforms, have all proposed the doubling of the current judge strength 35. As per the
31 See e.g., LAW C OMMISSION OF INDIA , 77 th REPORT ON DELAY AND ARREARS IN

TRIAL COURTS 35 (1978), at 9.13. A similar method has been recommended by in Annexure I
of the Justice M J Rao Committee on Judicial Impact Assessment, for calculating the adequate
Judge strength. Justice M.J. Rao Report, vol.2, (http://doj.gov.in/?q=node/121) Report of the Task
Force on Judicial Impact Assessment, p. 49-52. The Justice Malimath Committee recommended
the bifurcation of additional judicial strength into permanent judges required to dispose of current
filings, and additional ad-hoc judges to deal with arrears. Malimath Committee Report, p. 164.
See also Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affair, 85th Report on Laws Delays:
Arrears in Courts 45 (2001) (advocating appointing ad hoc Judges to clear pendency within a
three year time frame). See further 14th Law Commission Report, p. 148 (engaging in a similar
analysis, the Law Commission recommended the creation of temporary additional Courts for
dealing with cases over a year old, and augmenting the strength of the permanent judiciary so that
disposals and institutions break even, and there is no new creation of arrears).
32 3.2 and 6.1 (i) Vision Statement presented by the Law Minister to the Chief Justice of India at the
National Consultation for Strengthening the Judiciary towards Reducing Pendency and Delays,
October 2009
33 6.1, id.
34 See Minutes of the Meeting of the Law/Home Secretaries and Finance Secretaries of States and
Registrar Generals of High Courts on May 31, 2013.
35 A resolution on doubling the judge strength was passed at the Second Meeting of the Advisory
Council of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, chaired by the Union
Law Minister, on May 15, 2012. The resolution stated that, The number of Judges/Courts may be
increased to double the present number. But this may be done gradually in a period of 5 years.
At the Chief Justices and Chief Ministers Conference, held on Aril 5-6, 2013, it was resolved
that, [i]n order to narrow down judge-population ratio, the Chief Justices will take requisite steps
for creation of new posts of Judicial Officers at all levels with support staff and requisite
infrastructure in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of All India
Judges' Associations case (2002) 4 S.C.C. 247], Brij Mohan Lai vs. Union of India(2012) 6 S.C.C.
502 and letter dated 21st February, 2013, written by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to Hon'ble
the Prime Minister of India, in order to provide effective, efficient and efficacious dispensation of
justice. The decision to double the judge-population ratio was supported by the Prime Minister
and the Law Minister in their speeches at the conference. Both assured that the Central
Government would assist in securing additional funding for this purpose. See Speech by Prime
X-139
information supplied by the Department of Justice to the Law Commission indicate that
consultations are currently underway between the Central Government, the State
Governments, and the High Courts, on formulating memoranda to be presented to the
14th Finance Commission regarding funds required for doubling the judge strength. The
Commission recommends that since this decision to double judge strength has already
been taken, the judges required for disposing of the backlog can be drawn from the new
recruitment itself. Once backlog is cleared, these judges can be deployed for disposing
of freshly instituted cases, which will also increase over time.
Given the vast resources required to double the existing judge strength, the time
that it will take to complete selection and training processes, and the funds and time
required to create adequate infrastructure, the Commission is of the opinion that the Rate
of Disposal Method should be used to indicate how many judges should be appointed on
a priority basis for the interim period. Tables I-XII below, provide data for how many
judges need to be hired to dispose of the backlog in one, two, or three years.36
The Rate of Disposal Method provides an approximation- a rough and ready
calculation-based on current efficiency levels of the Subordinate Judiciary, of the
adequate judge strength required to address the problem of backlog in the judicial
system. The formula as proposed below has been evolved largely based on the data that
the Commission could gather. With more precise data, the formula indicated below can
be fine-tuned to provide a more exact estimation of the additional judges required.
Keeping in view concerns expressed about other methods and other analysis as carried
out here, the Commission is of the view that the method proposed here could provide a
reasoned basis (as opposed to ad-hoc) for determining adequate judge strength.
Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, at the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, at
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=94523; Speech by Law Minister Dr. Ashwini Kumar,
at the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, April 7, 2013, at
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=51882
At a meeting of the Law/Home Secretaries and Finance Secretaries of States and Registrar
Generals of High Courts on May 31, 2013 Shri Anil Gulati, Joint Secretary and Mission Director,
Department of Justice, stated that the resolution of the Advisory Council of the National Mission
for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, had been endorsed by the Advisory Committee of the
National Court Management Systems, and by the Chief Justice of India in his letter addressed to
the Chief Justices of High Courts in February, 2013. The representatives of the State Governments
and High Courts were asked to draw up proposals regarding the financial implications of the
resolution so that the same could be presented to the 14 th Finance Commission for provision of
adequate funds.
36 It is pertinent to note that in R. L. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 968, the Supreme Court
had directed that all arrears in the Delhi Subordinate Judiciary should be disposed of within a
period of 2 years.
X-140
The method is as below:-
1. The method aims at calculating the number of judges required in each

cadre of Subordinate Court Judges, i.e., Higher Judicial Service, Civil Judge
Senior Division and Civil Judge Junior Division. For evolving the method, a
separate analysis of figures for institution, disposal and the working strength of
judges in each of these three cadres from 2010 to end 2012 was carried out.
2. Disposals for one cadre of judges (e.g., Higher Judicial Service) is divided
by the working strength of judges in that cadre. Working strength refers to
sanctioned strength minus vacancies and deputations. This division gave the
annual Rate of Disposal per judge in a cadre for each year from 2010 to 2012.
The average of these annual rate of disposal figures gave the Average Rate of
Disposal per judge in that cadre.
3. An average of the annual institutions before each cadre of judge for the
years 2010-12 was taken37. The average institution was divided by the Average
37 The use of the average annual institution in the last three years as the basis for analyzing future
demand for judicial resources bears explanation. Some High Courts provided us with data on
institution, disposal and pendency for the last 10 years, i.e., from 2002-2012. However, we have
decided to look at institutions only for the last three years. Given that the demand for judicial
resources keeps changing depending on new laws being promulgated, changes in awareness of the
law, changes in socio-economic conditions of society, etc, the recent data is a better predictor of
what is likely to be the demand for judicial resources in the next plan period, than past data. For
example, looking at the Higher Judicial Services in Jharkhand, the 10 year average annual
institution from 2002-11 would suggest that we could expect 21452 fresh institutions in 2012. The
actual institution was 26665. The difference between the actual institution and the predicted
institution was therefore 5213 cases. On the other hand the average institution for the time period
2009-11 for the same cadre was 26996 as against the actual institution of 26665 for 2012. The
difference was only 331 cases. The change occurs because the annual institution of cases before
the Higher Judicial Services has risen in recent times. A 10 year average data pulls down the
average because of the lower institution rates from 10 years ago. The vast changes in the
normative field and social context mean that institution rates are not stable over long periods. The
use of relatively old data thus becomes an unreliable measure for future forecast. Of course, even
with the more recent data, the past demand is no guarantee of the future demand. However, other
factors remaining constant, the past demand can be a useful tool for planning for the near future. If
other factors
change, as for example, new laws are introduced or the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Court changes,
additional resources would be required.
It is relevant to note that the data shows wide fluctuations in filing figures from one year to
another such that no clear trend is discernable. For example, in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service,
the institution of new cases increased by 18.4% from 2009 to 2010, by 4.3% from 2010 to 2011
and by 11.3 % from 2011 to 2012. In the Delhi Judicial Service the institution of new cases 4.8%
from 2009 to 2010, 17% from 2010 to 2011, but fell by 25.2% in 2012. Another example of such
fluctuations is seen in the data from Himachal Pradesh. Here in the cadre of Civil Judge Junior
Division, the institution of new cases increased by 22.5% in 2010, 1.2% in 2011 and 35% in 2012.
Such examples of wide fluctuations in the year on year data are present in almost all High Courts.
X-141
Rate of Disposal per judge for that cadre to give the number of judges required to
keep pace with the current filings, and ensure that no new backlog is created.
This figure has been described as : The Break Even Number.
4. Subtracting the current number of judges from the Break Even Number
gives us the Additional Number of Judges required to ensure that the number of
disposals would equal the number of institutions.
5. The backlog for a particular cadre of judges (defined as all cases pending
before that cadre of judges for more than a year) was then divided by the rate of
disposal for that type of judge. This gave the number of judges required to clear
the backlog within a year. Dividing this number by 2 gives the number of judges
rquired to clear the backlog in 2 years, and so forth.
Therefore, the formula for determining the Additional Number of

Judges for Breakeven is represented as follows:
ARD= [D2010/J2010)+(D2011/J2011)+(D2012/J2012)] / 3
BEJ=(AI/ARD)-J
Where,
BEJ= Additional No. of Judges required to Break Even
AI= Average Institution
ARD= Average Rate of Disposal
D2010, D2011, D2012= Annual Disposal for that year
J2010, J2011, J2012= Annual Working Strength of Judges for that year
J= Current Working Strength of Judges
(See Tables I to X below) For this reason any kind of trend analysis is difficult. Other methods for
forecasting the demand for judicial resources like regression analysis have been forgone because
the independent variables that affect the number of filings, like new laws coming into force,
increase in awareness about laws and the social and economic context are difficult to predict,
measure and define.
The average institution is an approximate measure of the likely institution in next few years. It
should not be treated as the only yardstick, but should be constantly monitored to ensure that
increases in annual institutions culminate in additional recruitment of judges. We have used
figures for the last 3 years, i.e., 2010-12 because we have the most comprehensive dataset for this
period for the highest number of Courts.
X-142
The formula for determining the Number of Judges for disposing of Backlog
required to dispose of pending cases within a given time period is:
AJBk=(B/ARD)/t
Where,
AJBk= No. of Judges for disposing of Backlog
B= Backlog, defined as the number of cases pending for more than a year.
t= The time frame, in number of years, within which the backlog needs to be
cleared.
Based on application for these formulae, the following tables were generated.
These tables indicate the additional number of Subordinate Court Judges required
to breakeven, and the number of Subordinate Court Judges required to clear the
existing backlog for the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat,
Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab &
Haryana, Sikkim, and Uttarakhand.
Illustration:
The method can easily be illustrated with an example. Table I shows the rate of disposal
analysis for the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Courts. As this data shows, in 2010 Andhra
Pradesh had 129 judges of the Higher Judicial Service who disposed of 109085 cases, at
an average of 109085/129 = 845.6 cases per judge. Similarly, in 2011, 139 judges
disposed of 111892 cases at an average of 111892/139 = 805 cases per judge; and in
2012, 136 judges disposed of 106997 cases at an average of 106997/136 = 786.7 cases
per judge. On average, therefore, judges of the Higher Judicial Service disposed of
(845.6+805+786.7)/3=812.4 cases per judge per year in this time period. This is the
Average Rate of disposal per judge.
Now the average institution per year from 2010-2012 in the Higher Judicial Service
cadre is (112209+112710+113250)/3=112723. If each judge is disposing of on average
812.4 cases per year, then the number of judge required to dispose of 112723 cases is
112723/812.4=138.7. This is the breakeven number, which implies that if there were
138.7 Higher Judicial Service judges then in any given time period, all new institutions
would be disposed of without adding to the backlog. Since currently there are 136 judges
of this cadre, there the need is 138.7-136=3 (rounding off to the higher number)
additional judges to reach the breakeven number. The breakeven number deals with the
current institutions.
X-143
There is also a huge backlog of cases. In the case of the Higher Judicial Service, 98072
matters are pending for more than a year, as on 31.12.2012. If one judge disposes of
812.4 cases per year on average, then system would need 98072/812.4 = 121 judges to
dispose of all pending matters in one year, or 121/2=61 (after rounding off), or 121/3=41
(after rounding off) for disposing of all pending cases in 2 and 3 years respectively.
[Page Nos. 24-30]
X-144
The following tables apply the rate of Disposal Method to data on institutions, disposals and pendency supplied by 12
High Courts.
TABLE I: ANDHRA PRADESH SUBORDINATE COURTS

No. of Judges
required for clearing
Additional backlog in
no. of No. of
Average Judges cases
Rate of required pending > 2 3
Average Disposal Breakeven to 1yr. On 1 year years years
2010 2011 2012 Institution per Judge No. Breakeven 31.12.2012
HIGHER JUDICIAL SERVICE
Institution 112137 112636 113167
Disposal 108972 111791 106924
No. of 129 139 136 112646.7 811.7 138.8 3 98072 121 61 41
Judges
RoD 844.7 804.3 786.2
SUBORDINATE JUDICIAL SERVICE
Institution 345210 340657 338610
Disposal 355249 357403 356698
No. of 341492.3 592.1 576.7 -20 472656 799 400 267
Judges 600 609 597
RoD 592.1 586.9 597.5
X-145
TABLE II: BIHAR SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Institution 67839 63367 71569
Disposal 73613 60378 59961
No. of 356 328 290 67591.7 199.2 339.3 50 184746 928 464 310
Judges
RoD 206.8 184.1 206.8

Institution 158113 158498 183773
Disposal 137583 125927 133575
No. of 166794.7 213.2 782.2 164 1038598 4871 2436 1624
Judges 624 619 619
RoD 220.5 203.4 215.8
X-146
TABLE III: DELHI SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Institution 69631 72609 73883
Disposal 77850 71949 71073
No. of 72041.0 446.8 161.2 -10 45669 103 52 35
Judges 165 158 172
RoD 471.8 455.4 413.2
Institution 133655 129171 161981
Disposal 273922 301447 271171
No. of 141602.3 1115.9 126.9 -130 231452 208 104 70
Judges 226 279 257
RoD 1212.0 1080.5 1055.1
X-147
TABLE IV: GUJARAT SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Rate of required to pending 2 3
Average Disposal Breakeven Breakeven > 1yr. On 1 year years years
2010 2011 2012 Institution per Judge No. 31.12.201
2
Institution 152663 149947 152041
Disposal 161848 155290 169598
151550.3 1053.1 143.9 -31 267853 255 1282 85
No. of
Judges 141 149 175
RoD 1147.9 1042.2 969.1
Institution 530434 367726 366585
Disposal 541640 385527 384200
No. of 421581.7 609.1 692.1 -166 1122354 1843 922 615
Judges 671 673 859
RoD 807.2 572.8 447.3
X-148
TABLE V: HIMACHAL PRADESH SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Institution 30789 30591 32912
Disposal 29913 29829 31815
No. of 31430.7 1291.6 24.3 0 11477 9 5 3
Judges 24 22 25
RoD 1246.4 1355.9 1272.6
Institution 92379 99456 171699
Disposal 84246 95473 125235
No. of 121178.0 1339.0 90.5 16 85307 64 32 22
Judges 75 78 75
RoD 1123.3 1224.0 1669.8
X-149
TABLE VI: JAMMU AND KASHMIR JUDICIAL SERVICE
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Institution 38675 53642 25327
Disposal 36275 49275 25994
No. of 39214.7 757.9 51.7 2 25152 34 17 12
Judges 45 52 50
RoD 806.1 947.6 519.9
Institution 130290 150082 160276
Disposal 123008 137873 167278
No. of 146882.7 1246.9 117.8 -4 83431 67 34 23
Judges 100 121 122
RoD 1230.1 1139.4 1371.1
X-150
TABLE VII: JHARKHAND SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Institution 24372 29416 26363
Disposal 17755 17740 18072
No. of 26717.0 211.0 126.7 17 40603 193 97 65
Judges 63 95 110
RoD 281.8 186.7 164.3
Institution 88001 85485 90166
Disposal 75682 92130 101473
No. of 87884.0 328.2 267.8 7 187939 573 287 191
Judges 266 296 261
RoD 284.5 311.3 388.8
X-151
TABLE VIII: KARNATAKA SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Institution 139780 141359 142910
Disposal 140325 143195 136334
No. of 141349.7 669.7 211.1 22 98970 148 74 50
Judges 217 222 190
RoD 646.7 645.0 717.5
Institution 513755 528117 593277
Disposal 500509 489463 562940
No. of 545049.7 998.8 545.7 30 657058 658 329 220
Judges 522 517 516
RoD 958.8 946.7 1091.0
X-152
TABLE IX: KERALA SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Institution 136551 149246 156335
Disposal 138189 140916 145905
No. of 147377.3 1215.0 121.3 -6 152175 126 63 42
Judges 114 109 128
RoD 1212.2 1292.8 1139.9
Institution 774244 678137 842578
Disposal 786216 648392 695006
No. of 764986.3 2696.0 283.7 25 459911 171 86 57
Judges 271 259 259
RoD 2901.2 2503.4 2683.4
X-153
TABLE X: PUNJAB SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
required for clearing backlog in
Average Rate Additional no.

of Disposal of Judges No. of cases
Average per Judge Breakeven required to pending > 1yr.
1 year 2 years 3 years
2010 2011 2012 Institution No. Breakeven On 31.12.2012
Institution 70232 82091 124820
Disposal 62651 82398 117148
No. of Judges 87 99 93 92381.0 937.4 98.6 6 43769 47 24 16
RoD 720.1 832.3 1259.7
Institution 228420 314076 281114
Disposal 236408 337256 303011
274536.7 1097.9 250.1 -71 252973 231 116 77
No. of Judges 217 267 322
RoD 1089.4 1263.1 941.0
HARYANA SUBORDINATE COURTS
Institution 98499 117315 94335
Disposal 86136 102806 85270
No. of Judges 98 83 110 103383.0 964.2 107.2 -2 54041 56 28 19
RoD 878.9 1238.6 775.2
X-154
Institution 182591 241851 393333
Disposal 193941 258395 396988
272591.7 1179.1 231.2 -56 252736 215 108 72
RoD 1121.0 1037.7 1378.4
CHANDIGARH SUBORDINATE COURTS

Institution 5162 6131 6569
Disposal 4363 6293 7202
5954.0 992.1 6.0 1 4646 5 3 2
No. of Judges 6 6 6
RoD 727.2 1048.8 1200.3
Institution 21027 67805 39220
Disposal 32482 86792 46710
42684.0 3952.0 10.8 -3 23923 7 3 2
RoD 2320.1 6199.4 3336.4
X-155
TABLE XI: SIKKIM SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Disposal 1551 1565 1580
No. of 1590.7 5.2 2 243 1 1 1
Judges 6 6 4
RoD 258.5 260.8 395.0 304.8
Disposal 1540 1808 1855
No. of 1760.7 475.1 3.7 -2 216 1 1 1
Judges 3 3 6
RoD 513.3 602.7 309.2
X-156
TABLE XII: UTTARAKHAND SUBORDINATE COURTS
No. of Judges
no. of No. of
Institution 26416 22755 23949
Disposal 28422 24843 23444
No. of 24373.3 675.1 36.1 -5 14061 21 11 7
Judges 33 41 42
RoD 861.3 605.9 558.2

Institution 150241 103904 115272
Disposal 109115 107590 113439
No. of 123139.0 1118.8 110.1 3 87419 79 40 26
Judges 96 92 108
RoD 1136.6 1169.5 1050.4
[Page Nos. 31-43]
X-157
Appendix -S
Report of the Working Group

for the
Twelfth Five Year Plan
(2012-2017)
SEPTEMBER, 2011
Department of Justice
Ministry of Law & Justice
Government of India
X-158
Identification of major issues affecting performance of the sector
7. Some of the significant factors affecting the performance of the sector as
identified by the Working Group are as follows:-
i. ......The system of multiple appeals and revisions, numerous interim and
interlocutory applications, indiscriminate adjournments contribute to the cost of
litigation and delay.
ii. In the decade between 1999 and 2010, the total institution of cases had gone up
by 66% and disposal by 71% in the High Courts, and in the Subordinate Courts
by 33% and 35% respectively. Docket explosion combined with inability of the
courts to ensure speedy disposal have led to the current scenario of over 3.2 crore
cases pending in various High Courts and Subordinate Courts.
iii. The cost of litigation has increasingly become prohibitive, shutting the doors of
justice to large sections of the society, especially the weaker and the marginalized
sections. Judicial system has become more advocate centric than litigant centric.
The alienation of people from the system is further exacerbated by their lack of
awareness of their rights, entitlements and processes to redress grievances. The
Legal Services Authorities are unable to serve the needs of the people, both in
terms of numbers of people that require assistance and in terms of the quality of
legal services rendered due to structural constraints.
iv. Government litigation has gone up significantly, a situation attributed to the
attitude of the Government Departments - Courts may decide. State has
criminalized number of activities, which are not per se criminal leading to petty
and ineffective cases clogging dockets of the courts to the extent of 30% to 40%
of the total cases.
v. Filling up of the vacancies in different courts is not prompt and often takes years,
adversely impacting pendency and justice delivery. About 3000 vacancies of
Subordinate Courts, where common people go for justice, is a reason for concern.
vi. Adequate and comprehensive performance standards at court levels do not exist,
or if they exist, they are not uniform across the Courts.
vii. Judges are over-burdened with administrative work, and are not able to
concentrate on justice delivery.
viii. Assessment of the requirement of Judges strength for justice delivery is
ad-hoc. It is imperative to introduce a national vision for systematically assessing
the ways in which the existing judicial system will bear the burden of increasing
X-159
litigation. With increasing litigation, and the growth and development of the
economy, judicial delays do not augur well for investment flow into the country.
Smooth and effective access to justice is an indication of overall quality of
governance. Reliable quantitative and qualitative data for analysis is a must.
ix. Policy making cannot continue to be ad-hoc. Research and evidence-based policy
making in the field of justice delivery is the need of the hour.
x. Human resource development is an area which needs increased focus, including
strengthening the research capacities of judicial academies. There is a glaring lack
of skill-based training to the court staff also.
xi. Last but not the least, is the meager allocation to the judiciary by the States and
the Central Government in Plan allocations resulting in slow modernization of the
judicial infrastructure especially of the Subordinate courts.
Suggestions for improvement
8. Deliberations in the Sub-Groups have produced some very valuable
recommendations to tackle the issues that were identified as above. While some were
policy issues that need to be addressed both by Courts and the Government, others were
actionable points that could be implemented immediately. Major recommendations
briefly are:
a) Given that the current Judge-population ratio of 10.5 judges per 10 lakh people, there
is an urgent need to increase the number of Judges and Courts in a phased manner.
b) All India Judicial service must be introduced and appropriate mechanisms evolved for
recruitment.
c) While judges strength need to be increased, non-utilization of even the existing
strength is a cause for concern and alternate ways from existing procedures for
appointment need to be devised.
d) Infrastructural development of Courts needs urgent attention. Judicial infrastructure is
a crucial component, which had been ignored for a long time, especially in respect of
Subordinate Courts. It is the responsibility of both the Central Government and State
Governments to treat this as an area of prime concern to improve justice delivery.
e) National and State Litigation Policy should strive to reduce the Government litigation
to save public time, energy and money, and to reduce the pendency in the Courts.
f) Pre-litigation and Alternate Dispute Resolution systems must be strengthened to help
the poor and the marginalized to escape high litigation costs. Care must, however, be
taken to ensure that these systems are fair and just, and that the people participate in them
X-160
voluntarily. They should not become a way to exclude the poor from the formal justice
delivery mechanisms. An institution should be set up at the central level to set standards
and issue standardized guidelines for ADR, monitoring the implementation of these and
ensuring that ADR remains a fair process of delivering justice.
[Page Nos. 2-4]
17. The 12th Plan proposals have aimed to strengthen some of the ongoing initiatives
including follow up activities in certain programmes like the E-court project and some
new initiatives are based on the recommendations and deliberations in the Working
group. It has been noted that components funded by the 13 th Finance Commission have
taken care of some of the recommendations of the Working group with regard to
strengthening of ADR mechanisms, reduction in arrears, appointment of Court managers,
human resource development and training including training of prosecutors. However
faculty development and research capacity development in State Judicial academies
remain an area of concern and a glaring gap in judicial education as observed by the
Working Group. The model court project to some extent will address this issue in some
States. Highlights of 12th Plan proposal are as under while detailed proposals follow:
Two major thrusts are suggested under the National Mission which will have a field
level impact namely a Mission mode programme for infrastructure development of
the subordinate judiciary through the modified CSS approved by Government
recently. The available estimates of requirements by States will be firmed up when
detailed proposals are received from the States. Monitoring by the Supreme Court of
India has led to a better appreciation of the problems of the judiciary at District and
Taluk level by the States and the focused attention would assist in the successful
implementation of the programme. The Mission will also prepare guidelines for eco
friendly and people friendly designing and retrofit solutions.
The functioning of courts, as is true of any other organ of the Government is a

