Supreme Court of India

Views:
 
Category: Education
     
 

Presentation Description

VCSSGOC and Sansarchhaya Research Foundation's Human and Universal Initiatives on Justice and Apex judiciary Authority. A study by the Hon'ble SC Document.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

slide 1:

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NATIONAL COURT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS NCMS POLICY ACTION PLAN RELEASED BY: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA PREPARED BY: “NATIONAL COURT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS COMMITTEE” IN CONSULTATION WITH “ADVISORY COMMITTEE” 27.09.2012

slide 2:

1 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA NATIONAL COURT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS NCMS POLICY AND ACTION PLAN INDEX 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

slide 3:

2 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A NATIONAL COURT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS NCMS POLICY AND ACTION PLAN CHAPTER – 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Constitution of India was adopted and enacted inter alia to secure to all citizens of this country through Preamble which is basic structure of the Constitution JUSTICE – Social Economic and Political. The State is duty bound to establish social order in which legal system of the country provides justice to all the citizens. Access to justice has to be ensured to all the citizens irrespective of social economic and political barriers. The golden goal set out in the Preamble of the Constitution is to be achieved through sustained and productive efforts. 1.2 Judiciary has gone through various phases since the adoption of the Constitution on 26 th day of November 1949. Various Reports on Judicial Reforms have been submitted by the Law Commissions after in- depth study which have dealt with various aspects of Law – substantive and procedural. It is manifest that many of the important recommendations made by the Law Commissions from time to time have not even been properly discussed leave aside their implementation by the Government. It has therefore become imperative to revisit the recommendations and implement those which will promote Court Management Case Management and improve Administration of Justice as a whole.

slide 4:

3 1.3 Many of the recommendations made by the Law Commissions do not require Legislative or Executive intervention and they can straightaway be implemented by the Judiciary. But some would. The Judiciary is alive to the shortcomings and ills facing it and in order to keep pace with time and changed scenario the implementation of the recommendations is necessitated. 1.4 A proposal was placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India emphasizing the need for a comprehensive “National Court Management Systems” for the country that will enhance the quality responsiveness and timeliness of Court. It was mentioned that the Court Management Systems will need to include six main Elements for the Elements- please see Scheme in Chapter-2. 1.5 Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India in consultation with Hon’ble Minister of Law and Justice Government of India has been pleased to direct that National Court Management Systems for enhancing timely justice may be established. 1.6 Therefore in pursuance of the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India Office Order dated 02.05.2012 has been issued by the Office of Secretary General Supreme Court of India which inter alia states that:- “Under overall control of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India National Court Management Systems NCMS for enhancing timely justice is established as per Scheme annexed.”

slide 5:

4 CHAPTER – 2 THE SCHEME 2.1 Hon’ble 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 16000 Judges. The system has expanded rapidly in the last three decades reflecting India’s 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 75000 Courts/Judges. 1 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 India’s 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 India’s 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 75000 judges. Subsequently collected data shows this figure as 18871 as on 31.12.2011. Please see Para 3.4.

slide 6:

5 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 Subsequently crystallized data may be seen in Chapter-3.

slide 7:

6 nomenclature used for cases varies widely and is not comparable in some cases. This makes it quite difficult to compare data across States. Very little data is available in real time. At the present time some data is gathered by the Supreme Court from High Courts and published in its Court News. Some data is also gathered by the Department of Justice from High Courts. This latter information is not publicly accessible. Data on criminal cases is compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau. This data is also based on a set of criteria that are different from those used by the judiciary and hence the two sets of data appear to be mutually incompatible. Data is not based on performance standards – thus in the absence of time tables or data systems that will track individual cases against established time standards there is in fact no scientific data on delays in courts today. Data is manual sometimes inconsistent splintered and not available in real time. An accurate and complete national picture of the performance of the Indian judicial system is not readily available. It is therefore hardly surprising that there is considerable misunderstanding amongst policy makers and people at large about the performance of the judicial system at the national level and the challenges it faces. Critical national policy challenges such as “docket exclusion” are not surfaced by the data that is currently available. Nor is there adequate data to permit a meaningful analysis of timeliness quality or efficiency of the judicial system. A number of initiatives are currently underway to

slide 8:

