Indian judiciary’s ills too deep-seated to be addressed through symbolism
By K Raveendran
The unveiling of the new statue of Lady Justice, with eyes wide open and a copy of the constitution in hand, has sparked animated debate across legal and public domains. Its design is a striking departure from traditional representations: the blindfold has been removed, and the sword has been replaced by the Constitution. The symbolism is palpable, reflecting a shift towards transparency and a commitment to constitutional values. Yet, despite the powerful message this new imagery conveys, it does little to address the deeper, systemic issues plaguing India’s judicial system.
The replacement of the sword with the Constitution serves as a reminder of the growing threats to constitutional integrity, and the judiciary’s strengthening resolve to defend it. But symbolism alone cannot resolve the practical challenges facing the courts today. The judiciary is grappling with issues that far exceed the boundaries of aesthetic or symbolic changes. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, who spearheaded the change in the statue, has frequently acknowledged the flaws in the system and has emphasized the importance of public trust in maintaining the credibility of the judiciary.
One of the most significant and persistent issues haunting the judiciary is the mounting backlog of pending cases. According to official statistics, over 50 million cases are currently pending in courts across India. This overwhelming figure is a reflection of the system’s inability to cope with the enormous volume of legal disputes that arise daily. Many cases drag on for years, with some even spanning decades, leading to a growing sense of disillusionment among the public.
This issue has sparked criticism, with some on social media suggesting that Lady Justice should be holding a watch instead of a constitution. The watch would symbolize the excruciating delays in the judicial process and the erosion of public confidence in the system. It is a sarcastic yet poignant reminder of the slow pace at which justice is delivered in India. These delays have led many to question whether the courts are truly capable of upholding justice in a timely and effective manner.
While the judiciary cannot be blamed entirely for these delays, the problem is deeply rooted in the structure and functioning of the legal system. A significant portion of the backlog can be attributed to outdated colonial-era practices that still influence the way courts operate. However, it would be misleading to blame the backlog solely on this colonial hangover. The sheer volume of cases generated in the country daily makes India’s legal system unique in its challenges, unlike any other judiciary in the world. The complexity of the cases, combined with procedural inefficiencies, has created a situation where justice delayed has become the norm.
Chief Justice Chandrachud has been candid about these challenges. He has consistently spoken about the urgent need for reforms and has called for innovative solutions to streamline the judicial process. However, even the highest court in the land has acknowledged the difficulty in setting firm deadlines for the resolution of cases. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking to establish time limits for the disposal of cases, stating that such measures are not feasible within the Indian context. The court emphasized that the Indian Supreme Court, unlike its American counterpart, cannot function within such rigid constraints due to the unique nature of the legal landscape in India.
The problem is multifaceted. On one hand, the judiciary faces an ever-increasing number of cases, ranging from civil disputes to complex criminal matters. On the other hand, there is a shortage of judges at every level, from the district courts to the Supreme Court. This shortage exacerbates the delays, as the available judges are overburdened with cases, leaving little time for thorough deliberation and swift judgments.
Efforts have been made to address this shortage. In recent years, there has been a push to appoint more judges, and several vacancies have been filled. Yet, the pace of appointments has failed to keep up with the rising demand. According to reports, India has around 20 judges per million people, a number significantly lower than many other countries. This disparity highlights the urgent need for more judicial appointments to reduce the burden on the existing judges and expedite the judicial process.
Another contributing factor to the backlog is the procedural complexity of the legal system. The Indian judiciary is known for its detailed procedures, which, while designed to ensure fairness and thoroughness, often lead to unnecessary delays. Multiple adjournments, lengthy hearings, and procedural wrangling are common in Indian courts, contributing to the slow pace of justice. Reforming these procedures and adopting more efficient case management systems could help alleviate some of these issues. Technology has also been touted as a potential solution to streamline the judicial process. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of virtual hearings, and many courts have continued to use this technology. Virtual hearings have the potential to reduce delays, especially in cases where physical appearances are not necessary. However, the implementation of this technology has been uneven, with many lower courts lacking the infrastructure to conduct virtual hearings efficiently. Additionally, concerns about the digital divide and access to technology for litigants from rural areas have raised questions about the inclusiveness of such reforms.
Public trust in the judiciary is a cornerstone of any functioning democracy. For years, India’s judiciary has been seen as a bulwark against the excesses of the executive and legislative branches. However, the growing backlog of cases and the delays in delivering justice are eroding this trust. The judiciary’s credibility is being called into question, and symbolic changes, like the new Lady Justice statue, are not enough to restore public confidence. What is needed are concrete reforms that address the root causes of these delays and inefficiencies. (IPA Service)