complex process and no single quick fix solution can be prescribed. Taking in to
account the various issues, a model Court approach is proposed to be piloted in the
12th Plan where issues affecting courts at the grass roots level are addressed in a
comprehensive manner including modernization of them.
X-161
Several reform initiatives also are to be implemented and funded through the Action
Plan .of the Mission. Strengthening of policy and research capacity of the Department
of Justice is needed. Hence a Policy unit is proposed.
Action research is to be undertaken on several subjects and under the Mission these
will be initiated for policy making, and programming court management on issues
suggested by Courts.
To manage the various programmes especially infrastructural development

programmes, model courts and other reform initiatives, a Programme monitoring unit
in each State is proposed to liaise between judiciary and executive. The interaction
between judiciary and executive is not frequent in view of their functional
requirements, and this has impeded project delivery in the past.
The Supreme Court while advising Government on the Policy for ICT enablement of
Courts have suggested a phased approach to ICT development. A major chunk of
providing hardware and software to 12000 courts will be completed by 2012 in the
first phase of the project. Completion for remaining 2000 plus courts including new
courts, and implementation of second phase will be taken up in the 12th Plan through
various components like videoconferencing facility for jails, digitization, SMS based
services, touch screen kiosks, biometrics for courts, audio-video recording, etc.
Increasing number of Courts with the aim improving access to the common man is
the need of the hour. Gram Nyayalayas with their provisions for summary disposal of
cases, mobile courts, etc will fulfill the needs to some extent and therefore, proposal
for establishment of these with higher central share.
Access to Justice Project with UNDP assistance has provided the Department of
Justice insights in to field issues and have forged links with institutions and
departments in both GOI and States which deal with issues of the marginalized. The
project with UNDP assistance in 7 UNDAF States and implementation of similar
approaches in North and East and J&K with Government of India funding is
proposed.
X-162
Plan Schemes in detail
I. National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms
The Government having approved, in principle, the setting up of a National

Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms in 2009, has decided in June 2011 to
operationalise the same to ensure a well-coordinated response of the executive and the
judiciary for speeding up delivery of justice in the country and to reduce the delay in the
disposal of cases by the courts. At the same time, the National Mission will work towards
ensuring that the quality of justice imparted to the citizens is maintained at the desired
high levels providing access to justice for the marginalized section of the society.
The National Mission would focus on two major goals as envisaged in the Vision
document 2009, namely : (i) increasing access by reducing delays and arrears in the
system, and (ii) enhancing accountability through structural changes and by setting
performance standards and capacities.
Five strategic initiatives proposed under the Mission are Policy and Legislative
changes, re-engineering procedures and alternate methods of Dispute Resolution, Human
Resource Development, leveraging ICT for better justice delivery and improved
Infrastructure for district and subordinate judiciary. The National Mission period
coinciding almost with the 12th Plan provides a platform for addressing some of the
factors affecting performance of the judiciary in effective justice delivery.
I (a) National Mission Action Plan implementation
(i) The tentative Action Plan of the National Mission, inter-alia, covers policy and
legislative changes such as All India Judicial Service, Litigation Policy, Judicial Impact
Assessment, Amendment in N.I. Act and Arbitration & Conciliation Act, Legal Education
Reforms, etc., Re-engineering procedures and alternate methods of Dispute Resolution
such as identification of bottlenecks, procedural changes in court processes, statutory
amendments to reduce and disincentivise delays, Fast tracking of procedures,
appointment of court managers and Alternate Dispute Resolution, etc. and Focus on
Human Resource Development such strengthening State Judicial Academies, Training of
Public Prosecutors and strengthening National Judicial Academy and Training of
X-163
mediators, leveraging ICT for better justice delivery such as implementation of E-courts
project, integration of ICT in the judiciary and use in criminal justice delivery and
creation of National Arrears Grid. The tentative action plan will be further reviewed and
finalised by the Advisory Council and Governing Council.
A provision of Rs. 30 crore during the 12 th Five Year Plan Period may be provided
for undertaking various initiatives under the Action plan.
(ii) For effective implementation of various initiatives to be undertaken by the

National Mission, close monitoring of the activities in the States / UTs and liaison
between the State Government and the High Courts is necessary. For this purpose,
Project Monitoring Units (PMUs) may be set up in all the States and the UTs. The PMU
may comprise of a Programme Monitoring Officer, a Liaison officer (technical) with one
or two support staff a lump sum amount will be paid to States who may hire staff and
may also like to reinforce it with their own funds. The PMU would also monitor the
activities relating to setting up of the Model Courts. In the 10 States where Model Courts
are set up, the PMU will be supported with additional staff to liaise with the State High
Courts and the National Project Team of the Model Court Project functioning under the
National Mission. These additional people will include one senior M & E officer and one
data entry operator. The PMU will also liaison with the Court Managers that have been /
would be appointed in the High Courts and Subordinate Courts as per the
recommendations of the Thirteenth Finance Commission. The PMU will also monitor the
activities relating to setting up of the Model Courts. The PMU will also send periodical
reports of the progress in these areas to the Department of Justice.
In order to provide for the payment of consolidated remuneration over a period of 5

years, recurring office expenses and the one-time expenses on setting up of the PMU, an
expenditure of Rs. 2.00 crore per State / UT has been estimated (Rs. 1.30 crore towards
payment of consolidated remuneration, Rs. 0.60 crore towards recurring office expenses
and Rs. 0.10 crore towards setting up of PMU). An additional sum of Rs. 5.00 crores
shall be required for additional staff in the 10 States that house the model courts. Thus, a
provision of around Rs. 75 crore may be made during the 12th Five Year Plan period.
(iii) The Working Group has clearly identified the need for strengthening research and
X-164
policy capacities of the Department of Justice. Judicial statistics is also to be analysed for
policy making. Analysis of the data received is useful in identifying trends of
institution/disposal, the nature of cases clogging the courts so that adequate reform
measures could be put in place to achieve the desired results. The analysis would also
enable the Department to evaluate the functioning of the respective courts, identification
of areas where special attention is to be paid and also the weak points in the existing
statutes.
Whenever any legislation is enacted either by the Parliament or the State
Legislature, it gives rise to additional litigation putting extra burden on the courts to
adjudicate the cases arising out of the legislation. At present, there is no system to assess
the extra workload on the courts that would be generated due to a legislation and the
requirement of judges / judicial officers / court staff and the physical infrastructure
necessary to handle the additional litigation. The Task Force constituted in pursuance of
the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocates Bar Association case
recommended that the Government must estimate the requirement of funds for
adjudication of additional cases generated due to a new legislation and make adequate
budgetary provision for the same. It has been recommended that a financial
memorandum indicating the requirement of funds for dealing with the cases arising out
of the proposed legislation should be appended to the Bill. The recommendations of the
Task Force are under consideration. The Research and Policy Unit may undertake
appropriate studies / research in the field of Judicial Impact Assessment in order to arrive
at a conscious decision for implementation of the same in India.
Also, in collaboration with the Law Commission, there is a need for review of
important judgements of the higher courts to consider their social and judicial impact.
Efforts have also to be made to take policy decisions for implication of laws before much
harm is done like in the case of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
A Judicial Policy and Research Unit consisting of professionals such as a retired
judicial officers/ legal expert, a policy analyst, monitoring and evaluation expert and
research staff is proposed. Staff for statistical work will be diverted from the existing
monitoring unit of the Department.
In order to provide for the payment of consolidated remuneration over a period of 5

years, an expenditure of Rs. 5 crore has been estimated. This includes Rs. 5 crore for
X-165
consolidated remuneration of the personnel of the Judicial Policy and Research Unit. The
recurring office expenses may be subsumed in the expenditure of National Mission. A
Wing therefore for research and policy may be created and a provision of Rs. 5 crore may
be provided over the 12th Plan period.
Thus, a provision of Rs. 110.00 crore during the 12 th Five Year Plan Period may be
made for the above initiatives.
I (b) Mission Mode programme for development of infrastructure facilities for

subordinate judiciary
Inadequacy of infrastructure facilities in District and Subordinate courts has

remained a major bottleneck in the judicial system largely contributing to the
accumulation of arrears. In order to augment the resources of the State Governments for
development of infrastructure facilities for the judiciary a Centrally Sponsored Scheme
(CSS) has remained in operation since 1993-94. The allocation provided under CSS so
far has been highly inadequate and disproportionate to the needs of judiciary. To illustrate
the point during 11th Five year Plan, Rs. 701.08 crore only has been allocated which
comes to an average of a meagre Rs. 20.00 crore for 5 years (approx) each for 35
States/UTs. A fresh assessment of requirement of infrastructure for subordinate courts
revealed that funds to the tune of Rs.7346 crore were needed.
The matter of development of infrastructure of the subordinate courts is also
being regularly reviewed in the Supreme Court in the Interlocutory Application No.
279/2010 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022/1989 in All India Judges Association & Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors. A strong monitoring mechanism has been set up by formation of
Monitoring Committees at Central, State and District level. Since the State Governments
have been adequately sensitised to the need for development of judicial infrastructure, an
adequate provision in the budget for the purpose would provide a much needed impetus
to the growth of judicial infrastructure.
Keeping this in view, infrastructure development for the subordinate judiciary

will be a major thrust area of the National Mission. With a view to enhancing the
resources of the State Governments, the Government has increased the central share by
revising the funding pattern from 50:50 to 75:25 (for States other than North Eastern
X-166
States) under modified Centrally Sponsored Scheme for development of infrastructure
facilities for the judiciary from the year 2011-12 onwards. The funding pattern for North-
Eastern States is 90:10. The modified Centrally Sponsored Scheme which would cover
subordinate courts only will be implemented by the National Mission for Justice Delivery
and Legal Reforms.
Based on tentatively estimated requirements and funding pattern of 75:25 (90:10
for NE States), Central grant of the order of Rs. 5510 crore would be required. However,
an amount of Rs. 542.90 crore has been provided during 2011-12. Therefore, around Rs.
5000 crore would need to be released during Twelfth Five Year Plan period to the States
to support improvement in infrastructure for subordinate judiciary.
In order to make the mission a success, the States will be asked to adopt a
projectised approach for execution and monitoring of the construction works and send
their information on the ongoing projects and the new projects to be taken up alongwith
the year-wise financial estimates. A set of guidelines on eco-friendly and people friendly
designs and retrofit options will be prepared by the National Mission.
Under the scheme of Family Courts, grant is separately provided for construction
of court building and residential accommodation for the presiding officer of the Family
Court. Grant is provided to the extent of 50% of the cost of construction subject to a
ceiling of Rs. 10 lakh per court. Family Courts can be run in the Courts at District and
Taluka level for which grant is already being provided under the existing Centrally
Sponsored Scheme for development of infrastructure facilities for the judiciary. There
does not seem to be any need for releasing grant for Family Courts under a separate
scheme. Thus, the existing scheme for release of grant for construction of Family Court
building may be discontinued and grant for this purpose may be included in the Mission
Mode programme for development of infrastructure facilities for subordinate judiciary.
The Planning Commission in its Approach Paper for the 12 th Five Year Plan has
suggested that the Centrally Sponsored Schemes to be taken up in future should provide
for 100% Central assistance. This would, in fact, motivate the State Governments for
efficient execution of the programmes as their financial liability will reduce. Since
development of infrastructure is a major thrust area, the existing Centrally Sponsored
Scheme may be modified to provide for 100% Central Assistance. However, the States
X-167
should be made accountable for effective execution of the scheme by insisting that they
send their proposals indicating the ongoing and new construction works alongwith the
cost estimates for a particular financial year in the month of October preceding the
relevant financial year giving the status of the construction projects for which the States
received grants in the preceding yearon the basis of the perspective plan prepared for five
years..
I (c) Setting up of Model Courts

The Vision Statement and Action Plan adopted in the National Consultation for
strengthening the judiciary towards reducing pendency and delays held by the
Department on 24-25 October, 2009 clearly recognises that Ultimately, an efficient legal
and judicial system which delivers quick and quality justice reinforces the confidence of
people in the rule of law, facilitates investment and production of wealth, enables better
distributive justice, promotes basic human rights and enhances accountability and
democratic governance. To cover the gaps in the existing schemes and policies and with
a view to demonstrate change in a scenario where end to end needs of judicial reform are
met, it is proposed to implement a pilot Project in 100 select subordinate (Model) courts.
This will imply that not only court rooms but select court premises are made IT enabled
to allow e-flow of information from filing of a case to pronouncement of a judgment. Not
only judicial officers, but the entire court staff is trained to impact service delivery. Court
and case management principles shall be adopted in these courts that adhere to pre-
decided timelines that are also shared with the lawyers in advance. Judicial academies are
supported not just with funds for training, but also to develop research abilities and retain
permanent and competent faculty. An innovative experiment is also proposed to be
supported in a select Union Territory to implement an end to end criminal justice reform
ensuring that the police, prosecution, judiciary and prisons work to their best of ability.
10 High Courts with the highest pendency level of cases will be selected and 10
subordinate courts under these High Courts would be selected in such a manner that they
cover a variety of issues ranging from matrimonial, negotiable instruments, property and
inheritance, criminal etc. The courts and districts would be selected in such a manner that
they represent the well administered courts as well as those that are in the maximum need
of assistance.
X-168
The Department requires funds to the tune of Rs. 130 crores to pilot these model
courts with a view to programme and plan future directions of judicial reform in the
country. The National Mission and Directorate will implement this Project with a
dedicated project team created for this purpose. The details of the proposed activities
proposed to be undertaken are provided below:
Activities
(i) For Identifying and addressing root causes of delay in the disposal of cases by the
subordinate judiciary a study would be undertaken to identify the possible causes
of delay in select subordinate courts and suggest ways to check this. Looking at
comparable international good practices, the study will suggest strategies to deal
with the delays.
(ii) Improvement in the case flow systems and record management at the subordinate
court level:
(ii) (a) E-justice: IT systems would be introduced in the Model Courts, which will enable
the citizens to litigate a dispute through electronic means. A software will be developed
in order to cater to the following
a. Workload balancing,
b. File tracking,
c. Document management,
d. Exhibit management and
e. Enabling e-litigation including e-filing, e-payment of Court Fees, e-
notarisation of the e-documents to be filed in courts etc.
(ii) (b) SMS information system: This system will enable the litigants and lawyers to
receive SMS with information regarding the cases filed, such as the next date of hearing,
the present status of the case and objections, if any, raised by the court registry regarding
the plaint filed by them.
(ii) (c) Data Management Systems: The details regarding the existing active cases and the
new cases will be filed directly online on the software developed for this purpose. An
interface of the data management system would be available with the judges who will get
all information pertaining to the case on their monitors. In the event, a case has been
X-169
pending in the court for more than 3 years, the system will itself generate warnings to
enable the judge to fix a shorter duration for the next hearing. Further, the system will
also keep track of the adjournment sought by the parties and inform the judges
accordingly. All the tracked information will become part of the arrears grid so that it can
be used to either adequately train or warn the judges, as suitable. This system will also
require developing timeliness standards and judging the disposal rate against these
standards.
(ii) (d) Physical Record Management: The Project will aim at improving the case
management systems by migrating the active paper files to a newly created e-record
system by scanning the physical files of the existing cases. However, till the time the
paper files are migrated to the new system, the Model Courts may be provided with file
packaging equipments such as bar codes/radio frequency identification tags.
(ii) (e) IT changes for trial hearings and establishing linkages: The Project will aim at
introducing the Supreme Court mandated electronic recording systems through feasibility
designs and phased rollout of optimal courtroom audio and video systems to accelerate
trial management. IT systems will also be used to establish linkages between the courts,
prisons, police stations and Legal Services Authorities to ensure that those in custody
have access to legal aid and courts without fail
(ii) (f) Judicial Collaboration mechanisms: The Project will help generate momentum for
enhanced judicial productivity in the subordinate courts by supporting judicial
collaboration mechanisms in the form of participatory meetings comprising the higher
and the subordinate judiciary. This will enable the subordinate courts to develop and
monitor time standards supported by trained staff and to optimize use of delay and
backlog reduction techniques to meet the timeliness standards.
(iii) Reforms in the court administration:
It is proposed to reform the court administration through a clear division of work

between judicial and non-judicial staff as well through upgrading of skills and
competencies in court administration and management in collaboration with the State
Judicial Academies.
X-170
(iii) (a) Skill development in time management: This sub-component will seek to train
the judicial officers and/or court managers (where they exist) in time management
techniques. The cooperation of the bar will be sought in setting agreed timelines at the
beginning of a trial, which must be adhered to by the concerned parties.
(iii) (b) Skill development of non-judicial staff (including court managers) in court
management: Training will be provided with a view to
a. reduce the administrative burden on the subordinate court judges to enable

them to concentrate on reducing the backlog and pending cases;
b. enable them to use the information systems developed for the Model Courts;
and
c. upgrade their skill and competence in budgeting, financial management, and

human resource development to maximise the effectiveness of available
human and financial resources allocated to the Model Courts.
(iv) A Pilot on Criminal Justice System reform in one Union Territory:
It is proposed that one pilot be run involving the entire criminal justice system to
demonstrate result when all the institutions function to the best of their ability. The pilot
will cover the police, prison, prosecution and judiciary in a selected Union Territory. It
will implement reform measures suggested by various Commissions and Committees on
police, prison, prosecution and judiciary. Other reform measures like using ICT,
improved training etc. will also be implemented.
(v) Project Team and Administrative Costs: This Project will require a separate
project Team comprising a Project Manager, Project Officer, 2 M & E officers and 2-3
assistants. Administrative Costs of maintaining an office, travelling for M & E and
other purposes will also be required.
X-171
Financial Implication:
S. Activity Approximate
No. Cost (In Rs Cr.)
1 Identifying and addressing root 1.00
causes of delay in the disposal of
cases by the subordinate judiciary
2 Improvement in the case flow E-justice 100.00

systems and record management SMS information system
at the subordinate court level: Data Management Systems
Physical Record Management
IT changes for trial hearings and
establishing linkages
Computerisation of the Offices of
the Public Prosecutors in select
model courts
Judicial Collaboration
mechanisms
3 Reforms in the court Skill development in time 4.00
administration management
Skill development of non-judicial
staff (including court managers)
in court management
4 A Pilot on Criminal Justice 20.00
System reform in one Union
Territory
5 Project Team and Administrative 5.00
Costs
Total 130.00
I (d) Action Research and Studies on Judicial Reforms
In order to assess the effectiveness of the judicial reform measures already taken and to
assess the feasibility of introducing various other such measures, it is imperative that a
mechanism for studying the feasibility, effectiveness and impact of various judicial
reform measures is put in place. Many areas of studies have been identified by the
Working Group for the first time. Additionally Advisory council of the National
Mission for the Justice Delivery and Legal reforms recently setup may like to suggest
some important areas of studies during the course of finalising action plan for the
Mission.
X-172
Action Research for policy initiatives and judicial reforms measures, effect of
pendency reduction drives, impact of grants provided by the Thirteenth Finance
Commission, etc. could be carried out. The studies recommended by the National
Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms may also be conducted.
The studies that may be commissioned & could be carried out through
organisations like Indian Institute of Public Administration, Administrative Staff College
of India, Indian Institute of Management, Indian Law Institute, National Law University,
National Council for Applied Economic Research, National Judicial Academy and by
jurists and members of various law faculties.
A scheme for Study of Judicial Reforms and Assessment Status is being

implemented by the Department of Justice. The scheme was approved during April 2009
for implementation during Eleventh Five Year Plan period for the purpose of carrying out
studies on various judicial reforms measures, organising conferences and providing
support on pilot basis for legal aid training for mediators and conciliators. The term of
the scheme will end with the close of the current financial year. As the need for
continuing the Action Research and Studies highlighted above is felt, the scheme may be
continued during the 12th Five Year Plan Period as an activity of the National Mission for
Judicial Reforms and Assessment Status.
A provision of Rs. 35 crore during the 12 th Five Year Plan Period may be made
for this initiative.
II E-courts Mission Mode Project
The Government of India had approved the eCourts Mission Mode project-
computerisation of district and subordinate courts in the country and for up gradation of
ICT infrastructure of the higher courts at a cost of Rs.441.8 Cr in February, 2007 which
was revised in September 2010 to Rs. 935 Cr. The reason for the increase in cost was due
to increase in number of court complexes and courts, increase in rates of products and
services, expansion of scope and addition of new items. The project now covers 14249
X-173
Courts from 13348 District and subordinate courts in 3069 Court Complexes. The Phase
I has been planned to be implemented in two stages, Stage I- Till 31 March, 2012, ICT
enablement 2100 court complexes covering 12000 courts with an approved funding of
Rs. 545 Cr, Stage 2 from 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2014, ICT enablement 969 court
complexes covering 2249 courts with an approved funding of Rs. 390 Cr.
The department of Justice is the budget holder and in charge of the overall
implementation of the project. It performs regular monitoring of the project; Secretary
Justice is the Mission Leader. NIC is the implementing agency of the project and
coordinates with the High Courts. An Empowered committee has been constituted to
provide strategic direction and guidance on to the project and financial matters within
overall approval granted by the Cabinet including re-allocation of funds within various
project components. E-Committee provides requirements of the Judiciary to DoJ and
NIC with regard to the software and its customization.
Activities planned under the 12th Five year plan
S. Activity Timelines Approximate

No. (in years) Cost
(In Rs Cr.)
1 eCourts MMP for FY 12-14 2 390
(Already Approved)
2 Computerization of 1000 new Courts 2 80
3 Use of Solar energy under eCourts Project 3 35
4 Computerisation of the Public Prosecutors Office 3 20
5 Videoconferencing facility for Jails 1 10
6 Enhancement of ICT infrastructure at Subordinate 3 150
Courts
7 Digitization of old case records 5 750
8 Computerisation of Judicial libraries 3 50
9 Up gradation of application software 1 10
10 SMS Based Services 1 5
11 Touch Screen Kiosks 2 10
12 Biometrics for courts 2 10
13 Audio Video recording 2 150
TOTAL 1670
X-174
III Assistance to State Governments for Establishing and Operating Gram
Nyayalayas in the country
Law Commission of India on 31st July, 1987 submitted its 120th report on Manpower
Planning in Judiciary in which it compared Indias judge-population ratio vis--vis
developed countries and found that the ratio in India is 10.5 judges per million people
(lowest in the world) as compared to 41.6 per million people in Australia, 75.2 per
million people in Canada, 50.9 per million people in United Kingdom and 107 per
million people in United States of America (which was three times less populated than
India in 1981 had 25,037 judges as compared to India's total judge strength of 7,675 at
that time).
To strengthen and complement the existing system of courts, a new tier of courts
has been provided under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 at the grass roots level for the
purpose of providing speedy and inexpensive access to justice to the citizens at their door
steps. The Gram Nyayalayas Act has been brought into force w.e.f. October 2, 2009.
The setting up of Gram Nyayalayas is an important measure to reduce arrears.

