Court burden

It is unfortunate that the offer Chief Justice of India (CJI) for National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation With the bodies concerned at the state level, the recent joint conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers did not find favor with many Chief Ministers. A special purpose vehicle vested with statutory powers to plan and implement infrastructure projects for the judiciary, would go a long way in enhancing facilities for the judiciary in view of the inadequacies in court complexes across the country. However, it is a matter of relief that the idea of ​​state level bodies for the same purpose was agreed upon with the representation of the Chief Ministers so that they are fully involved in the implementation. The CJI, NV Ramana, who had moved the motion a few months back, tried to dispel the notion that a national body would usurp the powers of the executive, and emphasized that the Union/States can be adequately represented in it. . He had flagged the gap between the available infrastructure and the justice needs of the people. Had his proposal been accepted, the funds available as a centrally sponsored scheme, in which the Center and states share the burden on a 60:40 ratio, could have gone to the national authority, which would have allocated funds on a high court basis. Will do need. It is likely that the Chief Ministers did not support the idea as they wanted to speak more on the matter.

Given the experience of several states having unspent funds allocated for judicial infrastructure, it remains to be seen how far the proposed state-level bodies will be able to identify requirements and expedite implementation. This will naturally require greater coordination between the states and the respective High Courts. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju has promised assistance to the states from the Center to create the necessary infrastructure, especially for the lower judiciary. While this is a welcome sign that the focus is on infrastructure, continuing pendency, chronic shortage of judges and increasing docket size are major challenges. CJI Ramana flagged certain aspects of the government’s contribution to the burden of the judiciary – failure or unwillingness to implement court orders, leaving important questions to be decided by courts and before passing a law for pre-considered and comprehensive Absence of -based counseling. While this may be unpleasant for the executive, it is absolutely true that litigation arising out of government action or inaction constitute a substantial part of the court’s case burden. Interactions between the judiciary and the executive at the level of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers can help create an environment of cooperation so that judicial appointments, upgradation of infrastructure and reducing pendency are seen as common concerns.