The Gram Nyayalayas are likely to reduce pendency of cases in subordinate courts to a
great extent and also to take care of the new litigations in specified areas.
Under the existing scheme the Central assistance has been provided for setting up
Gram Nyayalayas for every Panchayat at intermediate level or a group of contiguous
Panchayats at intermediate level in a district or where there is no Panchayat at
intermediate level in any State, for a group of contiguous Gram Panchayats. The
Government provides assistance to State Governments for establishment of Gram
Nyayalayas (Rs. 18 lakhs / court) and Rs. 3.20 lakhs per court per annum for the first 3
years towards recurring expenses. The requirement of funds for these Gram Nyayalayas
at the existing approved rates was worked out as Rs. 1398.50 crore for around 5000
Gram Nyayalayas.
It may be mentioned that in the discussions with the States prior to the enactment
of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, the States wanted the Central Government to extend full
central support for establishing these courts. During a series of regional meetings with
X-175
the States and the High Courts that were chaired by Hon'ble Minister of Law and Justice,
the States had mentioned about the inadequate rate of central assistance for the Gram
Nyayalayas and had sought enhancement of the rates. The States had expressed their
readiness to set up Gram Nyayalayas if the rate of central assistance provided to them is
enhanced. The States like Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,
Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Kerala, Gujarat, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh had expressed
their willingness to set up more Gram Nyayalayas in their respective States soon.
It may be noted that the norms at which central assistance is being provided to the
States, both for non-recurring and recurring expenditure for establishing and operating
the Gram Nyayalayas, were formulated quite some time back when the Gram Nyayalayas
Bill was being drafted in the Legislative Department. Not only have the costs increased
over the period, the salaries of Judicial Officers have also undergone substantial increase
on account of the recommendations of the Padmanabhan Committee in the post Sixth
Pay Commission scenario.
A proposal for revision of norms of Central assistance to States is under

consideration of the Department. As per the proposal the Central assistance to States
would be provided @ Rs. 30.30 lakhs for non-recurring expenditure and @ Rs. 9.35
lakhs per annum for the first 5 years of its operation towards recurring expenditure.
Presuming that 2500 Gram Nyayalayas would be set up by the States during the
12th Five Year Plan period, a provision of Rs. 1356 Crore may be made for this purpose.
The year-wise number of Gram Nyayalayas likely to be set up alongwith the requirement
of funds would be as under:-
Year No. of Gram Nyayalayas Requirement of funds

to be set up (Rs. In crores)
2012-13 300 119.00
2013-14 300 147.00
2014-15 600 294.00
2015-16 600 350.00
2016-17 700 446.00
Total 2500 1356.00
X-176
IV Access to Justice Project Externally Aided Project
Access to Justice is now clearly recognised as essential to human development

and conflict prevention. It is a precondition to accessing other rights and entitlements that
form the bedrock of a thriving democracy. The Department of Justice has implemented 2
projects on Access to Justice with UNDP support since 2006. The first phase
Strengthened Access to Justice in India (SAJI), 2006-2008 was a pilot project that
sought to carry out a justice sector diagnosis, identify entry points and support innovative
small pilots to identify good initiatives for replication. The results of SAJI provided key
and critical inputs into the design of a long-term programme in this area.
The second phase of the programme Access to Justice for the Marginalised
People (A2J) began in 2009 and will continue till December 2012. In a little over two
years, the A2J Project has been able to support innovative projects across the 7 Project
States and showcase some good practices, especially in the area of legal empowerment of
people by training community level paralegal workers, using community radio and
creating innovative IEC materials. A key achievement of the Project has been in creating
linkages between the Legal Services Authorities and the Civil Society Organisations, the
State Government Departments and the Commissions for protection of the rights of
marginalised sections of the society. The convergence between the Department of Justice
and the Department of Secondary Education and Literacy whereby the Sakshar Bharat
programme would also include legal literacy as part of their continuing adult education
programme is hoped to have far reaching impact in legally empowering the people.
The Department believes that projects like A2J, which allow it to have field level
presence and knowledge, are crucial to keep in touch with reality of peoples challenges
and problems in accessing justice. This allows opportunities to review existing policy
level debates on key issues and laws impacting the poor and the vulnerable. The
Department desires to continue implementing a project on Access to Justice under the
12th five-year plan.
The ongoing UNDP Project is ending in December 2012. A new phase of the A2J
project is likely to commence from January 2013 and the financial support is likely to be
X-177
USD 5 million (Rs. 22.5 crores) as in the last cycle. As in the previous cycle,
Government of India can contribute USD 360,000 (Rs. 1.62 crores). As per United
Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), the project will be implemented
in the 7 States of Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and
Uttar Pradesh, and will build upon the result of the previous phase.
The activities will range from supporting Legal Services Authorities, judicial
academies, and National and State Commissions mandated to protect the rights of the
marginalised, and ensuring legal empowerment of the marginalised people. In so far as
legal empowerment is concerned, a primary focus shall be the creation of IEC materials
and their dissemination using audio-visual media including popular media and ICT.
Action research will be another area of focus with a view to inform policy level change.
The detailed activities along with budget allocation will be developed in consultation
with UNDP.
V Access to Justice Project Government of India Project
While the external aid from UNDP could be used to build upon the results of the existing
project, the Department is keen to expand the scope of the Project both geographically
and thematically. The UNDP funds can be used to implement a project in the UNDAF
States only. The Department would like to take up other States in North-Eastern part of
India and also Jammu & Kashmir. For this, the Department requires funds from the
Consolidated Funds of India. It is proposed that funds amounting to Rs. 30 crores will be
required for implementing an A2J Project in the 7 States of North East and Jammu &
Kashmir. The details of the activities, and the budget break-up is provided below.
The component of the A2J Project supported by Government funds will focus
on the 8 North-Eastern States and Jammu & Kashmir. In addition, certain components
in the other States will also be funded by the Government Funds, primarily on issues
relating to undertrials, pilots on community policing, convergence with other
Departments.
The details of the proposed activities proposed to be undertaken are provided
below:
X-178
Approximate
S. No. Activity Cost
(In Rs Cr.)
1 Needs Assessment Study in the North-Eastern States 0.50
and J &K
2 Legal Empowerment of the People 10.00
3 Assisting Undertrial prisoners in providing Justice, and 10.00
awareness building of rights to prisoners
4 Supporting law colleges in running competent legal aid 2.00
Clinics
5 Pilots on community policing 5.00

6 implementing activities for ensuring access to justice for 2.50
the poor and vulnerable sections of the society with
State and Central Governments Departments and
commissions
Total 30.00
th
A Statement indicating scheme-wise details and the 12 Plan projections is enclosed at
Annexure-II.
X-179
ANNEXURE II
Sl. Scheme 11th Plan Revised estimates Budget Actual 12th Plan Year-wise allocation
No. Allocation From estimates in Expenditure Proposed
(Rs. in crore) (Rs. in crore) Allocation (Rs. in crore)
2007-2008 to 2011-2012
(upto (Rs. in crore)
(Rs. in crore)
(Rs. in crore) 30.09.2011)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

1 Development of Infrastructure 701.08 486.99 542.90 771.51 - - - - - -
Facilities for Judiciary under
CSS
2 Computerisation of District & 740.60 261.40 297.00 422.95** 390.00 195.00 195.00 - - -
Subordinate Courts (E-courts (100%
PhaseI)
Central funding)
3 Access to Justice for the 1.64^ 12.62 7.57 9.87 - - - - - -
marginalised (EAP) (UNDP)
4 Admn. of Justice (EAP) (ADB) 4.07$ 0.56 NIL 0.04 - - - - - -
5 Study of Judicial Reforms & 22.62 7.43 2.53 1.75 Included in - - - - -
Assessment Status National
Mission at 7
(iv)
6 Gram Nyayalayas - 51.00 150.00 21.81 1356.00 119.00 147.00 294.00 350.00 446.00
7 National Mission for Justice
Delivery and Legal Reforms*
i. National Mission - Action - - 110.00 30.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
Plan implementation
ii. Mission Mode programme - - 5000.00 1300.00 1200.00 1100.00 800.00 600.00
for development of
infrastructure facilities for
subordinate judiciary
iii. Setting up of Model Courts - - 130.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
iv. Action Research and - - 35.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Studies on Judicial Reforms
8 E-Courts Phase II* - - 1280.00 256.00 256.00 256.00 256.00 256.00
9 Access to Justice Govt. of - - 30.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00
India*
10 Access to Justice UNDP* - - 24.12 4.84 4.82 4.82 4.82 4.82
TOTAL 1470.00 820.00 1000.00 1227.93 8355.12 1947.84 1860.82 1712.82 1468.82 1364.82
* New Scheme / Project
** Rs. 187.05 crore was released to NIC for implementation of the project during Tenth Five Year Plan which has been carried forward for utilisation during Eleventh Five
Year Plan.
^ Includes only the domestic funding. The counter-part funding by UNDP for $ 5 million is not included in the Eleventh Five Year allocations
$ The Project could not take off as the loan negotiations could not be finalised with ADB. [Page Nos. 10-26]
X-180
Appendix-T
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
SIXTY SEVENTH REPORT
Infrastructure Development and Strengthening of

Subordinate Courts
(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 6th February, 2014)

(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 6th February, 2014)
Bhartiya Sansad, Rajya Sabha
Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha
X-181
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
January, 2014/Pausa, 1935 (Saka)
Fast Track Courts
47. The Eleventh Finance Commission recommended a scheme for creation of 1734
Fast Track Courts (FTCs) in the country for disposal of long pending cases in Sessions
courts and other courts. The FTCs were established to expeditiously dispose of long
pending cases in the Sessions Courts and long pending cases of under trial prisoners.
The term of scheme on the Fast Track Courts which were recommended by the Eleventh
Finance Commission ended on 31st March, 2005. Based on the directives of the Supreme
Court of India, the Government accorded its approval for the continuation of 1562 Fast
Track Courts that were operational as on 31st March, 2005 for a further period of 5 years
i.e. up to 31st March, 2010 with a provision of Rs.509 crores. The scheme of central
assistance for Fast Track Courts was further extended for a period of one year i.e. upto
31st March, 2011.....
48. The Central assistance under the above said scheme is limited to an approved
norm i.e. Rs.4.80 lakh per court per annum (recurring) and Rs.8.60 lakh (non recurring).
Any expenditure incurred by the State in excess as recurring and /or non-recurring
expenditure was to be borne by the State Government. According to the Information
available on the Website of the Department of Justice, out of 38.90 lakh cases transferred,
these courts have disposed of 32.34 lakh cases.
Issues of State Governments

49. The Central assistance for the Fast Track Courts was discontinued after 31 st
March, 2011. Several States have continued these courts from their own resources.
Except Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, all the States where Committee
visited are continuing Fast Track Courts. The State Governments maintained that the
continuation of these Courts is necessary to reduce the pendency of cases; however, the
continuation of these Courts by States is leading to financial burden on the State
exchequer. The State Governments wanted the Fast Track Courts to be continued with
100 per cent Central assistance.
50 The FTCs were established to expeditiously dispose of long pending cases in

the Sessions Courts and long pending cases of under trial prisoners and had become
X-182
synonymous with the speedy delivery of justice. The States expressed their
willingness to continue and establish more Fast Track Courts to try cases related to
murder, rape and issues related to children and the elderly, however, the limited
financial resources are hinderances. In the wake of gang rape in Delhi, the Ponzi
scheme scam in several States and the languising of innocent youths accused of
terrorism, the establishment of Fast Track Courts become more important.
Accordingly, the Committee reiterates its recommendations contained in Fifty-
seventh/Action Taken Note of Government, that all possible steps to be taken to
ensure that the Fast Track Courts are set up in appropriate situations in the States
and the States do not face impediments in this regard.
Pendency of Cases and Shortage of Judicial Personnel
51. The shortage of judicial personnel at Subordinate Courts is a matter of concern.

As on 31st March, 2012, the Department of Justice informed that 3,272, posts of judicial
personnel are vacant in different States (Annexure V). During its study visit, the
Committee was apprised of the large number of vacancies of judicial personnel at
Subordinate Courts.
52. The high rate of pending cases in the Subordinate Courts in various parts of the
country is a serious matter. The Department of Justice informed that as on 31 st March,
2012, 26851766 cases are pending in Subordinate Court (Annexure VI). Some of the
major reasons leading to high pendency of cases in Subordinate Courts are poor Judge
population ratio, prolonged and costly litigation caused by procedures and lawyers
interests, poor infrastructure, shortage of judicial personnel, weak alternate dispute
resolution mechanisms and so on.
53. With regard to areas of pendency of cases, the Secretary, Department of Justice in
the meeting on the Demands for Grants (2013-14) made oral submission as under:-
the pendency of cases which is a very chronic problem in
the country like how do we address those issues of pendency of
cases and speed up the delivery of justice...
X-183
Issue of State Government
54. In the States the high pendency of cases in Subordinate Courts is a matter of
concern. Except Manipur and UT of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the pendency of
cases is high in all the States, except Odisha where the pendency of criminal cases is high
and all other States have higher number of civil cases pending.
55. The State Governments apprised the Committee about the various measures like
evening/morning courts, holiday courts, Lok Adalats and Alternative Dispute Resolution
mechanisms being undertaken to overcome the problem of pendency of cases.
56. The Committee expresses its serious concern over the large number of
vacancies existing in the Subordinate Courts. Similarly, the large number of
pending cases is in Subordinate Courts are major challenges before the
Government. The Committee is of the view, that both these issues are closely
related to each other. The Committee feels that recruitment and training of judicial
personnel and supporting staffs at Subordinate Courts may help in reducing the
pendency of cases and the judge-population ratio may be corrected by appointing
more judges in the Subordinate Courts to reduce pendency. The Committee is of
the view that an efficient judicial system which delivers quality justice in minimum
time can reinforce the confidence of people in the rule of law.
57. The Thirteenth Finance Commission has recommended a grant of Rs.5000 crore
for the period 2010-15 to the States for improving delivery of justice which is to be
utilized for setting up of morning/evening/shift/Special Magistrate Courts for reducing
the backlog of cases, holding of Lok Adalats and Mega Lok Adalats, strengthening legal
aid institutions, training of judicial officers and Public Prosecutors, creating and
upgrading the Judicial Academies, providing Court Managers to assist courts/cases
management.
58. The Committee feels that regular conducting of morning/evening, holiday

courts, lok adalats, alternative dispute redressal mechanisms etc. wherever feasible
can help in reducing the problem of pendency of cases in Subordinate Judiciary.
Sincere efforts are also required on the part of State governments to fill the existing
vacancies at the Subordinate Courts, so that the disposal rate of cases may be
X-184
enhanced. The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms which is
formed to deal with the dual need of addressing the issues of delays and arrears in
the Indian judicial system as well enforcing better accountability, including setting
and monitoring of performance and enhancement of capacity through training at
various levels can go a long way in reducing the problem of high pendency of cases,
which is a major problem faced by the Subordinate judiciary.
59. The Committee considers that existing court procedures which are age old
needs a thorough review. Many of such procedures are avoidable; consume
inordinate time; and unnecessary complications; very often leads to the harassment
of litigants; often misused/abused by the interested parties and; ultimately creates
the hassles which result in pendency. The Committee, therefore, strongly believes
that unless procedures are cut short and streamlined, howsoever best be our judge-
population ratio, issue of pendency cannot be resolved. The Committee
understands that it is a huge task but it has to be undertaken if we are really serious
to tackle the issue of pendency. The Committee impress upon both the Central and
State Governments to focus in this direction with a sense of urgency.
[Para Nos.47 to 59 of the Report]
X-185
ANNEXURE V
Sanctioned Strength and Vacancies in Subordinate Courts as on 31.03.2012
S. State/Union Sanctioned Strength Vacancies in
No. Territory concerned Subordinate
Courts
1 2 3 4
1 Uttar Pradesh 2102 268
2. Andhra Pradesh 834 117
3.a Maharashtra 2016 185
3.b Goa 49 7
3.c Daman, Diu and Silvasa 7 0
4. West Bengal 933 156
5. Chhattisgarh 276 38
6. Delhi 623 158
7. Gujarat 1727 852
8.a Assam 356 108
8.b Meghalaya 36 22
8.c Tripura 92 27
8.d Manipur 31 5
d.e Nagaland 29 6
d.f Mizoram 65 32
d.g Arunachal Pradesh 2 0
9. Himachal Pradesh 132 17
10. Jammu and Kashmir 206 17
11. Jharkhand 499 89
12. Karnataka 945 174
13.a Kerala 411 36
13.b Lakshadweep 3 1
14.a Tamil Nadu 866 123
14.b Puducherry 20 7
15. Madhya Pradesh 1321 151
16. Odisha 625 79
17. Bihar 1458 507
18.a Punjab 493 116
18.b Haryana 476 125
18.c Chandigarh 20 0
19. Rajasthan 922 180
20 Sikkim 13 4
21. Uttarakhand 278 126
TOTAL : 17,866 3,732
[Page Nos. 31-32]
X-186
ANNEXURE-VI
Statement of cases pending in Subordinate judiciary as on 31.03.2012
Sl. Name of State Total Cases pending

No. as on 31.03.2012
1 2 3
1. Uttar Pradesh 5798272
2. Andhra Pradesh 917620
3. Maharashtra 3144426
4. Goa 30052
5. Daman and Diu Silvasa 4997
6. West Bengal 2638937
7. Andaman and Nicobar 13384
8. Chhattisgarh 266220
9. Delhi 689766
10. Gujarat 2197565
11. Assam 264204
12. Nagaland 4130
13. Meghalaya 3357
14. Manipur 14238
15. Tripura 43954
16. Mizoram 4426
17. Arunachal Pradesh 6148
18. Himachal Pradesh 195018
19. Jammu and Kashmir 207588
20. Jharkhand 298240
21. Karnataka 1115280
22. Kerala 1071305
23. Lakshadweep 240
24. Madhya Pradesh 1129432
25. Tamil Nadu 1193541
[Page No. 33]
X-187
Appendix-U
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING

COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES,
LAW AND JUSTICE
TWENTY SEVENTH REPORT

ON
ACTION TAKEN REPLIES ON
LAWS DELAYS : ARREARS IN COURTS
(PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 29th APRIL,

2008)
(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON 29th
APRIL, 2008)
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT
NEW DELHI
APRIL, 2008/VAISAKHA, 1930 (SAKA)
X-188
CHAPTER-I
RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY
THE MINISTRY
Recommendation/observation
1. Strength of Judges
The Committee is of the considered view that the Government may

reconsider the recommendations of the 120th Report of the Law Commission and
take steps to increase the strength of judges per million population, at the earliest.
The Committee endorses the Law Commissions recommendations and suggests
that variations can be made for different jurisdictions on the basis of pendency, rate
of disposal and other relevant factors in consultation with the judiciary. The
Committee understands that the States are generally not able or willing to provide
the finances that are required to create courtrooms and other infrastructure
consequent upon the number of the judges being increased. The Committee
recommends that the Union Government must take the initiative to provide funds
and create mechanisms to monitor their utilization. (Para 38.2)
Action Taken Reply
In so far as the Judge strength is concerned, the position is as follows :-

The Law Commission had recommended and the Supreme Court has spelt out
that the existing Judge population ratio should be increased from 10.5 per million
population to 50 Judges per million. This increase in Judge strength of 50 Judge per
million population should be effected and implemented in a phased manner within a
period of five years. The Central Government have requested the, Supreme Court
through an Interlocutory Application to modify its order (dated 21.3.2002 in All India
Judges Association Vs. Union of India) to allow creation of judge strength on the basis
of work-load and not on the basis of population alone. The matter is still sub judice.
Judges strength in High Courts was reviewed in 2007. It has been decided to
create 152 posts of Judges taking the strength of Judges in High Courts from 725 to 877.
Government proposes to set up Gram Nyayalayas and the Gram Nyayalaya Bill
which was earlier referred to the Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee
will be pursued in the Parliament with official amendments based on the
X-189
recommendations of the Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee. The
strength of judicial officers of the country is expected to increase after such Nyayalayas
are set up.
In so far as providing infrastructure facilities for the judiciary, it is the primary

responsibility of the State Governments to provide such facilities for the High Courts and
Subordinate judiciary. However to augment the resources of the State Governments, the
Union Government initiated a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for development of
infrastructure facilities for the judiciary since 1993 under which grant is released for
construction of court buildings and residential accommodation for judges and the States
have to provide matching share. UTs are not required to provide matching share. From
1993-94 upto 2006-07, a sum of Rs.690.65 crore was released as Central share to the
States/UTs. As per available information, States/UTs have spent Rs.1442.59 crore till
2006-07 including their share.
The Central Government also provides infrastructure support by way of

computerization of the courts and presently has under implementation a scheme in this
regard.
2. Case load and Judicial manpower requirement
The Committee has carefully considered the computations made in the

Department of Justice for the reduction of pendency of cases over a period of 3, 5
or 7 years, besides disposal of regular year to year institution of cases. The
Committee notes that the Government has proceeded on the hypothesis that
arrears should be cleared in a period of 6 years. The Committee questions the
hypothesis. (Para 44)
The Committee is of the view that the aim should be to clear the arrears
within three to four years, that the primary sanctioned strength should be
maintained on the basis of an optimum judge population ratio worked out on the
basis of the pendency and the rate of disposal, and that judges strength should be
augmented protem to deal with the accumulated arrears. The system should ensure
a zero accrual of arrears beyond three years. The judges strength should be
X-190
increased or augmented in the phased manner and without compromising the
quality of judges for numbers can never be a substitute for quality. (Para 45)
Action Taken Reply
The recommendation has been forwarded to all the High Courts and State
Governments and UT Administrations.
The Supreme Court has spelt out that the existing Judge population ratio should
be increased from 10.5 per million population to 50 Judges per million. This increase in
Judge strength of 50 Judge per million population should be effected and implemented
in a phased manner within a period of five years. The Central Government have
requested the Supreme Court through an Interlocutory Application to modify its order
(dated 21.3.2002 in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India) to allow creation of
judge strength on the basis of work-load and not on the basis of population alone. The
matter is still sub judice.
Judges strength in High Courts was reviewed in 2007. It has been decided to
create 152 posts of Judges taking the strength of Judges in High Courts from 725 to 877.
The proposed Gram Nyayalayas is also expected to contribute in reduction of

arrears.
3. Computerization of Courts
The Committee strongly recommends that the task of computerization
should be taken up on a high priority basis; proper networking should be achieved
between the Supreme Court, High Courts and all Subordinate Courts within a
specific time schedule which will definitely help in disposing of the cases faster.
(Para 77)
Action Taken Reply

Government has approved a scheme of comprehensive computerization of all
District and Subordinate Courts in the country and has commenced implementation of
X-191
the scheme which includes up gradation of the IT infrastructure in the Supreme Court
and the High Courts and linking the lowest court to the highest court electronically. The
scheme which is based on the National Policy and Action Plan presented by the E-
committee is envisaged at a total estimated cost of Rs. 854 crore for implementation in a
period of five years. Presently, the first phase of the scheme, at a total cost of Rs. 442
crore (with scope for 10 per cent enhancement) is under implementation for being
completed in a period of two years.
The above mentioned scheme is being implemented by the Government as a

Mission Mode Project called E-courts.
[Page Nos. 2-4]
X-192
Appendix-V
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY
STANDING COMMITTEE ON HOME AFFAIRS
EIGHTY-FIFTH REPORT
ON
LAW'S DELAYS: ARREARS IN COURTS
(PRESENTED TO HON'BLE CHAIRMAN, RAJYA SABHA

ON
31st DECEMBER, 2001)
(FORWARDED TO HON'BLE SPEAKER ON
31st DECEMBER, 2001)
(LAID ON THE TABLE OF RAJYA SABHA ON

7TH MARCH, 2002)
(LAID ON THE TABLE OF LOK SABHA

26TH FEBRUARY, 2002)
RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI
DECEMBER, 2001/PAUSA 1923 (SAKA)
CS (HA)-161
X-193
Vacancies of Judges
31.0 The following procedure was followed for filling up of vacancies of judges before
the judgement of the Supreme Court.: Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be
appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with
such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the
President may deem necessary for the purpose. In the case of appointment of a judge
other than the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of India was always required to be
consulted vide article 124 of the Constitution.
31.1 The Judges of the High Courts were appointed by the President after consultation
with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and in the case of appointment
of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of the High Court Vide article
217 (1) of the Constitution.
31.2 Pre-1993 Status: Before 1993, the process of appointment of Judges of High
Courts and Supreme Court was required to be initiated by the Executive i.e. Department
of Justice, as far as possible 6 months prior to the date of vacancy. There were delays in
filling the vacancies during that period also but the Government was answerable and
accountable to Parliament.
31.3 Post-1993 Scenario: After the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Advocates-on-
Record Association vs. Union of India and others on October 6, 1993, a proposal for
appointment of a Judge cannot be initiated by the Government. According to the
Judgement of October 6, 1993, read with the Advisory Opinion of October 28, 1998, of
the Supreme Court of India, the initiation of the proposal for appointment of a Judge in
the Supreme Court must be by the Chief Justice of India and in the case of a High Court
by the Chief Justice of that High Court. For transfer of a Judge/Chief Justice of a High
Court to another High Court, the proposal has to be initiated by the Chief Justice of India.
31.4 As per the Revised Memorandum of Procedure for the appointment of Chief
Justices and judges of the High Courts, the Governor, as advised by the Chief Minister,
was required to forward his recommendation to the Union Minister of Law, Justice and
Company Affairs an as early as possible but not later than six weeks from the date of
X-194
receipt of the proposal from the Chief Justice of the High Court. If the comments were
not received within that time frame, it was to be presumed by the Union Minister of Law,
Justices and Company Affairs that the constitutional authorities of the State (i.e.
Governor or Chief Minister) have nothing to add to the proposal. The Union Minister of
Law, Justice and Company affairs was then to consider the recommendations in the light
of such other reports as might be available to the Government in respect of the names
under consideration.
31.5. The complete material would then be forwarded to the Chief Justice of India for
his advice. The Chief Justice of India would, in consultation with two senior most Judges
of the Supreme Court, form his opinion in regard to a person to be recommended for
appointment to the High Court. The Chief Justice of India and the collegium of two
Judges of the Supreme Court were to take into account the views of the Chief Justice of
the High Court and of those Judges of the High Court who have been consulted by the
Chief Justice as well as views of those Judges in the Supreme Court who are conversant
with the affairs of that High Court. After consultations, the Chief Justice of India was
expected to send his recommendation to the Union Minister of Law, Justice and
Company Affairs within four weeks. The Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company
Affairs was required to put up as early as possible, preferably, within three weeks, the
recommendation of the Chief Justice of India to the Prime Minister who would then
advise the President in the matter of appointment.
Inordinate delay in filling up of vacancies
31.6 After the Judgment of the Supreme Court in 1993, the Government is bereft of
role in initiating the process of filling up of the vacancies. The maximum the
Government can do is to addresses letters to the Chief Minister of the States and the
Chief Justices of the High Courts, from time to time requesting them to make their
recommendations for appointment of judges in the High Courts to fill up vacancies
expeditiously. There appears to be a widespread non-observance of any strict time frame
at different levels in respect of filling up vacancies.
31.7 The judiciary in whom the power and the responsibility now vest has failed to fill
up the vacancies in judicial posts promptly and punctually and those vacancies of judges
X-195
in all courts contribute to the huge pendency in a big way. Though the vacancies in the
Supreme Court have been filled up recently, but the situation has not improved in the
High Courts and Subordinate Courts. Tabular presentation of status of vacancies of
Judges in Supreme Court, High Court and Sub-ordinate Courts is given below. It is for
the judiciary to identify and rectify the causes of delay in the existing system. It may be
that the modes of collegiate consultation have led to a peculiar species of the politics of
the judiciary. Members of the collegium are prone to filed candidates of their choice.
The give and take in the collegiate consultation has the potential of undermining merit. It
is also fraught with the potential of undermining the office of the Chief Justice and his
primacy. On the other hand, the Executive is unable to secure due consideration of its
own inputs in respect of the personal and professional standing of the candidate. More
often than not a transferred Chief Justice in a High Court is unfamiliar with the situation.
As a result, there are unacceptable delay without the benefit of a higher quality in the
intake. The challenge is for the judiciary, the Parliament and the Executive is to find a
viable solution within the framework of independence and accountability.
31.8 As on 21 November, 200118 the position of vacancies in all the courts was as
follows:
Judges in Position Vacancies Total approved Strength
Supreme Court 25 1 26
High Court 465 1702 647
Sub-ordinate Courts3 10,705 1500 12205
1 Source: Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 848, answered on 26 November, 2001.
2 including 47 new posts.
3 as on 1.6.2000. ( For State-wise detail please see Annexures IX & X)
X-196
42. Thus as per the Justice Departments calculation, an addition of 15,824 Judges is
necessary in case the pending cases are to be cleared in one year. That Department has
further calculated the number of additional judges required to clear the backlog of cases
in 3,5 and 7 years. The Departments computation is as follows: in case the pending
accumulated cases are to be cleared in a period of three years, the number of judicial
officers required will be 5275; in case the accumulated pendency is to be cleared in a
period of five years, the number of judicial officers required will be 3165; in case the
cases are to be cleared in a period of seven years, the number of judicial officers required
will be 2260. However, the number of posts of judicial officers vacant during 1998 was
1478. Hence, the additional posts actually required may be around 800 if the cases are to
be cleared in seven years. If the cases are required to be cleared in five years, the
additional posts required will be 1687 and if the cases are required to be cleared in three
years the required number will be around 3800. Those computations are based on the
assumption that all vacancies will be filled up. Although in some of the States like
Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Rajasthan, etc. all posts of judicial officers
have remained filled up during 1998, normally 5% of the posts do remain vacant due to
many factors like resignation, deaths, litigation and suitable candidates not being
available. This comes to figures of 60722 in relation to the year 1998. Hence, the
additional strength which may be required to clear the backlog of cases in a period of
seven years is 800+607=1407 or say 1400; in a period of 5 years 800+ 1687= 2487 or
2500 and the additional strength which may be required to clear the backlog in a period
of the 3 years will be 800+ 3800= 4600, as per the Departments calculation.
[Para Nos.31 & 42, Page Nos. 17 & 21]
45. The Committee is of the view that the aim should be to clear the arrears within
three to four years, that the primary sanctioned strength should be maintained on the
basis of an optimum judge population ratio worked out on the basis of the pendency and
the rate of disposal, and that judges strength should be augmented protem to deal with
the accumulated arrears. The system should ensure a zero accrual of arrears beyond three
years. The judges strength should be increased or augmented in the phased manner and
without compromising the quality of judges for numbers can never be a substitute for
quality.
[Para Nos. 45 ]
X-197
Appendix-W
(2002)4 SCC 247
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989 decided on 21.3.2002
B.N. KIRPAL & G.B. PATTANAIK & V.N. KHARE
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KIRPAL, J. This Writ Petition pertains to the working conditions of the members of the
Subordinate Judiciary throughout the country. This is third round before this Court.
2. In a decision entitled All India Judges' Assn. v. Union of India and Ors. 1, directions
were given by this Court in regard to the working conditions and some benefits which
should be given to the members of the Subordinate Judiciary. The directions were as
follows: (SCC pp. 140-41, para 63)
"63. We would now briefly indicate the directions we have given in the judgment:
(i) An All-India Judicial Service should be set up and the Union of India should take
appropriate steps in this regard.
(ii) Steps should be taken to bring about uniformity in designations of officers both in
civil and the criminal side by 31-3-1993.
(iii) Retirement age of judicial officers be raised to 60 years and appropriate steps are to
be taken by 31-12-1992.
(iv) As and when the Pay Commissions/Committees are set up in the States and Union
Territories, the question of appropriate. pay scales of judicial officers be specifically
referred and considered.
1 (1992)1 SCC 119: 1992 SCC (L&S) 9: (1992) 19 ATC 42
X-198
(v) A working library at the residence of every judicial officer has to be provided by 30-
6-1992. Provision for sumptuary allowance as stated has to be made.
(vi) Residential accommodation to every judicial officer has to be provided and until
State accommodation is available, Government should provide requisitioned
accommodation, for them in the manner indicated by 31-12-1992. In providing
residential accommodation, availability of an office room should be kept in view.
(vii) Every District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate should have a State vehicle,
judicial officers in sets of five should have a pool vehicle and others would be entitled to
suitable loans to acquire two wheeler automobiles within different time limits as
specified.
(viii) In-service institute should be set up within one year at the Central and State or
Union Territory level.
3. A number of directions which were given have been implemented. The Union of
India, however, filed a review petition seeking certain modifications/ clarifications. This
review petition was disposed of by the judgment entitled All India Judges' Assn. v. Union
of India2. The relevant findings in the said decision are as follows:
(i) Each of the general and special objections of Union of India and States/UTs was dealt
with and rejected. The distinction between judicial and other service specifically
emphasized. (SCC paras 7 to 10).
(ii) "The service conditions of Judicial officers should be laid down and reviewed from
time to time by an independent Commission exclusively constituted for the purpose, and
the composition of such Commission should reflect adequate representation on behalf of
the judiciary" (SCC p. 297, para 11).
(iii) "By giving the directions in question, this Court has only called upon the executive
and the legislature to implement their imperative duties. The courts do issue directions to
the authorities to perform their obligatory duties whenever there is a failure on their part
2 (1993)4 SCC 288: 1994 SCC (L&S) 148: (1993) 25 ATC 818
X-199
to discharge them...........The further directions given, therefore, should not be looked
upon as an encroachment on the powers of the executive and the legislature to determine
the service conditions of the judiciary. They are directions to perform the long overdue
obligatory duties." (SCC p. 298, para 14).
"The directions are essentially for the evolvement of an appropriate national policy by
the Government in regard to the judiciary's conditions. The directions issued are mere
aids and incidental to and supplemental of the main direction and intended as a
transitional measure till comprehensive national policy is evolved. (SCC p. 299 para 15)
(emphasis supplied)."
(iv) The question of financial burden likely to be imposed is misconceived and should
not be raised of discharge mandatory duties: (SCC p. 299, para 16)
"16. The contention with regard to the financial burden likely to be imposed by the
directions in question, is equally misconceived. Firstly, the courts do from time to time
hand down decisions which have financial implications and the Government is obligated
to loosen its purse recurrently pursuant to such decisions. Secondly, when the duties are
obligatory, no grievance can be heard that they cast financial burden. Thirdly, compared
to the other plan and non-plan expenditure, we find that the financial burden caused on
account of the said directions is negligible. We should have thought that such plea was
not raised to resist the discharge of the mandatory duties. The contention that the
resources of all the States are not uniform has also to be rejected for the same reasons.
The directions prescribe the minimum necessary service conditions and facilities for the
proper administration of justice. We believe that the quality of justice administered and
the calibre of the persons appointed to administer it are not of different grades in different
States, Such contentions are ill-suited to the issues involved in the present case."
(v) The directions given in the main judgment dated 13.11.1991 were maintained
except as regards the following:-
X-200
(a) SCC p. 314, para 52 (a)
52 (a) "The legal practice of 3 years should be made one of the essential qualifications
for recruitment to the judicial posts at the lowest rung in the judicial hierarchy.
Further, wherever the recruitment of the judicial officers at the lowest rung is made
through the Public Service Commission, a representative of the High Court should be
associated with the selection process and his advice should prevail unless there are strong
and cogent reasons for not accepting it, which reasons should be recorded in writing.
The rules for recruitment of the judicial officers should be amended forthwith to
incorporate the above directions."
(b) SCC p. 315, para 52(b)
52 (b) "The direction with regard to the enhancement of the superannuation age is
modified as follows:
While the superannuation age of every subordinate judicial officer shall stand extended
upto 60 years, the respective High Courts should, as stated above, assess and evaluate the
record of the judicial officer for his continued utility well within time before he attained
the age of 58 year by following the procedure for the compulsory retirement under the
Service Rules applicable to him and give him the benefit of the extended superannuation
age from 60 years only if he is found fit and eligible to continue in service. In case he is
not found fit and eligible, he should be compulsorily retired on his attaining the age of 58
years.
The assessment in question should be done before the attainment of the age of 58 years
even in cases where the earlier superannuation age was less than 58 years."
(c) SCC p. 316 para 52 (c)
"The direction for granting sumptuary allowance to the District Judges and Chief Judicial
Magistrates stands withdrawn for the reasons given earlier."
X-201
(d) SCC p. 316, para 52(d)
"The direction with regard to the grant of residence-cum-library allowance will cease to
operate when the respective State Government/ Union Territory Administration start
providing the courts, as directed above, with the necessary law books and journals in
consultation with the respective High Courts."
(e) SCC p. 316, para 52(e)

52 (e) "The direction with regard to the conveyance to be provided to the District Judges
and that with regard to the establishment of the training institution for the Judges have
been clarified by us in paragraphs 45(vii) and 49 (viii) respectively. It is the Principal
District Judge at each district headquarter or the metropolitan town as the case may be,
who will be entitled to an independent vehicle this will equally apply to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The rest of the Judges and
Magistrates will be entitled to pool-vehicles-one for every five Judges for transport from
residence to court and back-and when needed, loans for two wheeler automobiles and
conveyance allowance. The State Governments/Union Territory Administrations are
directed to provide adequate quantity of free petrol for the vehicles, not exceeding 100
litres per month, in consultation with the High Court."
(f) SCC p. 316, para 52(f)

52.(f) "In view of the establishment of the National Judicial Academy, it is optional for
the States to have their independent or joint training Judicial institutes."
(g) SCC pp. 316-17, para 52(h)

In view of the time taken to dispose of the Review Petitions, following orders were
passed:
(i) "the time to comply with the direction for bringing about uniformity in hierarchy,
designations and jurisdictions of Judicial officers on both civil and criminal sides is
extended upto 31-3-1994";
(ii) "the time to comply with the directions to provide law books and law journals to all
courts is extended up to 31-12-1993 failing which the library allowance should be paid to
every judicial officer with effect from l-1-1994, if it is not paid already";
X-202
(iii) "the time to provide suitable residential accommodation, requisitioned or
Government, to every judicial officer is extended up to 31-3-1994".
(iv) "the time to comply with the rest of the directions is maintained as it was directed by
the judgment under review."
(v) Regarding uniform pay scales the Review Judgment emphasised the following: (SCC
pp. 307-08 para 36)
"36. We have already discussed the need to make a distinction between the political and
the administrative executive and to appreciate that parity in status can only be between
Judges and the political executive and not between Judges and the administrative
executive. Hence the earlier approach of comparison between the service conditions of
the Judges and those of the administrative executive has to be abandoned and the service
conditions of the Judges which are wrongly linked to those of the administrative
executive have to be revised to meet the special needs of the judicial service, Further,
since the work of the judicial officers throughout the country is of the same nature, the
service conditions have to be uniform. We have also emphasised earlier the necessity of
entrusting the work of prescribing the service conditions for the judicial officers to a
separate Pay Commission exclusively set up for the purpose. Hence we reiterate the
importance of such separate Commission and also of the desirability of prescribing
uniform pay scales to the Judge all over the country. Since such pay scales will be the
minimum deserved by the judicial officers, the argument that some of the States may not
be able to bear the financial burden is irrelevant. The uniform service conditions as and
when laid down would not, of course, affect any special or extra benefits which some
States may be bestowing upon their judicial officers."
4. The question with regard to the pay scales in respect of the members of the Judicial
Service was first referred to the Fifth Central Pay Commission. Subsequently by an
amendment made on 24-10-1996, the reference to the Fifth Central Pay Commission
with regard to the fixation of the pay scales of the Judicial Officers was deleted. We may
here note that the Fifth Central Pay Commission submitted its report on 30-1-1997 which
was accepted by the Government on 30-9-1997. It became applicable with retrospective
X-203
effect, that is to say, with effect from 1-1-1996. This is relevant, when considering the
question as to with effect from which date the Report of the Shetty Commission is to
become effective.
5. On 21-3-1996, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the review judgment,
the Government of India by a Resolution constituted the First National Judicial Pay
Commission under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty. As per the said
Resolution, the following were the terms of reference:
"(a) To evolve the principles which should govern the structure of pay and other
emoluments of Judicial Officers belonging to the Subordinate Judiciary all over the
country.
(b) To examine the present structure of emoluments and conditions of service of Judicial
Officers in the States/UTs taking into account the total packet of benefits available to
them and make suitable recommendations having regard, among other relevant factors, to
the existing relativities in the pay structure between the officers belonging to subordinate
Judicial service vis-a-vis other civil servants.
(c) To examine and recommend in respect of minimum qualifications, age of recruitment,

method of recruitment etc., for Judicial Officers. In this context, the relevant provisions
of the Constitution and directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Assn. case
and other cases may be kept in view.
(d) To examine the work methods and work environment as also the variety of
allowances and benefits in kind that are available to Judicial Officers in addition to pay
and to suggest rationalization and simplification thereof with a view to promoting
efficiency in Judicial Administration, optimising the size of the Judiciary etc."
6. As the Fifth Central Pay Commission Report had been accepted but no relief was
available to the members of the Judicial Subordinate Service, a question arose that
pending the recommendation of the Shetty Commission whether any interim orders can
be passed giving some relief. Accordingly, on 16-12-1997, another terms of reference
was added according to which the Commission was empowered to consider and grant
X-204
such interim relief as it may consider just and proper to all categories of Judicial Officers
of all the States/Union Territories. It was made clear that the interim relief, if
recommended, was to be adjusted against and included in the package which may
become admissible to the Judicial Officers on the final recommendations of the
Commission.
7. By a preliminary Report dated 31-1-1998, some interim relief was granted by Justice
Shetty Commission. It is not necessary for our purpose to refer to the relief so granted,
except to note that wherever the relief has been granted the same was subject to
adjustment on the acceptance, with or without modification, of the final Report of Justice
Shetty Commission. The Interim Report has been fully implemented by the Union of
India in respect of Union Territories and by the States.
After thorough deliberations, Justice Shetty Commission submitted its Report on 11-11-
1999. By order dated 14-12-1999, the State Governments and the Union Territories were
directed to send their responses to the Union of India so that it could correlate the
responses and indicate its own stand on the recommendations of the Commission.
9. The recommendations of the Shetty Commission were in respect of the following

topics:
(1) The High Courts were required to frame the rules specifying particular age of
retirement and it was also recommended that the procedure prescribed for writing the
confidential reports by the self-assessment process was better and more transparent and
should be adopted by the High Court for Judicial Officers.
(2) The Commission recommended appropriate nomenclature to be given to the Judicial

Officers. The recommendation was that they should be called "Civil Judge" in place of
"Civil Judge (Junior Division)" and "Senior Civil Judge" in place of "Civil Judge (Senior
Division)".
(3) It further gave recommendation with regard to equation of posts of the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate and Chief Judicial Magistrate. While it recommended that the
Chief Judicial Magistrate should be in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), in
X-205
respect of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, it recommended that it should be placed in the
cadre of District Judge. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate and Chief Judicial Magistrate must be in the same cadre equivalent to Civil
Judge (Senior Division) and that they should be on a par with each other. We shall deal
with this aspect slightly later.
(4) Recommendations were made with regard to recruitment to the cadre of Civil Judge
(Junior Division)-Cum-Magistrate First Class as well as recruitment to the post of Civil
Judge (Senior Division). The recommendation in this regard was that the posts of Civil
Judge (Senior Division) should only be filled by promotion.
(5) The Commission also made recommendation with regard to appointment to the post
of District Judge which includes the Additional District Judge in the Higher Judicial
Service. It pointed out some problems which had arisen as a result of direct recruitment
to the post of District Judges, the problem really being with regard to the inter se
seniority amongst them.
(6) The Commission also recommended that service Judges who were between 35 and
45 years of age should be made eligible for direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial
Service which consists of the posts of District Judges and Additional District Judges and
for this purpose, if necessary, there should be an amendment to Article 233(2) of the
Constitution of India.
(7) With regard to inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, the
Commission recommended that the promotees be given weightage of one year for every
five years of Judicial Service rendered by them subject to a maximum of three years.
(8) The Report also recommended steps being taken for Judicial education and training.
(9) With regard to pay scales, the Shetty Commission set out the principles governing
the pay structure of the Subordinate Judiciary. It referred to the All India Judges' Assn.
case (supra) wherein it had been observed that the parity in status should be between the
political Executive, the Legislatures and the Judges and not between the Judges and the
Administrative Executive.
X-206
After taking into consideration the recommendations which had been made by the Fifth
Central Pay Commission and the pivotal role of the subordinate Judiciary and the
essential characteristics of a Judicial officer, the Shetty Commission evolved a Master
Pay scale. It came to the conclusion that the number of pay scales should be equal to the
number of clearly identifiable levels of responsibility. Scope for promotional avenues
must also be taken into consideration. After considering all the relevant circumstances
the Commission recommended the following scales of pay :
(i) Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.) Rs. 9000-250-10,750-300-13,150-350-

14,530
(ii) Civil Judges (Jr. Divn.) (I stage ACP Rs.10,750-300-13,150-350-14,900

Scale)
(iii) Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) (II Stage Rs.12,850-300-13,150-350-15,950-

ACP Scale for Civl Judge) (Jr.Divn.) 400-17,550
(iv) Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) (I Stage ACP Rs. 14,200-350-15,950-400-18,350

Scale)
(v) District Judges Entry Level + (II Rs. 16,750-400-19,150-450-20,500

Stage ACP for Civil Judges (Sr.
Divn.)
(vi) District Judges (selection Grade) Rs. 18,750-400-19,150-21,850-500-

22,850
(vii) District Judges (super time Scale) Rs. 22,850-500-24,850
In arriving at the aforesaid pay scales, the Commission noted that while fixing the
maximum of the master pay scale it had been constrained by the vertical cap of the
salaries of the High Court Judges. In other words the District Judges could not get more
salary than a High Court Judge whose salary was statutorily fixed. It, however,
recommended that as and when the salary of a High Court Judge is raised, then the salary
of the Judicial Officers should also be increased by maintaining the ratio which it had
recommended. According to the Commission, the pay scales recommended by it should
X-207
be deemed to come into force with affect from 1-1-1996, but the monetary benefit was to
be payable with effect from 1-7-1996. Other allowances, which the Commission had
recommended, were to be given affect to from 1-11-1999. Taking into consideration that
there were at present 12771 posts on regular pay scales, the estimated impact of the
introduction of the new pay scales was stated to be of the order of Rs. 95.71 crores for
one year.
(10) The Commission recommended that administration of justice in the States should
be the joint responsibility of the Centre and the States. It noted that the expenditure on
the judiciary in India in terms of Gross National Product was relatively low : it was not
more than 0.2%. The main recommendation of the Shetty Commission was that the
Central Government must, in every States, share half of the annual expenditure on
subordinate courts and quarters for Judicial Officers. This was to be without prejudice to
the rights and privileges of the north-eastern States and State of Sikkim wherein about
90-92% of the expenditure of the States was to be made by the Central Government
under the provisions for special category of States.
(11) The Commission also recommended Assured Career Progression Scheme and
functional scales. Recommendations were also made with regard to dearness allowance,
allowances for electricity and water charges, home orderly allowances, newspaper
allowances, city compensatory allowance, robe allowance, conveyance allowance,
sumptuary allowance, hill allowance and further recommended provisions with regard to
medical facilities, leave travel concession, special pay, concurrent charge allowance,
encashment of leave and level salary, composite transfer grant allowance, housing and
house rent allowance, telephone facilities and advances of loans to the Judicial Officers.
(12) The Report also made recommendation to the effect that there should be an increase
in the retirement, age of the Judicial Officers from 60 to 62 years and recommendations
were also made with regard to retirement benefits.
(13) One more recommendation which was made for retired Judicial Officers was that
cash payment of Rs. 1,250 per month should be given as domestic help allowance to
enable the retired Judicial Officer to engage a Servant.
X-208
(14) Another recommendation which was made was for the establishment of an All India
Judicial Service.
10. Pursuant to the order which was passed by this Court requiring the response of the
various States to be given to the Union of India, it was noted in this Court's order of 27-
8-2001 that six States, namely, those of West Bengal, Assam, Karnataka, Manipur, Kerala
and Mizoram had accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and had
agreed to implement the same subject to the Union of India bearing 50 percent of the
expenditure as envisaged in the Report. The States of Bihar and Jharkhand had also
conveyed that they were accepting the Shetty Commission Report subject to the Union of
India bearing 50 per cent of the expenditure and the Report being further modified and
scaled down. Affidavits have also been filed by the States of Andhra Pradesh and
Haryana with regard to the scales of pay accepted by them.
11. From the various affidavits which have been filed and the responses given to the
Union of India, we find that none of the States has accepted the recommendation of the
Shetty Commission with regard to the pay scales in toto.
12. Pursuant to an order dated 27-8-2001, an affidavit has also been filed by Shri Kamal
Pande, Secretary, Government of India, Department of Justice detailing the decisions
taken by the Central Government with regard to the Judicial Officers in the Union
Territories. According to this affidavit, with regard to the Union Territory of Delhi the
pay scales which have been accepted by the Union of India are as follows :
Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Rs. 8,000-275-13,500
Civil Judge (senior time scale) Rs. 10,650-325-15,850
Senior Civil Judge Rs. 12,750-375-16,500
District Judge (Entry Level) Rs. 15,100-400-18,300
District Judge (selection Grade) Rs. 18,400-500-22,400

(20% of the posts of District Judges)
X-209
13. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae as well as the learned Solicitor General
and the Advocates General for the State of Karnataka and other learned counsel. We will
first deal with some of the contentious issues on which arguments have been addressed
and also deal with the recommendations of the Shetty Commission which, in our opinion,
need modification or cannot be accepted as such.
14. The most important point in these proceedings appears to us to be as to whether the
recommendation of the Shetty Commission laying down different scales of pay should be
accepted or not. It is to be borne in mind that pursuant to the judgment in the review case
(All India Judges case2) the Central Government had accepted the recommendation and
had constituted the Shetty Commission. Correspondingly, it had deleted from the terms
of reference of the Fifth Central Pay Commission the consideration in respect of the pay
scales of the Judicial Officers. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the Central
Government had agreed to set up a Pay Commission specifically for Judicial Officers and
normally the recommendations made in that behalf should be accepted unless for some
specific and valid reason a departure was required to be made. We may here bear in mind
that the Fifth Central Pay Commission Report which was submitted has been largely
accepted by the Government of India with little or no modification. It was, therefore,
rightly urged by Shri F.S. Nariman that there must be good and compelling reason for the
States and the Central government in not accepting the recommendations of the Shetty
Commission.
15. From the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that atleast eight of the States nave
accepted the recommendations of the Shetty Commission provided the Central
Government bears 50 percent of the expense. This means that in principle there is
acceptance of the pay scales as determined by the Shetty Commission.
16. The Central Government, however, has evolved its own pay scales with regard to the
Subordinate and the Higher Judicial Service in the Union Territories, including the Union
Territory of Delhi. The pay scales which have now been approved by the Government of
India had been formulated on the basis that there should be a parity between the
Executive and the Judiciary. Mr. Nariman rightly contended that this basis is contrary to
X-210
the decision of this Court in the All India Judges' Assn. case (supra) as well as in the
review judgment. It was stated in no uncertain terms that the Judiciary could not be
equated with the Executive and it must have its own pay structure.
17. Even if we were to examine the two scales of pay, one for the I.A.S. officers after the
Fifth Central Pay Commission Report and the scales of pay recommended for the
Judicial Service, we find that there is a fundamental error which has been committed by
the Union of India. The scales of pay approved for the I.A.S. officers are as follows :
Junior Scale Rs. 8000-275-13500
Senior Scale : (i) Time Scale Rs.10,650-325-15,850
(ii) Jr. Admn. Grade Rs. 12,750-375-16,500
(iii) Selection Grade Rs. 15,100-400-18,300
(iv) Super Time Scale Rs. 18,400-500-22,400
(v) Above ST Scale Rs. 22,400-525-24,500
Secretary to Govt. of India Rs. 26,000 (fixed)
Cabinet Secretary Rs. 30,000 (fixed)
18. What the Union of India has done is that it equated the District Judge at the entry
level with the Selection Grade for the I.A.S. officers. The pay scale approved is Rs.
15,100-400-18,300. We, however, find that an I.A.S. officer enters the Selection Grade
after having put in approximately 14 years of service. On the other hand, Civil Judge
would normally enter the level of the District Judge, and is appointed first as an
Additional District Judge, after having put in 18 to 20 years of service. As far as the
I.A.S. Officers are concerned, after 17 years of service, an I.A.S. officer would normally
enter the Super Time Scale of Rs. 18,400-500-22,400. If the number of years which are
put in service, is a measure to be adopted in determining as to what should be the pay
X-211
scales, we find that the Government of India has erred in equating the District Judge at
the entry level with the scale of pay of a Selection Grade I.A.S. Officer. The proper
equation should have been between the District Judge at the entry level with a Super
Time Scale of an I.A.S. Officer. It is on that basis that the scale of pay should have been
determined upwards and downwards.
19. The Shetty Commission has trifurcated the scales of pay as far as the District Judges
are concerned. It has recommended scales of pay of a District Judge at the entry level at
Rs. 16,750-20,500, District Judge (Selection Grade) at Rs. 18,750-22,850 and District
Judge (Super Time Scale) at Rs. 22,850-24,850. As we have already noted, a Judicial
Officer would enter the District Judge (Entry Level) after having put in 18-20 years of
service. The scale of pay of Rs. 16,750-20,500 recommended by the Shetty Commission
is lower than the Super Time Scale for an I.A.S. Officer of Rs. 18,400-22,400, when such
an officer enters the Super Time Scale after 17 years of service. A Judicial Officer enters
the Selection Grade of a District Judge after having put in 21 to 25 years of service. The
pay scale recommended by the Shetty Commission is Rs. 18,750-22,850. This is less
than the scale above ST Scale recommended for an I.A.S. officer which is of Rs. 22,400-
24,500 even though an I.A.S. officer enters that scale after having put in 25 years of
service which is on a par with the number of years put in by a Judicial Officer on his
entry into Selection Grade. It is only the District Judge (Super Time Scale) as
recommended by the Shetty Commission which is comparable with the last scale of an
I.A.S. Officer.
20. From the aforesaid, it is clear, and it is so mentioned in the Shetty Commission
Report, that the said Commission has taken into consideration the recommendation of the
Fifth Central Pay Commission while determining the pay scales for the Judicial Officers.
In our opinion, the pay scales recommended by the Shetty Commission are just and
reasonable. Considering the years of service put in by the Judicial Officer at different
stages, the parity in the scale of pay recommended by the Shetty Commission for the
Judicial Officers with the scales of pay of I.A.S. officers is not, by and large, disturbed.
In fact, the scale of pay recommended by the Shetty Commission appear to us to be
somewhat lower, on the average, than the scales of pay recommended for an I.A.S.
officer is we take into consideration, as we must do, the number of years a Judicial
officer has put in service. We are therefore, of the opinion that the pay scales
X-212
recommended by the Shetty Commission should be accepted. We wish to emphasise that
even though in the earlier judgments, is has rightly been said that there should be no
equation or parity between the Judicial Service and the Executive Service, nevertheless
even on the basis that there should not be great distortion in the pay scales of the Judicial
Officer vis-a-vis the Executive, we find the recommendations made by the Shetty
Commission as just, fair and reasonable.
21. The next question which arose for consideration is whether the Shetty Commission
was justified in recommending that 50 per cent of the expense should be borne by the
Central Government. It has been contended by the learned Advocate General for the State
of Karnataka as well as on behalf of the other States that the Judicial Officers working in
the States deal not only with the State laws but also with the federal laws. They,
therefore, submitted that, in fairness of things, the Central Government should bear half
of the expense of the Judiciary.
22. The learned Solicitor General, however, submitted that the recommendation of the
Shetty Commission that the Union of India should bear 50 per cent of the total expense
was inconsistent with the Constitutional set-up. Had there been an All India Judicial
Service, then the Union of India may have been under an obligation to bear the expense,
but as the State Governments had not agreed to the establishment of the All India Judicial
Service and no legislation had been passed under Entry 11-A of List III by the
Parliament, therefore it will not be correct to direct the Central Government to bear 50
per cent of the expense on the Judicial system. The learned Solicitor General submitted
that the obligation to meet the expenses of the Judicial Service, except for the Supreme
Court and the Courts, in the Union Territories, was on the State Governments. He
contended that when allocation of funds between the Centre and the States takes place
the expenses which the States are required to meet in connection with the administration
of justice is a factor which is taken into consideration. The provision for devolution of
funds from the Union to the States is either by assignment of taxes or distribution of
taxes or by grants-in-aid. As and when the need arises, either the Finance Commission or
the Union of India allocates more funds to the States.
23. It has not been disputed that at present the entire expense on the administration of
justice in the States is incurred by the respective States. It is their responsibility and they
X-213
discharge the same. Logically, if there is to be any increase in the expenditure on
Judiciary, then it would be for the States to mobilise the resources in such a way whereby
they can meet expenditure on Judiciary for discharging their constitutional obligations.
Merely because there is an increase in the financial burden as a result of the Shetty
Commission Report being accepted, can be no ground for fastening liability on the Union
of India when none exists at present. Accordingly, disagreeing on this point with Justice
Shetty Commission recommendations, we direct that the entire expenditure on account of
the recommendations of the Justice Shetty Commission as accepted be borne by the
respective States. It is for the States to increase the court fee or to approach the Finance
Commission or the Union of India for more allocation of funds. They can also mobilise
their resources in order to meet the financial obligation. If such a need arises and the
States approach the Finance Commission or the Union of India for allocation of more
funds, we have no doubt that such a request shall be favourably considered.
24. Mr. F.S. Nariman has drawn our attention to yet another important aspect with regard
to dispensation of justice, namely, the huge backlog of undecided cases. One of the
reasons which has been indicated even in the 120th Law Commission Report was the
inadequate strength of Judges compared to the population of the country. Even the
Standing Committee of Parliament headed by Shri Pranab Mukherjee in its 85th Report,
submitted in February 2002, to Parliament, has recommended that there should be an
increase in the number of Judges. The said Committee has noted the Judge-population
ratio in different countries and has adversely commented on the judge- population ratio
of 10.5 judges per 10 lakh people in India. The Report recommends the acceptance, in
the first instance, of increasing the judge strength to 50 judges per 10 lakh people as was
recommended by the 120th Law Commission Report.
25. An independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structures of our
Constitution. If sufficient number of judges are not appointed, justice would not be
available to the people, thereby undermining the basic structure. It is well known that
justice delayed is justice denied. Time and again the inadequacy in the number of judges
has adversely been commented upon. Not only have the Law Commission and the
Standing Committee of Parliament made observations in this regard, but even the Head
of the Judiciary, namely, the Chief Justice of India has had more occasioned than once to
make observations in regard thereto. Under the circumstances, we feel it is our
X-214
constitutional obligation to ensure that the backlog of the cases is decreased and efforts
are made to increase the disposal of cases. Apart from the steps which may be necessary
for increasing the efficiency of the Judicial officers, we are of the opinion that time has
now come for protecting one of the pillars of the Constitution, namely, the judicial
system, by directing increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing
ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10 lakhs people to 50 judges for 10 lakh people. We are conscious
of the fact that overnight these vacancies cannot be filled. In order to have additional
judges, not only will the posts have to be created but infrastructure required in the form
of additional court rooms, buildings, staff, etc., would also have to be made available. We
are also aware of the fact that a large number of vacancies as of today from amongst the
sanctioned strength remain to be filled. We, therefore, first direct that the existing
vacancies in the Subordinate Courts at all levels should be filled, if possible latest by 31-
3-2003, in all the States. The increase in the Judge strength to 50 judges per 10 lakh
people should be effected and implemented with the filling up of the posts in a phased
manner to be determined and directed by the Union Ministry of Law, but, this process
should be completed and the increased vacancies and posts filled within a period of five
years from today. Perhaps increasing the Judge strength by 10 per 10 lakh people every
year could be one of the methods which may be adopted thereby completing the first
stage within five years before embarking on further increase if necessary.
26. The Shetty Commission had recommended that there should be an increase in
retirement age from 60 to 62 years. In our opinion, this cannot be done for the simple
reason that the age of retirement of a High Court Judge is constitutionally fixed at 62
years. It will not be appropriate, seeing the Constitutional framework with regard to the
Judiciary, to have an identical age of retirement between the members of the Subordinate
Judicial Service and a High Court. As of today, the age of retirement of a Supreme Court
Judge is 65 years, of a High Court Judge it is 62 years and logically the age of retirement
of a Judicial Officer is 60 years. This difference is appropriate and has to be maintained.
However, as there is a backlog of vacancies which has to be filled and as the Judge
strength has to be increased, as directed by us, it would be appropriate for the States in
consultation with the High Court to amend the service rules and to provide for re-
employment of the retiring Judicial Officers till the age of 62 years if there are vacancies
in the cadre of the District Judge. We direct this to be done as early as possible.
X-215
27. Another question which falls for consideration is the method of recruitment to the
posts in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District
Judges. At the present moment, there are two sources for recruitment to Higher Judicial
Service, namely, by promotion from amongst the members of the Subordinate Judicial
Service and by direct recruitment. The Subordinate Judiciary is the foundation of the
edifice of the Judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation, that
it should become as strong as possible. The weight on the Judicial system essentially
rests on the Subordinate Judiciary. While we have accepted the recommendation of the
Shetty Commission which will result in the increase in the pay scale of the Subordinate
Judiciary, it is at the same time necessary that the Judicial officers, hard-working as they
are, become more efficient. It is imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of law
and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the Shetty Commission has
recommended the establishment of a Judicial Academy which is very necessary. At the
same time, we are of the opinion that there has to be certain minimum standards,
objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher Judicial Service as
Additional District Judges and District Judges. While we agree with the Shetty
Commission that the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District Judge
Cadre from amongst the advocate should be 25 per cent and the process of recruitment is
to be by a competitive examination, both written and viva voce, we are of the opinion
that there should be an objective method of testing the suitability of the Subordinate
Judicial officers for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service. Furthermore, there should
also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to improve and to
compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we expect
that the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will further improve. In
order to achieve this, while the ratio of 75 per cent appointment by promotion and 25 per
cent by direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is maintained, we are, however,
of the opinion that there should be two methods as far as appointment by promotion is
concerned: 50 per cent of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service must be filled by
promotion on the basis of principle of merit-cum- seniority. For this purpose, the High
Courts should devise and evolve a test in order to ascertain and examine the legal
knowledge of those candidates and to assess their continued efficiency with adequate
knowledge of case law. The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the Service shall be
filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through the limited departmental
competitive examination for which the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior
X-216
Division) should be not less than five years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule in
this regard.
28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct that recruitment to the Higher
Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be:
[1] (a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the
basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test;
(b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive
examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years' qualifying
service; and
(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the
eligible Advocates on the basis of the written and viva voca test conducted by respective
High Courts.
[2] Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the High Courts as early as possible.
29. Experience has shown that there has been a constant discontentment amongst the
members of the Higher Judicial Service in regard to their seniority in service. For over
three decades large number of cases have been instituted in order to decide the relative
seniority from the officers recruited from the two different sources, namely, promotees
and direct recruits. As a result of the decision today, there will, in a way, be three ways of
recruitment to Higher Judicial Service. The quota for promotion which we have
prescribed is 50 per cent by following the principle "merit-cum- seniority", 25 per cent
strictly on merit by limited departmental competitive examination and 25 per cent by
direct recruitment. Experience has also shown that the least amount of litigation in the
country, where quota system in recruitment exists, in so far as seniority is concerned, is
where a roster system is followed. For example, there is, as per the Rules of the Central
Government, a 40-point roster which has been prescribed which deals with the quotas for
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Hardly, if ever, there has been a litigation
amongst the members of the Service after their recruitment as per the quotas, the
seniority is fixed by the roster points and irrespective of the fact as to when a person is
X-217
recruited. When roster system is followed, there is no question of any dispute arising.
The 40-point roster has been considered and approved by this Court in R. K. Sabharwal
v. State of Punjab3. One of the methods of avoiding any litigation and bringing about
certainty in this regard is by specifying quotas in relation to posts and not in relation to
the vacancies. This is the basic principle on the basis of which the 40 point roster works.
We direct the High Courts to suitably amend and promulgate Seniority Rules on the basis
of the roster principle as approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal's case3 (supra) as
early as possible. We hope that as a result thereof there would be no further dispute in the
fixation of seniority. It is obvious that this system can only apply prospectively except
where under the relevant Rules seniority is to be determined on the basis of quota and
rotational system. The existing relative seniority of the members of the Higher Judicial
Service has to be protected but the roster has to be evolved for the future. Appropriate
rules and methods will be adopted by the High Courts and approved by the States,
wherever necessary by 31-3-2003.
30. We disapprove the recommendation of giving any weightage to the members of the
Subordinate Judicial Service in their promotion to the Higher Judicial Service in
determining seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits and the promotees. The roster system will
ensure fair play to all while improving efficiency in the service.
31. As we have already mentioned, the Shetty Commission had recommended that Chief
Metropolitan Magistrates should be in the cadre of District Judges. In our opinion, this is
neither proper nor practical. The appeals from orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrates under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be
heard by the Additional Sessions Judge or the Sessions Judge. If both the Additional
Sessions Judge and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate belong to the same cadre, it will
be paradoxical that any appeal from one officer in the cadre should go to another officer
in the same cadre. If they belong to the same cadre, as recommended by the Shetty
Commission, then it would be possible that the junior officer would be acting as an
Additional Sessions Judge while a senior may be holding the post of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate. It cannot be that against the orders passed by the senior officer it is the junior
officer who hears the appeal. There is no reason given by the Shetty Commission as to
why the post of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate be manned by the District Judge,
3 (1995)2 SCC 745: 1995 SCC (L&S) 548: (1995) 29 ATC 481
X-218
especially when as far as the posts of the Chief Judicial Magistrate are concerned, whose
duties are on par with those of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the Shetty Commission
has recommended, and in our opinion rightly, that they should be filled from amongst
Civil Judges (Senior Division). Considering the nature and duties of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, the only difference being their
location, the posts of Chief Judicial Magistrate and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate have
to be equated and they have to be placed in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division).
We order, accordingly.
32. In the All India Judges' case2 (SCC 288 at p. 314) this Court has observed that in
order to enter the Judicial Service, an applicant must be an Advocate of at least three
year's standing. Rules were amended accordingly. With the passage of time, experience
has shown that the best talent which is available is not attracted to the Judicial Service. A
bright young law graduate after 3 year of practice finds the Judicial Service not attractive
enough. It has been recommended by the Shetty Commission after taking into
consideration the views expressed before it by various authorities, that the need for an
applicant to have been an Advocate for at least 3 years should be done away with. After
taking all the circumstances into consideration, we accept this recommendation of the
Shetty Commission and the argument of the learned Amicus Curiae that it should be no
longer mandatory for an applicant desirous of entering the Judicial Service to be an
Advocate of at least three years' standing. We, accordingly, in the light of experience
gained after the judgment in All India Judges' case direct to the High Courts and to the
State Governments to amend their rules so as to enable a fresh law graduate who may not
even have put in even three years of practice, to be eligible to compete and enter the
Judicial Service. We, however, recommend that a fresh recruit into the Judicial Service
should be imparted with training of not less than one years, preferably two years.
33. The Shetty Commission has recommended Assured Career Progressive Scheme and
Functional Scales. We have accepted the said recommendation and a suggestion was
mooted to the effect that in order that a Judicial Officer does not feel that he is stagnated
there should be a change in the nomenclature with the change of the pay scale. A
suggestion has been mooted by Shri F.S. Nariman, the learned Amicus Curiae that the
nomenclature in each cadre should be as follows:
X-219
A. Civil Judge (Junior Division Cadre) at entry level:
1. Civil Judge
2. Civil Judge, Grade-II
3. Civil Judge, Grade-I
B. Civil Judge (Senior Division Cadre) at intermediary level:
1. Senior Civil Judge
2. Upper Senior Judge
3. Superior Senior Judge
34. These are only suggestions which are made and it will be more appropriate for each
State, taking into consideration the local requirements, to adopt appropriate
nomenclatures. It would be appropriate to mention at this stage that in some States, the
entry point to the Judicial Services is at the level of a Munsiff or a Subordinate Judge.
Those are nomenclature which are also to be considered but what is important is that in
respect of each scale the nomenclature should be different. In this way a Judicial Officer
will get a feeling that he has made progress in his Judicial career with his nomenclature
or designation changing with an upward movement within the Service.
35. One of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission is in relation to the grant of
the house rent allowance. The recommendation is that official accommodation should be
made available to the members of the Judicial Service who should pay 12.5% of the
salary as rent. The Commission further recommends that in addition to the allotment of
the said premises, the Judicial Officer should also get house rent allowance. In our
opinion, this double benefit is uncalled for. It is most desirable and imperative that free
Government accommodation should be made available to the Judicial officers. Taking
into consideration, the fact that the accommodation which is made available to the Judges
of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts is free of charge, we direct that the
X-220
official accommodation which is allotted to the Judicial Officers should likewise be free
of charge but no house rent allowance will be payable on such an allotment being made.
If, however, the Government for any reason is unable to make allotment, or make
available official accommodation, then in that event the Judicial Officer would be
entitled to get house rent allowance similar to that which has been as existing or as
directed by the Shetty Commission whichever is higher. However it is made clear that
once a Government or official accommodation is allotted to an officer and in pursuance
thereof he occupies such an accommodation, he would not be entitled to draw house rent
allowance.
36. There are a number of other allowances which nave been referred to by the Shetty
Commission, some of which have not been accepted by the Central Government. For
example, allowance of Rs. 2,500 to be paid to enable the engagement of a servant by a
Judicial Officer. We do not think such a suggestion made by the Shetty Commission to be
appropriate and the Central Government has rightly not accepted the same. Another
suggestion which has been made by the Shetty Commission is that 50 per cent of the
electricity and water charges of the residences of the Judicial Officers should be
reimbursed by the Government. There is merit in this suggestion subject to a cap being
placed so that the 50 per cent expense does not become very exorbitant. This allowance
should be paid, inasmuch as Judicial Officers do and are required to work at their
residence in discharge of their Judicial duties. Therefore, it will not be inappropriate that
50 per cent of the electricity and water charges should be borne by the State Government.
37. Subject to the various modifications in this Judgment, all other recommendations of
the Shetty Commission are accepted.
38. We are aware that it will become necessary for service and other rules to be amended
so as to implement this judgment. Firstly, with regard to the pay scales, the Shetty
Commission has approved the pay scales with effect from 1-1-1996 but has directed the
same to be paid with effect from 1-7-1996. The pay scales as so approved by us are with
effect from 1-7-1996. However, it will take some time for the States to make necessary
financial arrangements for the implementation of the revised pay scales. The Judicial
officers shall be paid the salary in the revised pay scales as approved by this Court with
effect from 1-7-2002. The arrears of salary between 1-7-1996 to 30-6-2002, will either be
X-221
paid in cash or the State may make the payment by crediting the same in the Provident
Fund Account of the respective Judicial Officers. Furthermore, the payment by credit or
otherwise should be spread over between the years 1-7-1996 to 30-6-2002 so as to
minimise the income tax liability which may be payable thereon. In calculating the
arrears, the Government will, of course, take into account the interim relief which had
been granted and drawn by the Judicial Officers. The amount to be credited in the
Provident Fund Account would also be after deducting the income tax payable.
39. The States as well as the Union of India shall submit their compliance report by 30-
9-2002. Case be listed thereafter for further orders.
40. Any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of this
decision will be sought only from this Court. The proceedings if any, for implementation
of the directions given in this judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other
Court shall entertain them.
41. Before concluding, we record our high appreciation for the assistance rendered
by the learned Amicus Curiae-Shri F. S. Nariman, Shri Subhash Sharma, Shri C.S.
Ramulu, Shri A.T.M. Sampath and all other learned counsel.
X-222
Appendix-X
JT 2002 (4) SC 92
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka
S.P. BHARUCHA, CJI., SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, R.C. LAHOTI, N.

SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, RUMA PAL & ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.
Dt. 16.4.2002
1. No person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to
procedure established by law-declares Article 21 of the Constitution. 'Life and liberty',
the words employed in shaping Article 21, by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution,
are not to be read narrowly in the sense drearily dictated by dictionaries; they are organic
terms to be construed meaningfully. Embarking upon the interpretation thereof, feeling
the heart-throb of the Preamble, deriving strength from the Directive Principles of State
Policy and alive to their constitutional obligation, the Courts have allowed Article 21 to
stretch its arms as wide as it legitimately can. The mental agony, expense and strain
which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled
with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend
himself have persuaded the constitutional courts of the country in holding the right to
speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21.
Speedy trial, again, would encompass within its sweep all its stages including
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial - in short everything
commencing with an accusation and expiring with the final verdict - the two being
respectively the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem --of the journey which an accused
must necessarily undertake once faced with an implication. The constitutional philosophy
propounded as right to speedy trial has though grown in age by almost two and a half
decades, the goal sought to be achieved is yet a far-off peak. Myriad fact-situations
bearing testimony to denial of such fundamental right to the accused persons, on account
of failure on the part of prosecuting agencies and executive to act, and their turning an
almost blind eye at securing expeditious and speedy trial so as to satisfy the mandate of
Article 21 of the Constitution have persuaded this Court in devising solutions which go
to the extent of almost enacting, by judicial verdict bars of limitation beyond which the
trial shall not proceed and the arm of law shall lose its hold. In its zeal to protect the right
X-223
to speedy trial of an accused, can the Court devise and almost enact such bars of
limitation though the Legislature and the Statutes have not chosen to do so-is a question
of far-reaching implication which has led to the constitution of this Bench of seven-Judge
strength.
2. In Criminal Appeal No. 535/2000 the appellant was working as an Electrical
Superintendent in the Mangalore City Corporation. For the check period 1.5.1961 to
25.8.1987 he was found to have amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of
income. Charge-sheet accusing him of offences under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed on 15.3.1994. The accused
appeared before the Special Court and was enlarged on bail on 6.6.1994. Charges were
framed on 10.8.1994 and the case proceeded for trial on 8.11.1994. However, the trial did
not commence. On 23.2.1999 the learned Special Judge who was seized of the trial
directed the accused to be acquitted as the trial had not commenced till then and the
period of two years had elapsed which obliged him to acquit the accused in terms of the
directions of this court......
[Para Nos. 1-2]
8. .........Right to speedy trial and fair procedure has passed through several milestones on
the path of constitutional jurisprudence. In Maneka Gandhi (supra) , this Court held that
the several fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III required to be read as components
of one integral whole and not as separate channels. The reasonableness of law and
procedure, to withstand the test of Articles 21, 19 and 14, must be right and just and fair
and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive, meaning thereby that speedy trial must be
reasonably expeditious trial as an integral and essential part of the fundamental right of
life and liberty under Article 21. Several cases marking the trend and development of law
applying Maneka Gandhi and Hussainara Khatoon(I) principles to myriad situations
came up for the consideration of this Court by a Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman
Antulay and Ors. v. R.S. Nayan and Ors.9 , [(1992) 1 SCC 225] (A.R. Antulay, for short).
The proponents of right to speedy trial strongly urged before this Court for taking one
step forward in the direction and prescribing time limits beyond which no criminal
proceeding should be allowed to go on, advocating that unless this was done, Maneka
Gandhi and Hussainara Khatoon(I) exposition of Article 21 would remain a mere illusion
and a platitude. Invoking of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court so as to judicially
9 JT 1991 (6) SC 431
X-224
forge two termini and lay down periods of limitation applicable like a mathematical
formula, beyond which a trial or criminal proceeding shall not proceed, was resisted by
the opponents submitting that the right to speedy trial was an amorphous one something
less than other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The submissions made
by proponents included that the right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 to be
meaningful, enforceable and effective ought to be accompanied by an outer limit beyond
which continuance of the proceedings will be violative of Article 21. It was submitted
that Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied only to minor offences but
the Court should extend the same principle to major offences as well. It was also urged
that a period of 10 years calculated from the date of registration of crime should be
placed as an outer limit wherein shall be counted the time taken by the investigation.
[Para No. 8]
20. A perception of the cause for delay at the trial and in conclusion of criminal
proceedings is necessary so as to appreciate whether setting up bars of limitation
entailing termination of trial or proceedings can be justified. The root cause for delay in
dispensation of justice in our country is poor judge-population-ratio. Law Commission of
India in its 120th Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary (July 1987), based on its
survey, regretted that in spite of Article 39A added as a major Directive Principle in the
Constitution by 42nd Amendment (1976), obliging the State to secure such operation of
legal system as it promotes justice and to ensure that opportunities for securing justice
are not denied to any citizen several reorganisation proposals in the field of
administration of justice in India have been basically patch work, ad hoc and
unsystematic solutions to the problem. The judge-population-ratio in India (based on
1971 census) was only 10.5 judges per million population while such ratio was 41.6 in
Australia, 50.9 in England, 75.2 in Canada and 107 in United States. The law
Commission suggested that India required 107 judges per million of Indian population;
however to begin with the judge strength needed to be raised to five-fold, i.e., 50 judges
per million population in a period of five years but in any case not going beyond ten
years. Touch of sad sarcasm is difficult to hide when the Law Commission observed (in
its 120th Report, ibid) that adequate reorganisation of the Indian judiciary is at the one
and at the same time everybody's concern and, therefore, nobody's concern. There are
other factors contributing to the delay at the trial. In A.R. Antulay's case, vide para 83,
the Constitution Bench has noted that in spite of having proposed to go on with the trial
of a case, five days a week and week after week, it may not be possible to conclude the
X-225
trial for reasons, viz. (1) non-availability of the counsel, (2) non-availability of the
accused, (3) interlocutory proceedings, and (4) other systemic delays. In addition, the
Court noted that in certain cases there may be a large number of witnesses and in some
offences, by their very nature, the evidence may be lengthy. In Kartar Singh v. State of
Punjab 1994 (3) SCC 569 another Constitution Bench opined that the delay is
dependent on the circumstances of each case because reasons for delay will vary, such as
(i) delay in investigation on account of the widespread ramifications of crimes and its
designed network either nationally or internationally, (ii) the deliberate absence of
witness or witnesses, (iii) crowded dockets on the file of the court etc.....
[Para No. 20]
X-226
Appendix-Y
(2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 502
(BEFORE A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.)

BRIJ MOHAN LAL .. Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .. Respondents
.....the Government should not frame any policies or do any acts which shall derogate
from the very ethos of the stated basic principle of judicial independence. If the policy
decision of the State is likely to prove counter-productive and increase the pendency of
cases, thereby limiting the right to fair and expeditious trial to the litigants in this
country, it will be tantamount to infringement of their basic rights and constitutional
protections. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that in these cases, the Court could
issue a mandamus
[Para No. 111]
207. Without any intent to interfere with the policy decision taken by the Governments,
but, unmistakably, to protect the guarantees of Article 21 of the Constitution, to improve
the Justice Delivery System and fortify the independence of judiciary, while ensuring
attainment of constitutional goals as well as to do complete justice to the lis before us, in
terms of Article 142 of the Constitution, we pass the following orders and directions:
207.1. Being a policy decision which has already taken effect, we decline to strike down
the policy decision of the Union of India vide letter dated 14th September, 2010 not to
finance the FTC Scheme beyond 31st March, 2011.
207.2. All the States which have taken a policy decision to continue the FTC Scheme
beyond 31.3.2011 shall adhere to the respective dates as announced, for example in the
cases of States of Orissa (March 2013), Haryana (March 2016), Andhra Pradesh (March
2012) and Rajasthan (February 2013).
207.3. The States which are in the process of taking a policy decision on whether or not
to continue the FTC Scheme as a permanent feature of administration of justice in the
respective States are free to take such a decision.
X-227
207.4. It is directed that all the States, henceforth, shall not take a decision to continue
the FTC Scheme on ad hoc and temporary basis. The States are at liberty to decide but
only with regard either to bring the FTC Scheme to an end or to continue the same as a
permanent feature in the State.
207.5. The Union of India and the State Governments shall re-allocate and utilize the
funds apportioned by the Thirteenth Finance Commission and/or make provisions for
such additional funds to ensure regularization of the FTC judges in the manner indicated
and/or for creation of additional courts as directed in this judgment.
207.6. All the decisions taken and recommendations made at the Chief Justices and Chief
Ministers' Conference shall be placed before the Cabinet of the Centre or the State, as the
case may be, which alone shall have the authority to finally accept, modify or decline, the
implementation of such decisions and, that too, upon objective consideration and for
valid reasons. Let the Minutes of the Conference of 2009, at least now, be placed before
the Cabinet within three months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment for its
information and appropriate action.
207.7. No decision, recommendation or proposal made by the Chief Justices and Chief
Ministers' Conference shall be rejected or declined or varied at any bureaucratic level, in
the hierarchy of the Governments, whether in the State or the Centre.
207.8. We hereby direct that it shall be for the Central Government to provide funds for
carrying out the directions contained in this judgment and, if necessary, by re-allocation
of funds already allocated under the 13th Finance Commission for Judiciary. We further
direct that for creation of additional 10 per cent posts of the existing cadre, the burden
shall be equally shared by the Centre and the State Governments and funds be provided
without any undue delay so that the courts can be established as per the schedule directed
in this judgment.
207.9. All the persons who have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from the
Bar as Judges to preside over the FTCs under the FTC Scheme shall be entitled to be
appointed to the regular cadre of the Higher Judicial Services of the respective State only
in the following manner:
(a) The direct recruits to the FTCs who opt for regularization shall take a written
examination to be conducted by the High Courts of the respective States for determining
their suitability for absorption in the regular cadre of Additional District Judges.
(b) Thereafter, they shall be subjected to an interview by a Selection Committee
consisting of the Chief Justice and four senior-most Judges of that High Court.
X-228
(c) There shall be 150 marks for the written examination and 100 marks for the interview.
The qualifying marks shall be 40 per cent aggregate for general candidates and 35 per
cent for SC/ST/OBC candidates. The examination and interview shall be held in
accordance with the relevant Rules enacted by the States for direct appointment to
Higher Judicial Services.
(d) Each of the appointees shall be entitled to one mark per year of service in the FTCs,
which shall form part of the interview marks.
(e) Needless to point out that this examination and interview should be conducted by the
respective High Courts keeping in mind that all these applicants have put in a number of
years as FTC Judges and have served the country by administering Justice in accordance
with law. The written examination and interview module, should, thus, be framed
keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases.
(f) The candidates who qualify the written examination and obtain consolidated
percentage as afore-indicated shall be appointed to the post of Additional District Judge
in the regular cadre of the State.
(g) If, for any reason, vacancies are not available in the regular cadre, we hereby direct
the State Governments to create such additional vacancies as may be necessary keeping
in view the number of candidates selected.
(h) All sitting and/or former FTC Judges who were directly appointed from the Bar and
are desirous of taking the examination and interview for regular appointment shall be
given age relaxation. No application shall be rejected on the ground of age of the
applicant being in excess of the prescribed age.
207.10. The members of the Bar who have directly been appointed but whose services
were either dispensed with or terminated on the ground of doubtful integrity,
unsatisfactory work or against whom, on any other ground, disciplinary action had been
taken, shall not be eligible to the benefits stated in para 2.7.9 of the judgment.
207.11. Keeping in view the need of the hour and the Constitutional mandate to provide
fair and expeditious trial to all litigants and the citizens of the country, we direct the
respective States and the Central Government to create 10 per cent of the total regular
cadre of the State as additional posts within three months from today and take up the
process for filling such additional vacancies as per the Higher Judicial Service and
Judicial Services Rules of that State, immediately thereafter.
207.12. These directions, of course, are in addition to and not in derogation of the
recommendations that may be made by the Law Commission of India and any other
X-229
order which may be passed by the Courts of competent jurisdiction, in other such
matters.
207.13. The candidates from any State, who were promoted as FTC Judges from the post
of Civil Judge, Senior Division having requisite experience in service, shall be entitled to
be absorbed and remain promoted to the Higher Judicial Services of that State subject to:
(a) Such promotion, when effected against the 25 per cent quota for out-of-turn
promotion on merit, in accordance with the judgment of this Court in the case of All
India Judges' Association (3)12, by taking and being selected through the requisite
examination, as contemplated for out-of-turn promotion.
(b) If the appointee has the requisite seniority and is entitled to promotion against 25 per
cent quota for promotion by seniority-cum- merit, he shall be promoted on his own turn
to the Higher Judicial Services without any written examination.
(c) While considering candidates either under category (a) or (b) above, due weightage
shall be given to the fact that they have already put in a number of years in service in the
Higher Judicial Services and, of course, with reference to their performance.
(d) All other appointees in this category, in the event of discontinuation of the FTC
Scheme, would revert to their respective posts in the appropriate cadre.
208. In view of these orders, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 152 of 2011 has been rendered
infructuous and is dismissed as such. We appreciate the valuable and able assistance
rendered by the learned amicus curiae and all other Senior Counsel and assisting counsel
appearing in the present writ petition.
209. All interim orders passed in any of the above petitions shall automatically stand
vacated in terms of this order. With the above directions, all the appeals and other writ
petitions are partially allowed while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
[Para Nos. 207-209]
12 All India Judges' Assn. (3) v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 508
X-230
Appendix-Z
MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN AND ANR.

VERSUS
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1867 OF 2006 etc. etc. Dated: 04/01/2007
CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJI AND HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE C.K. THAKKER
.........Before we issue general directions and the time schedule to be adhered to
for filling vacancies that may arise in subordinate courts and district courts, it is
necessary to note that selections are required to be conducted by the
concerned authorities as per the existing Judicial Service Rules in the
respective States/Union Territories. We may, however, note that, progressively,
the concerned authorities would consider, discuss and eventually may arrive
at a consensus that the selection process be conducted by the High Court
itself or by Public Service Commission under the control and supervision of the High
Court. In this regard, considerable progress has already been made.
Reference can be made to the decision taken in a Conference held between the
Chief Justices and Chief Ministers, minutes whereof show that in some of the
States, selection of subordinate judicial officers at all levels of civil judges is
already being made by the High Courts. Some States, where selection is still being
made by the Public Service Commission, were agreeable to entrust the selection to
the High Courts whereas Chief Ministers/Ministers of Himachal Pradesh, West
Bengal, Punjab and Kerala were of the view that the present system may
continue but the decision taken jointly was that in the said States [Himachal
Pradesh, West Bengal, Punjab and Kerala] setting up of question papers and
evaluation of answer sheets be entrusted to the High Court. Further decision
taken was that in other States where selection of subordinate judicial officers is not
being done by the High Courts, such selection be entrusted to the High
Courts by amending relevant Rules. In this connection, with the affidavit filed on
X-231
behalf of the Calcutta High Court, a copy of the letter dated 15th September,
2006, addressed by the Registrar General of the said Court to the Secretary, Judicial
Department, Government of West Bengal, has also been annexed. That letter
refers to the aforesaid decision taken in the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief
Justices held on 11th March, 2006 requesting the State Government for effecting suitable
amendment in the recruitment rules in terms of the decision in the
Conference above-referred. At this stage, however, these are not the issues
for our consideration. As already indicated, the selection is to be conducted by
authorities empowered to do so as per the existing Rules.
Though no submission was made by any learned counsel appearing for
any State Government that the constitution of selection committee by the
Chief Justice of the High Court to monitor the timely appointment of
judges at subordinate/district level would amount to interference with the
independent functioning of the State Public Service Commission, but some
State Governments in their responses have indicated so. In view of what we have
already noted about the appointments to be made in accordance with the respective
Judicial Services Rules in the States, the apprehension of interference seems
to be wholly misplaced. A Committee constituted by the Chief Justice of the High
Court to ensure that the vacancies are timely filled and the problem of delay
in dispensation of justice is tackled to some extent under no circumstances
be said to be interference with the independent functioning of the authorities
under the Rules or of independent functioning of the State Public Service
Commission.
For filling up of vacancies in the cadre of District Judges, accepting
the proposal to which none has objected, except in the manner hereinafter noticed,
we direct as under:
A. For filling of vacancies in the cadre of District Judge in respect of
(a) twenty five per cent vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment from the
Bar; and
(b) twenty five per cent by promotion through limited competitive

examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) not having less than five years of
qualifying service.
X-232
S. No. Description Date
1. Number of vacancies to be notified by 31st March

the High Court.
Vacancies to be calculated including
a] existing vacancies
b] future vacancies that may arise
within one year due to retirement.
c] future vacancies that may arise due
to elevation to the High Court, death
or otherwise, say ten per cent of the
number of posts.
d] Vacancies arising due to
deputation of judicial officers to
other department may be considered
as temporary vacancy.
2. Advertisement inviting applications 15th April

from eligible candidates
3. Last date for receipt of application 30th April
4. Publication of list of eligible 15th May

applicants
List may be put on the website
5. Despatch/issue of admit cards to the 16th May to 15th June

eligible applicants
6. Written Examination 30th June

Written examination may be
a] objective questions with multiple
choice which can be scrutinized by
the computer; and
X-233
b] subjective/narrative
7. Declaration of result of written 16th August

examination
a] Result may be put on the website
and also published in the newspaper
b] The ratio of 1 : 3 of the available

vacancies to the successful candidates
be maintained.
8. Viva Voce 1st to 7th September
9. Declaration of final select list and 15th September

communication to the appointing
authority
b] Select list be published in order of
merit and should be double the
number of vacancies notified.
c] Select list shall be valid till the
next select list is published.
10. Issue of appointment letter by the 30th September

competent authority for all existing
vacant posts as on date
11. Last date for joining 31st October
B. For filling of vacancies in the cadre of District Judge in respect of fifty per
cent vacancies to be filled by promotion.
X-234
the High Court.
to elevation to the High Court, death
or otherwise, say ten per cent of the
number of posts.
2. Publication of list of eligible officers 15th May

a] The list may be put on the website
b] Zone of consideration should be
1 : 3 of the number of vacancies
3. Receipt of judgments from the 30th May

eligible officers
4. Viva Voce 15th to 31st July

Criteria
a] ACR for last five years;
b] Evaluation of judgments
furnished; and
c] Performance in the oral interview
5. Declaration of final select list and 31st August

authority

X-235

C. For filling of vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior

Division) to be filled by promotion.
S. No. Description Date

the High Court.
to promotion, death or otherwise, say
ten per cent of the number of posts.
2. Publication of list of eligible officers 15th May

a] The list may be put on the website
b] Zone of consideration should be
1 : 3 of the number of vacancies
3. Receipt of judgments from the 30th May

eligible officers
4. Viva Voce 1st to 16th August

Criteria
a] ACR for last five years;
X-236
b] Evaluation of Judgments
furnished; and
c] Performance in the oral interview
5. Declaration of final select list and 15th September

authority


D. For appointment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by
direct recruitment.
S.No. Description Date
1. Number of vacancies to be notified by 15th January

the High Court.
to promotion, death or otherwise, say
ten per cent of the number of posts.
2. Advertisement inviting applications 1st February
X-237
from eligible candidates
3. Last date for receipt of application 1st March
4. Publication of list of eligible 2nd April

applicants
The list may be put on the website
5. Despatch/issue of admit cards to the 2nd to 30th April

eligible applicants
6. Preliminary written examination 15th May

Objective questions with multiple
choice which can be scrutinized by
computer
7. Declaration of result of preliminary 15th June

written examination
and also published in the Newspaper
be maintained
8. Final Written examination 15th July

Subjective/narrative
9. Declaration of result of final written 30th August

examination
and also published in the Newspaper
X-238
be maintained
c] Dates of interview of the successful
candidates may be put on the internet
which can be printed by the
candidates and no separate
intimation of the date of interview
need be sent.
10. Viva Voce 1st to 15th October
11. Declaration of final select list and 1st November

authority
12. Issue of appointment letter by the 1st December

13. Last date for joining 2nd January of the following year
These directions would not be applicable to the judiciary in the Sikkim

High Court in view of a very small cadre of judiciary in that State.
We request the Chief Justice of each High Court to constitute a

committee of two or three judges to monitor and oversee that timely
selection and appointment of judicial officers is made. The Chief Justice is
further requested to constitute a special cell in the name of `Selection and
Appointment' in the High Court or under such other name as the learned
Chief Justice may be consider proper with an officer of the rank of Registrar for
X-239
assisting the Committee and the Chief Justice for complying with the aforesaid time
schedule.
The Registrar of the aforesaid selection and appointment committee shall

send to the Registrar General of this Court by 31st January every year report
as regards the filling up of vacancies with copies to Minister for Law and
Justice in the Central Government and the Law Minister of the concerned State. The
Registrar would also bring it to the notice of the Committee and the Chief
Justice any deviation from the time schedule.
Insofar as the State of Bihar is concerned, the Patna High Court has suggested
that due to feasibility of floods, the time schedule between June and
November is not feasible and that the time schedule of one year may be
modified so as to complete the selection process from December to June in
the said State. Learned counsel for the State Government and the Public Service
Commission has supported the view-point of the High Court. Accordingly, the
High Court can suitably, after consulting with the Public Service Commission
and the State Government, amend the aforesaid time schedule. The amended time
schedule be filed in this Court.
Insofar as Delhi is concerned, it has been stated that entire selection process
is conducted by the High Court and examination is held twice in a year
for the Delhi Judicial Service. The High Court may, accordingly, amend the
aforesaid time schedule so as to conduct the selection process twice in a year and
the revised time schedule shall be placed on the record of this case. For the present, the
Delhi High Court is permitted three months' time for publication of final result
after the written examination.
The appointment letters shall be issued by the State Government

within one month of receipt of the recommendations from the respective
High Court/State Public Service Commission.
The select list prepared for all categories of officials shall be valid till
X-240
the next select list is published.
We further direct that ten per cent of unforeseen vacancies would be

in respect of sanctioned posts and not vacancies occurring in a particular year.
List of candidates eligible to appear in the examination and final list

shall also be published in the local newspaper and be personally intimated to
the officers, in addition to the same being placed on the website.
The High Courts/State Governments/Union Territories shall be at

liberty to apply to this Court for variation in the time schedule in case of
any difficulty having regard to the peculiar geographical and climatic
conditions in the State or other relevant consideration. However, till such time a
different time schedule is permitted, the aforesaid time schedule shall be
adhered to and appointments made accordingly.
We place on record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Mr. Vijay
Hansaria, learned amicus curiae.
For further directions, list the matter after four months.
X-241
Appendix-AA
(2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 688
(Before A.K.GANGULY and T.S.THAKUR, JJ.)
IMTIYAZ AHMAD ....... Appellant;
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ........ Respondents.
56. It is true that this Court has no power of superintendence over High Court as the
High Court has over District Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution. Like
this Court, High Court is equally a Superior Court of Record with plenary
jurisdiction. Under our Constitution the High Court is not a court subordinate to
this Court. This Court, however, enjoys appellate powers over the High Court as
also some other incidental powers. But as the last court and in exercise of this
Courts power to do complete justice which includes within it the power to
improve the administration of justice in public interest, this Court gives the
aforesaid guidelines for sustaining common mans faith in the rule of law and
the justice delivery system, both being inextricably linked.
57. Certain directions are also given to the Law Commission which are as follows:
a) Since the Law Commission itself is seized with the problem and is making
investigation having regard to its terms of reference specially clause H
thereof, this Court requests the Law Commission, which is headed by a
distinguished retired judge of this Court, to undertake an enquiry and
submit its recommendation in relation to the following matters:-
I. Keeping in view that timely justice is an important facet to access to
justice, the immediate measures that need to be taken by way of creation
of additional courts and other allied matters (including a rational and
scientific definition of "arrears" and delay, of which continued notice
needs to be taken), to help in elimination of delays, speedy clearance of
arrears and reduction in costs. It is trite to add that the qualitative
component of justice must not be lowered or compromised; and
II. Specific recommendations whenever considered necessary on the above
aspects in relation to each State be made as a product of consultative
processes involving the High Courts and other stake holders, including the
X-242
Bar.
b) In doing so, the Commission may take such assistance from the Central
Government and the State Governments as it thinks fit and proper.
c) Accordingly, it is directed that on the Commissions request for assistance
both the Central Government and the State Governments shall render all
possible assistance to the Commission to enable it to discharge its
functions, as directed by this Court in its order. The Commission shall at
the discretion of its Chairman be free to co-opt for purposes of the enquiry
to be undertaken by it, such legal and technical experts as may be
considered necessary by it for an effective and early completion of the
assignment hereby made.
d) The Commission is requested to submit its report within six months from
the date of this order.
e) Such recommendations be sent to the Registrar General of this Court in
sealed covers.
58. The matter may appear before the appropriate Bench after being nominated by
the Honble the Chief Justice on 7-8-2012 for further consideration by this court
of the recommendations by the Law Commission and if necessary for further
directions to be passed in these appeals.
[Para Nos. 56-58]
X-243
Appendix-BB
OFFICE ORDER FOR

ESTABLISHMENT OF
NATIONAL COURT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
SOURCED FROM
NCMS POLICY & ACTION PLAN
X-244
CHAPTER 12
APPENDIX
Appendix - 'A'
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

[Office of Secretary General]
Ref. No.:4/SG/NCMS/2012
Dated :02.05.2012
OFFICE ORDER
Subject: Establishment of National Court Management Systems (NCMS) for

enhancing timely justice.
WHEREAS a proposal was placed before Honble the Chief Justice of India regarding
the need to establish a comprehensive Court Management Systems for the country that
will enhance quality, responsiveness and time lines of Court; and
WHEREAS it was mentioned that the Court Management Systems will need to
include the following six main elements: -
(1)A National Framework of Court Excellence (NFCE) that will set measurable
performance standards for Indian courts, addressing issues of quality, responsiveness and
timeliness.
(2)A system for monitoring and enhancing the performance parameters

established in the NFCE on quality, responsiveness and timeliness.
(3)A system of Case Management to enhance user friendliness of the Judicial

System.
(4)A National System of Judicial Statistics (NSJS) to provide a common national

platform for recording and maintaining judicial statistics from across the country. NSJS
should provide real time statistics on cases and courts that will enable systematic analysis
of key factors such as quality, timeliness and efficiency of the judicial system across
courts, districts/states, types of cases, stages of cases, costs of adjudication, time lines of
X-245
cases, productivity and efficiency of courts, use of budgets and financial resources. It
would enhance transparency and accountability.
(5)A Court Development Planning System that will provide a framework for
systematic five year plans for the future development of the Indian judiciary. The
planning system will include individual court development plans for all the courts.
(6)A Human Resource Development strategy setting standards on selection and

training of judges of subordinate courts.
AND FURTHER WHEREAS Honble the Chief Justice of India, after consulting
Minister of Law and Justice in the Government of India, has been pleased to direct that
National Court Management Systems, for enhancing timely justice, may be established.
NOW THEREFORE, By Order, following directions are given:-
(1) Under overall control of Honble the Chief Justice of India, National Court
Management Systems (NCMS) for enhancing timely justice is established as per Scheme
annexed.
(2) There shall be National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC)
which shall consist of the following:
Chair:
A Jurist/Domain Expert nominated by the Honble Chief Justice of India. He will

be paid honorarium and given such facilities as may be decided by Honble the Chief
Justice of India for Chairing N.C.M.S.C.
Members:
1. Four Sitting Judges (preferably one from each zone in India) nominated by the
Honble Chief Justice of India.
2. Secretary General of the Supreme Court (ex-officio).

3. Joint Secretary and Mission Director (National Mission for Judicial Delivery
and Legal Reforms), Department of Justice, Government of India (ex officio)
4.Registrar Generals of three High Courts nominated by the Honble Chief Justice
of India.
5.Director, National Judicial Academy.
X-246
6. Two practising Advocates nominated by the Honble Chief Justice of India.
7. An expert Statistician, nominated by the Chief Statistician of India.
8. An expert in management of decision making systems and process re-

engineering, nominated by the Honble Chief Justice of India.
9. An expert in Computer Technology relevant to Court Management, nominated

by the Honble Chief Justice of India.
10. A representative of a NGO working for improving access to justice and user
friendliness of courts, nominated by the Chief Justice of India
11. Additional Registrar, Information and Statistics, Supreme Court of India (ex-
officio) Member Secretary
(3) The Committee shall be supported by necessary staff and facilities as

following:
a. Branch Officer - One
(In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of
Supreme Court of India)
b. Senior Personal Assistant - One
c. Personal Assistant - One
(In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme
Court of India)
d. Court Assistant - One
e. Junior Court Assistants - Two
f. Chauffeur - One
g. Junior Court Attendants - Three
X-247
The staff shall be on establishment of Supreme Court of India and/or called on

deputation on such terms, conditions and facilities as Honble the Chief Justice of India
may decide. They shall be under overall supervision of Additional Registrar, Information
and Statistics, Supreme Court of India for day-to-day functioning.
(4) Advisory Committee:
The NCMS Committee shall be advised by an Advisory Committee consisting of

two Judges of Supreme Court of India and such other Chief Justices/Judges of High
Courts as may be nominated by the Honble Chief Justice of India.
The Chair of the NCMS Committee shall be a member of the Advisory

Committee.
Secretary, Department of Justice, Government of India, shall be Ex-Officio

Member of the Advisory Committee.
The Secretary-General of the Supreme Court shall be the convenor of the

Advisory Committee.
(5) Office of Registrar (Admn. I), Supreme Court of India shall separately take directions
regarding creation of posts as above. The Systems will start functioning initially from
present Office of Additional Registrar (Information), Supreme Court of India and, later
on, will expand to share space in the Office of E-Committee at Lok Nayak Bhawan,
Khan Market, New Delhi.
(6) All expenses in connection with the functioning of the NCMS, including salary
and allowances, etc., of the Staff, will be met from the sanctioned Budget of the Supreme
Court of India.
S/d-
(A.I.S. Cheema)
Secretary General
[Page Nos. 47 to 51]
X-248
Appendix-CC

(NCMS)
POLICY & ACTION PLAN
RELEASED BY:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
PREPARED BY
COMMITTEE
IN CONSULTATION WITH
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
X-249
NATIONAL COURT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (NCMS)

POLICY AND ACTION PLAN
INDEX
No. Title Page No.

1. Chapter- 1- Introduction 2-3
2. Chapter- 2 The Scheme 4-13
3. Chapter - 3 Statistics 14-18
4. Chapter- 4 Infrastructure 19-33
5. Chapter- 5 Personnel 34-35
6. Chapter- 6 Management of Courts and Cases 36-38
7. Chapter- 7 Annual Confidential Reports 39-40
8. Chapter- 8 Investigation and Enquiries 41
9. Chapter- 9 Judge-Population Ratio 42-43
10. Chapter- 10 Budget 44
11. Chapter- 11 Institutionalising NCMS 45-46
12. Chapter- 12 Appendix 47-53
X-250
CHAPTER-2
THE SCHEME
2.1 Honble The Chief Justice of India has been pleased to approve the following
Scheme on 02.05.2012.
SCHEME OF NATIONAL COURT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

(NCMS) FOR ENHANCING TIMELY JUSTICE
A. Background and Rationale
India has one of the largest judicial systems in the world with over 3 crores of
cases and sanctioned strength of some 16,000* Judges. The system has expanded rapidly
in the last three decades, reflecting Indias social, economic and political development in
this period. It is estimated that the number of Judges/Courts expanded six fold while the
number of cases expanded by double that number twelve fold. The judicial system is
set to continue to expand significantly over the next three decades, rising, by the most
conservative estimate, to at least about 15 crores of cases requiring at least some 75,000
Courts/Judges1
1 Global and national experience shows that the number of new cases filed into a judicial system increases
with literacy and economic wealth (for example, Kerala, with a literacy rate of over 90%, has some 28 new
cases per thousand population as against some 4 cases per thousand population in Jharkhand which has a
literacy rate of some 53%). As Indias literacy rate and per capita income increases the number of new
cases filed per thousand population is likely to increase from the current rate of about 15 (up from roughly
around 3 cases per thousand cases some three decades ago) to about 75 cases in the next three decades. By
this time Indias population should be about 1.5billion. This will mean that at least some 15 crores of cases
may be filed into the judicial system each year by then. To achieve a ratio of 50 judges per million
population, at 1.5 billion population, India will need to have 75,000 judges
*Subsequently collected data shows this figure as 18871 as on 31.12.2011. Please see Para 3.4.
X-251
Some* 74% of the cases in Indian courts are less than five years old, of which
some *40% are less than 1 year old. There is an urgent need to make the Judicial System
five plus free (i.e., free of cases more than five years old) by addressing the *26% of
cases that are older than five years. There is an equally urgent need to shorten the average
life cycle of all cases not only time spent within each court, but also total time in the
judicial system as a whole, to bring the average to no more than about one year in each
court. There is also need to systematically maintain and continuously seek to enhance
quality and responsiveness of justice.
Addressing these challenges will require substantial upgrading of court

management systems. Today, data on cases filed in the Indian judicial system is still
gathered and maintained in manual data systems by courts across the country (especially
data of subordinate courts where nearly 90% if the litigation resides) involving manual
recording of case and court information in over 50-60 registers or manuals (or more).
Each month, considerable time is spent by local courts compiling data from manual
registers to submit reports to higher courts. There are a few exceptions where information
is entered and maintained in computerized systems at the subordinate court level. There
are inconsistencies across States in terms of the data categories and criteria applied to the
data (for example, in some states supplementary matters, or sometimes even each prayer
for relief, may be counted as a separate case whereas in other states only the main case
may be counted as a case; the.........
[Para No. 2.1, Page Nos 1, 4 to 5]
B. Objectives
Against the above background, the Honble Chief Justice of India, Honble
Justice S.H. Kapadia has expressed a desire to establish comprehensive Court
Management Systems for the country that will enhance quality, responsiveness and
timeliness of courts.
Honble the Chief Justice of India, after consulting the Minister of Law and
Justice in the Government of India, is pleased to establish National Court Management
Systems.
* Subsequently crystallized data may be seen in Chapter-3.
X-252
The National Court Management Systems will be under overall control of
Honble the Chief Justice of India. It will primarily deal with policy issues. NCMS will
include the following six main elements:
(1)A National Framework of Court Excellence (NFCE) that will set measurable
performance standards for Indian courts, addressing issues of quality, responsiveness
and timeliness.
(2)A system for monitoring and enhancing the performance parameters established in the
NFCE on quality, responsiveness and timeliness.
(3)A system of Case Management to enhance user friendliness of the Judicial System.
(4)A National System of Judicial Statistics (NSJS) to provide a common national

platform for recording and maintaining judicial statistics from across the country. NSJS
should provide real time statistics on cases and courts that will enable systematic
analysis of key factors such as quality, timeliness and efficiency of the judicial system
across courts, districts/states, types of cases, stages of cases, costs of adjudication, time
lines of cases, productivity and efficiency of courts, use of budgets and financial
resources. It would enhance transparency and accountability.
(5)A Court Development Planning System that will provide a framework for systematic
five year plans for the future development of the Indian judiciary. The planning system
will include individual court development plans for all the courts.
(6)A Human Resource Development Strategy setting standards on selection and training
of judges of subordinate courts.
[Page Nos. 7-8]
X-253
CHAPTER 9
JUDGE-POPULATION RATIO
9.1 Honble Supreme Court of India, in the matter of All India Judges Association v.
Union of India [2002 (4) SCC 247], observed as under: -
25. An independent and efficient judicial system is one of the

basic structures of our Constitution. If sufficient number of Judges are not
appointed, justice would not be available to the people, thereby
undermining the basic structure. It is well known that justice delayed is
justice denied. Time and again the inadequacy in the number of Judges
has adversely been commented upon. Not only have the Law Commission
and the standing committee of Parliament made observations in this
regard, but even the head of the judiciary, namely, the Chief Justice of
India has had more occasions than once to make observations in regard
thereto. Under the circumstances, we feel it is our constitutional obligation
to ensure that the backlog of the cases is decreased and efforts are made to
increase the disposal of cases. Apart from the steps which may be
necessary for increasing the efficiency of the judicial officers, we are of
the opinion that time has now come for protecting one of the pillars of the
Constitution, namely, the judicial system, by directing increase, in the first
instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 or 13 per 10
lakhs people to 50 Judges for 10 lakh people. We are conscious of the fact
that overnight these vacancies cannot be filled. In order to have Additional
Judges, not only the post will have to be created but infrastructure
required in the form of Additional Court rooms, buildings, staff, etc.,
would also have to be made available. We are also aware of the fact that a
large number of vacancies as of today from amongst the sanctioned
strength remain to be filled. We, therefore, first direct that the existing
vacancies in the subordinate Court at all levels should be filled, if
possible, latest by 31st March, 2003, in all the States. The increase in the
X-254
Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people should be effected and
implemented with the filling up of the posts in phased manner to be
determined and directed by the Union Ministry of Law, but this process
should be completed and the increased vacancies and posts filled within a
period of five years from today. Perhaps increasing the Judge strength by
10 per 10 lakh people every year could be one of the methods which may
be adopted thereby completing the first stage within five years before
embarking on further increase if necessary.
9.2 The above observations of Honble Supreme Court of India made on 21.03.2002
still require attention and Judge-Population ratio requires to be narrowed down.
Sufficient Court Rooms, Buildings and staff are yet to be made available. States are
required to act in this regard.
9.3 While examining this, it may be important to keep in mind the actual amount of
litigation and other relevant factors in various States to determine the Judge-Population
Ratio.
X-255
CHAPTER 10
BUDGET
10.1 In Taluka Courts, District Courts and High Courts, experience shows that the
clerical staff picks up demands as were made in the earlier years for funds and
grants and the same is forwarded to the Government by taking signature of the
Judges in the Districts or Registrar General at the level of High Court. Most of the
Judicial Officers are not proficient in the art of planning and preparation of
Budgets so that the Budget meets the requirements for the next year and is neither
excessive nor short. Need of expert assistance at these levels is matter of
consideration.
10.2 Providing sufficient Budget to Judiciary has to be the highest priority of the State.
Appropriate facilities have to be made available to maintain judicial
independence, efficiency and dignity.
10.3 For proper preparation of Budget, posts of professional Accountants need to be

created.
10.4 Requirement of financial autonomy needs to be pursued.
10.5 System for timely audit of accounts, needs to be put in place.
[Para Nos. 10.1 to 10.5, Page No. 44]
X-256
Appendix-DD
NATIONAL FRAMEWORK OF COURT

EXCELLENCE
Report by the Sub-Committee headed by Justice G.

Rohini, assisted by Justice C. Praveen Kumar, Judge,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Sri G. Shyam Prasad,
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, Sri V.
Seetharama Avadhani, Director, A.P. Judicial Academy,
Hyderabad and Sri G. Butchaiah Sastry, PS to Justice G.
Rohini.
X-257
NCMS BASELINE REPORT
on
NATIONAL FRAMEWORK OF COURT EXCELLENCE (NFCE)
REPORT OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE

HEADED BY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
Each Hon'ble High Court determines and applies standards for

Court Management for itself and its Subordinate Courts as it may
consider appropriate. This Report sets out suggestions gathered
from various High Courts across the country, as well as
suggestions from concerned subject matter experts and
comparable global experience, on what may be considered
minimum national common standards on Court Management
Systems. The Report is purely advisory in nature and may be
considered by the respective State Court Management Systems
Committees of High Courts if they deem appropriate in
accordance with the circumstances and needs of each State. It is a
dynamic working document and will be revised and updated from
time to time as needed based on feedback received from State
Court Management Systems Committees of High Courts and
NCMS experience and guidance. It is intended to facilitate a
dialogue amongst National and State Court Management Systems
Committees on minimum national common standards for Court
Management Systems at a policy level. Suggestions from judges
and subject matter experts are therefore welcome through the
respective State Court Management Systems Committees. The
contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Supreme Court of India, members of the NCMS Advisory
Committee or members of the NCMS Committee in their
individual capacity.
X-258
C H A P T E R IV
Performance Areas for Court Excellence
4.1 There is rapid increase during the past three decades in the institution of cases and
radical change in the pattern of litigation. The absence of adequate number of judges on
par with the increase in the institution of cases has resulted in mounting arrears and
backlog of cases and many cases are pending in the trial courts for more than five years.
The reasons for delay in disposal of cases may broadly be identified as under:
(i) Inadequate Judge-strength

(ii) Lack of supporting staff and essential infrastructure.
(iii) Lengthy call work consuming quality time of the Courts.
(iv) Repeated adjournment of cases resulting in rescheduling court
process and disrupting the progress of the case.
(v) Lack of mechanism for segregating the simple cases which can
be disposed of within the shortest possible time compared to
complex cases involving number of witnesses.
(vi) Lack of coordination between the Bench and the Bar.
[Chaper 4, Page No. 11]
X-259
Appendix-EE

HEADED BY JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA ON
'HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY'
X-260
NCMS BASELINE REPORT
on
HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

HEADED BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
Each Hon'ble High Court determines and applies standards for

Court Management for itself and its Subordinate Courts as it may
consider appropriate. This Report sets out suggestions gathered
from various High Courts across the country, as well as
suggestions from concerned subject matter experts and
comparable global experience, on what may be considered
minimum national common standards on Court Management
Systems. The Report is purely advisory in nature and may be
considered by the respective State Court Management Systems
Committees of High Courts if they deem appropriate in
accordance with the circumstances and needs of each State. It is a
dynamic working document and will be revised and updated from
time to time as needed based on feedback received from State
Court Management Systems Committees of High Courts and
NCMS experience and guidance. It is intended to facilitate a
dialogue amongst National and State Court Management Systems
Committees on minimum national common standards for Court
Management Systems at a policy level. Suggestions from judges
and subject matter experts are therefore welcome through the
respective State Court Management Systems Committees. The
contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Supreme Court of India, members of the NCMS Advisory
Committee or members of the NCMS Committee in their
individual capacity.
X-261
CHAPTER-II
SELECTION OF JUDGES
......A judge who has the knack of indulging in research would utilize the rest of the
hours. The nature of hard work would necessarily require the judge to have a healthy
body. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the selectors give due weight to the
health of the aspirant, apart from those referred to above.
Although quite a few of the High Courts in the country are presently conducting
the process of recruitment in the subordinate judiciary, the Public Service Commissions
of the other States have been entrusted to select judges based on competitive
examinations conducted by them. They seem to be over-burdened. The delays in the
process make the system unworkable. It would not at all be a bad idea to entrust a
committee, by whatever name called, with the task of recruitment at all levels of the
courts subordinate to the High Courts. The committee of each State, to supervise and
monitor the recruitment procedure, may comprise of two/three puisne Judges of the High
Court, and an expert nominated by the Honble the Chief Justice of that High Court. It
should be the earnest endeavor of each player in the system to provide support to the
committee for engaging men of merit, viz. retired judges, academics, retired bureaucrats,
etc., for conducting the process of selection viz. setting of questions, evaluating the
answers, moderation of results, and holding personality tests. Support staff with
impeccable character traits ought to be made available to the committee, since the
process is bound to involve impartiality and confidentiality of the highest standards but at
the same time has to be fair and transparent. Selection by such committee would be in
line with the directions passed by the Honble Supreme Court on 4th January, 2007 in
Civil Appeal No. 1869 of 2006 (Malik Mazhar Sultan and anr. v. U.P. Public Service
Commission and ors.) wherein reference was made to a decision taken in a conference
held between the Chief Justices and the Chief Ministers that selection of the subordinate
judicial officers at all levels ought to be entrusted to the High Courts.
Vacancy at all levels of the judiciary is regarded as one of the important causes
for the mounting arrears. It is of utmost significance, therefore, that the process of
recruitment commences and concludes, as far as practicable, in line with the schedule
fixed by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra).
Although increasing the number of courts, inter alia, is considered to be a panacea
X-262
for treating the ills from which the system suffers, attention must be devoted to fill up the
existing vacancies first within the shortest possible time frame so that no court is vacant,
albeit by men/women of quality, as stressed above. The system is bound to benefit if the
courts are allowed to work with its full strength. Increasing the strength of judges without
provision for commensurate infra-structure and support staff would hardly be of any
effect and frustrate the object of making the system five plus free.
Insofar as direct recruitment to 25% and jump promotion to 10% posts of the
cadre of District Judge are concerned, it has been experienced in the past that while the
former quota remains unfilled, suitable candidates far outnumber the latter quota. This
has a two-pronged adverse effect on the system. First, the system has to work without
adequate number of judicial officers manning the Additional District and Sessions courts,
and secondly, those who qualify in the examinations conducted for the purpose but are
unfortunate in not being promoted may feel morose and lose the interest and vitality to
perform, at least till they overcome the shock. It would be in the best interest of the
system if the unfilled posts of the 25% quota for a particular year are filled up from
amongst the in-service candidates found suitable but who are unable to secure a
promotion having regard to the limited number of vacancies.
[Chapter II, Page Nos. 4 and 5]
X-263
Appendix-FF
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED
IN THE
CHIEF JUSTICES CONFERENCE, 2016
[22ND & 23RD APRIL, 2016]
*****
[1] PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

IN THE PREVIOUS CHIEF JUSTICES CONFERENCE HELD ON APRIL 3 4,
2015.
The progress made by the High Courts for the implementation of the
resolutions adopted in the Conference of Chief Justices held on 3 and 4 April 2015 is
reviewed and noted.
The Conference resolved that the Chief Justices will set up a Cell or Committee
for monitoring the implementation of the resolutions passed in the Chief Justices'
Conferences. Each High Court shall create a mechanism for submitting progress reports
to the Supreme Court on the implementation of the resolutions by periodically updating
feedback formats. The Conference resolves to affirm the desirability of creating a mini
Secretariat for tracking the progress made in implementing the resolutions which have
been agreed upon.
[Page No. 1]
[2] INFRASTRUCTURE IN SUBORDINATE COURTS:
X-264
......PART B
(i) Creation of new posts/revision of cadre strength at all levels along

with supporting staff and requisite infrastructure
(ii) Filling up of existing and additional vacancies
(iii) Vesting of power to the High Courts for selection and appointment
of Judicial Magistrates in the State
Having reviewed the data emanating from the State judiciaries in regard to:
(i) sanctioning and creation of new posts;
(ii) revision of cadre strength at all levels;
(iii) availability of supporting staff with requisite

infrastructure;
(iv) position of vacancies of Judges and of supporting staff in

the state judiciaries; and
(v) recruitment at the induction level of Judicial Magistrates

by the High Courts themselves in some States and through Public Service
Commissions in others,
Resolved that
(i) the Chief Justices shall take effective steps in coordination with the State
Governments
(a) to ensure an increase in the cadre strength of the district judiciary

commensurate with the needs of their states and in compliance with
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal Vs Union of
X-265
India (2002) 5 SCC 1;
(b) to ensure compliance with the time schedule and directions laid
down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan
& Anr. Vs U P Public Service Commission & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC
507.
(ii) the Chief Justices shall, in particular, ensure that the

Selection and Appointment Committees in the High Courts periodically
monitor the process of filling up of vacancies in the District Judiciary; and
(iii) the Chief Justices constitute, where such Cells have not
been constituted, Special Cells in the High Courts with an officer in the rank
of Registrar for assisting the Selection and Appointment Committee in
complying with the time schedule;
(iv) urgent steps be taken by the High Courts to ensure that

posts of administrative staff in the District Judiciary are filled up at the
earliest, and if found to be feasible, by centralizing the process of
recruitment;
(v) an on-line portal be developed for continuous monitoring

of vacancies.
Resolved further that it be left to each High Court to determine, having regard to
the needs and exigencies of the State and upon a review of the existing procedure
for selection, whether any alteration is required to be made in current procedure
followed for the appointment of Judicial Magistrates in the states.
[Page Nos. 4-6]
X-266
Appendix-GG
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED
IN THE
CHIEF JUSTICES' CONFERENCE, 2015
[03RD & 04TH APRIL, 2015]
*****
[1] PROGRESS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESOLUTIONS

ADOPTED IN THE PREVIOUS CHIEF JUSTICES' CONFERENCE
HELD ON APRIL 5 - 6, 2013.
Resolved that though considerable progress has been made, more efforts are
required to be undertaken for effective implementation of the Resolutions adopted in the
previous Chief Justices' Conference held in 2013.
[2] (i) CONTINUATION OF MORNING/EVENING COURTS

(ii) DIVERSION OF UNUTILISED FUNDS EARMARKED BY THE
RECOMMENDATION OF 13TH FINANCE COMMISSION FOR
MORNING/EVENING COURTS.
Resolved that :
(a) the High Courts will review the working of morning/evening courts and continue
such courts as are........
[3] DELAY AND ARREARS COMMITTEE [Page No. 1]

....Resolved that :-
(a) each High Court shall establish an Arrears Committee, if not already established
and shall prepare an action plan to clear backlog of cases pending for more than five
years;
(b) the High Courts will endeavour to evolve a uniform nomenclature for all
categories of cases in coordination with the e-Committee for the entire country; and (c)
X-267
for statistical purposes, the High Courts will count the main cases only towards pendency
and arrears. Interlocutory applications will continue to be separately numbered in original
proceedings before the High Courts exercising original jurisdiction.
[4] SALARIES AND EMOLUMENTS OF THE SERVING CHIEF

JUSTICES/JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURTS
Resolved that keeping in view constitutional office of the Chief Justices/Judges
of the High Courts and the nature of their duties and the observations of Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar, Chairman, Drafting Committee, in the Constituent Assembly of India on 12 th
October 1949, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India is requested to take up the matter
with the Central Government to establish a National Judicial Pay Commission to
consider pay, emoluments, perquisites, etc. of the Chief Justices/Judges of the High
Courts and of the Supreme Court.
[5] AUGMENTING OF POST-RETIRAL BENEFITS OF HIGH COURT

CHIEF JUSTICES/JUDGES
The House noted that different High Courts have been granting different post-
retiral benefits to retired Chief Justices/Judges of High Courts in the matters of medical
facilities, protocol facilities, secretarial allowance, etc.
Resolved to request Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Committee
for recommending grant of minimum post-retiral benefits to retired Chief Justices/Judges
of the High Courts on a uniform basis.
[6] GRANTING FINANCIAL AUTONOMY TO THE HIGH COURTS
It was discussed in the House that the State Governments need to provide
necessary assistance to the High Courts for preparing budget estimates for the State
Judiciary.
It was discussed that once the State Governments make budget allocations after
considering the proposal sent by the respective High Courts for all expenses (recurring
and non-recurring) for the State Judiciary, the State Governments do not release the funds
in time and very often release them belatedly, almost at the fag end of the financial year,
making it difficult for the High Courts to utilise the grants. Further, in the absence of
financial autonomy to the Chief Justices, including the powers of re-appropriation of the
sanctioned funds under different heads of expenses, the budgetary grants lapse.
[Page No. 2 to 5]
X-268
Appendix-HH
CHIEF JUSTICES' CONFERENCE-2013
[APRIL 05-06, 2013]
MINUTES
1. Confirmation of Minutes of Resolutions adopted in Chief Justices'

Conference held on August 14th -15th , 2009.
Minutes of the Resolutions adopted in the Chief Justices' Conference held on

August 14th - 15th , 2009, are read and confirmed.
2. Progress on implementation of the Resolutions adopted in the previous Chief
Justices' Conference held on 14th -15th August, 2009.
A. Morning/Evening Courts functioning under the recommendation of the 13 th
Finance Commission.
Action Taken Reports furnised by the High Courts and the Department of Justice,
Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India were perused and it was
noticed that not much progress had been achieved.
The issue regarding continuation of Morning/Evening Courts was deliberated

upon and it was decided that Morning/Evening Courts may continue, subject to
the decision to be taken by the High Courts, considering the geographical
conditions. The Chief Justices shall take up the matter, wherever required, for
increasing the strength of Judges to man these Courts.
[Page No. 1]
....keeping scope for revision in the light of the final suggestion and recommendations
that may be approved by the National Court Management Systems.
4. Creation of new posts of Judicial Officers at all levels along with support
staff and requisite infrastructure to narrow down judge-population ratio;
and
8. Filling up of vacancies at all levels.
X-269
RESOLVED
That
In order to narrow down Judge-population ratio, the Chief Justices will
take requisite steps for creation of new posts of Judicial Officers at all levels
with support staff and requisite infrastructure in terms of the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of All India Judges Association's case
[2002 (4) S.C.C. 247], Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India Ors, [2012 (6)
S.C.C.502] and letter dated 21st February, 2013, written by Hon'ble the Chief
Justice of India to Hon'ble the Prime Minister of India, in order to provide
effective, efficient and efficacious dispensation of justice.
In the matter of appointment and training of new recruits, the decision
rendered by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges' Association case be
strictly followed and appropriate amendments be effected to the Recruitment
Rules, wherever necessary.
The High Courts may take into account the requirement of staff and
infrastructure while preparing the proposals for creating new posts of Judicial
Officers.
[Page No. 3]
X-270
Appendix-II
CHIEF JUSTICES CONFERENCE 2009

[AUGUST 14-15, 2009]
RE S O LUTI ON S
1] Progress on implementation of the Resolutions passed in the previous Chief

Justices Conference held on 17th and 18th April, 2008.
RESOLVED
That
a] Action Taken Reports furnished by the High Courts and the Department of
Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, are perused.
b] Wherever required, the Chief Justices will take up the matter at the highest
level of the State Governments for providing adequate funds for the
implementation of the Resolutions.
2] Steps required to be taken for reduction/elimination of arrears and ensure

speedy trial within a reasonable period.
RESOLVED
That
a] The High Courts will make scientific and rational analysis as regards
accumulation of arrears and devise a roadmap for itself and jurisdictional
courts to arrest arrears of cases taking into account average institution,
pendency and disposal of cases and to ensure speedy trial within a
reasonable period of time.
b] The following Resolutions passed in the Chief Justices Conference, 2008,
X-271
are reiterated:
[i] The High Courts will make efforts to set-up at least one Family
Court in each district, besides additional Family Courts, wherever
required.
[ii] The High Courts will make efforts to set-up additional Courts of
Special Judges, exclusively for trial of corruption cases
investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation under Prevention
of Corruption Act.
3] Augmenting the infrastructure of subordinate courts.
RESOLVED
That
a] The High Courts shall take assistance of an expert in accounts for the
purpose of preparation of the Scheme and total expenditure required
therefor and thereafter submit a proposal to the State Governments.
b] The Chief Justices will also take into consideration the National Judicial
Infrastructure Plan, with such modifications as may be required, while
taking up the cause with the State Governments.
c] The Chief Justices of the High Courts shall take up the matter with the
State Governments on the aspect of supply of electricity to
subordinate courts during working hours and to impress upon the State
Governments to ensure that no power cuts be allowed during courts
working hours and generator sets, as back-up supply for electricity, be
installed in the court complexes, especially in rural areas having
acute power shortage. In order to ascertain the areas in the States facing
acute power shortage, the Chief Justices of the High Courts will submit
a proposal to the State Governments after receiving a report in that
regard from the Judge in-charge of the district concerned.
d] The matter be also taken up at the Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and
Chief Justices to be held on August 16, 2009.
X-272
4] Progress made in setting up and functioning of evening/morning courts in
subordinate courts.
RESOLVED
That
The Chief Justices of the States, where morning/evening courts in
subordinate courts have not so far been set-up, will take up the matter with
their respective State Governments to implement the Resolutions passed
....................... Instruments Act, 1881
[Page Nos. 1 to 4]
13] Increase in the strength of Judges of the High Courts and Subordinate
Courts.
RESOLVED
That
a] The following Resolution passed in the Chief Justices Conference, 2008,
is reiterated:
The High Court will take immediate steps for filling-up of the
vacancies of Judicial Officers in their respective jurisdictions and
will adhere to the schedule laid down by the Honble Supreme
Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission & Ors. for appointment of subordinate
Judges.'
b] The matter be taken up with the Central Government that 1/4 th of the
increased sanctioned strength in the High Courts be of additional Judges
and remaining 3/4th will be of permanent Judges.
c] The Chief Justices will make recommendation for increase in strength
of Judges of the High Courts and subordinate courts, after taking into
consideration the pendency of cases and other relevant criteria for
calculating the requirement of number of judges.
[Page Nos. 9-10]
X-273

Subordinate Court of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subordinate Court of India

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subordinate Court of India

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Subordinate Courts

Centre for Research & Planning, Supreme Court of India

Sr. No. Particulars Page

III. Way Ahead 17-40

Table No. Particulars Page

Appendix Particulars Page Nos.

Rankin Committee) (Relevant extracts)

sourced from 14th Report of the Law Commission of

sourced from 14th Report of the Law Commission of

Reform of Judicial Administration, Vol. I (Relevant

Justice-social, economic and political is a preambular precept of the Constitution

The judiciary is a co-equal branch of governance within the Constitutional

The study startlingly reveals that on a geographical average, one judge is

6. Data as on 01.01.2015, as per data provided by various High Courts.

Problem of Delay and Arrears

The same report recommended a five-fold increase in judge strength in the

15. Census Report, 2001.

Demography: Comparison with other services of the State

Group 'A' Officers of Central Government* vis-a-vis Judicial Officers#

Chart 7: Group 'A' Officers of Central Government vis-a-vis Judicial Officers

The above approaches have only been quantitative. What is to be remembered is

Total Area of No. of Police No. of No. of Police No. of Judicial

Police Officers vis-a-vis Courts of first instance

Chart 8: Police Officers vis-a-vis Courts of first instance

Pendency of Cases in Subordinate Courts in States/UTs*: National Picture

0 5000000 10000000 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000

*Data as received from various High Courts

Chart 9: Pendency of cases in subordinate courts: National Picture

Total Pendency, Cases Pending for more than 5 Yrs,

0 1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000

*Data as received from various High Courts

Chart 10-A: Pendency of Cases in subordinate courts in States/UTs

Total Pendency, Cases Pending for more than 5 Yrs,

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000

Chart 10-B: Pendency of Cases in subordinate courts in States/UTs

Total Pendency, Cases Pending for more than 5 Yrs,

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

*Data as received from various High Courts

Chart 10-C: Pendency of Cases in subordinate courts in States/UTs

Andhra Pradesh 10,14,372

*Data as received from various High Courts

*Data as received from various High Courts

Chart 12: Ratio of pending cases to disposal in 2015

11,41,031 12,11,225 12,52,138 12,90,148 13,41,386

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014*

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2010 1,78,64,580 55,88,312 3.2 31 220%

55,88,312 47,08,680 49,90,811

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Percentage Increase in Criminal Trial Courts required

B. LONG TERM PROJECTIONS FOR JUDGE STRENGTH

B.2 Establishing equilibrium: achieving case life of 1-2 years

B.3 METHODS EMPLOYED FOR PROJECTIONS TILL 2040

B.3.1 HDI METHOD:

The HDI is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of

53. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

Correlation of Human Development Index* with Institution# per Million

(in decreasing order of HDI)

HDI: 2008 Institution Per Million: 2008