7 modernize and strengthen the judicial system. The development and implementation of these initiatives will require reliable data and statistics about the judicial system. Effective administration of an increasingly large and complex judicial system is not possible without a well developed system of judicial statistics and an effective management information system being available to the judiciary at the national level. B. Objectives Against the above background the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India Hon’ble 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. Hon’ble 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. The National Court Management Systems will be under overall control of Hon’ble 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.

slide 9:

8 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. The administrative and technological “backbone” of these systems will be maintained at the Supreme Court and overseen by a Committee consisting of the representatives. Specific proposals will be developed in each of these areas for consideration and implementation by and through the High Courts.

slide 10:

9 C. National Court Management Systems Committee N.C.M.S.C.: Specific proposals for the Court Management System as outlined above will be developed by an 18 member National Court Management Systems Committee N.C.M.S.C. which subject to directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India shall consist of the following: Chair: A Jurist/Domain Expert nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. He will be paid honorarium and given such facilities as may be decided by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for Chairing N.C.M.S.C. Members: 1. Four Sitting Judges one from each zone in India nominated by the Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 5. Director National Judicial Academy. 6. Two practising Advocates nominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

slide 11:

10 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 Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 9. An expert in Computer Technology relevant to Court Management nominated by the Hon’ble 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. 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 In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India c. Personal Assistant - One In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India d. Court Assistant - One In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India e. Junior Court Assistants - Two In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India

slide 12:

11 f. Chauffeur - One In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India g. Junior Court Attendants - Three In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India The staff shall be called on deputation on such terms conditions and facilities as Hon’ble 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. D. 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 Hon’ble 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 Advisory Committee. The Secretary-General of the Supreme Court shall be the convenor of the Advisory Committee. E. Time Line A comprehensive implementation plan for NCMS shall be prepared within 2 months of establishment for consideration and approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. The implementation plan shall entail not only how National Court

slide 13:

12 Management Systems will be established but how it will be institutionalised and sustained. It will identify all resource requirements for the same. NCMS will also complement efforts of other Bodies for objectives stated above. F. Financial Aspects It is needless to mention that the Committee once it is constituted would require proper infrastructure and Office space to accommodate its Members and Officers/Staff preferably in close proximity to the Supreme Court premises. A car for Office work also may have to be provided. Chairperson and Members of N.C.M.S.C. may have to be provided assistance for meetings as Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may direct. Chairperson and such Members of N.C.M.S.C. as Hon’ble Chief Justice of India may from time to time direct may have to visit High Courts/States as may be necessary for consultation and study. The terms and conditions on which services of Chairperson and Members of NCMS Committee will be availed will be decided by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. Provision to appoint support staff on establishment of Supreme Court of India and/or on deputation will have to be made. The NCMS Committee will prepare budget for its activities from time to time and on approval of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India the same will be included in Budget of Supreme Court of India. S/d- A.I.S. Cheema Secretary General Supreme Court of India New Delhi Dated : 02.05.2012”

slide 14:

13 2.2 In pursuance of the above various steps are being taken to institutionalize NCMS. Guidelines are to be laid down to address issues relating to and affecting Administration of Justice and to fulfill the objects and meet the targets.

slide 15:

14 CHAPTER – 3 STATISTICS 3.1 Success of an Institution depends on meticulous planning and no planning can succeed without correct and complete statistics of important elements. Insofar as Judiciary is concerned number of pending cases number of Judicial Officers number of Staff Members number of Court Halls and availability of infrastructure are some of the key elements whereof correct and complete statistics are always required. To dismay statistics most of the times have been either incomplete or incorrect. 3.2 Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India has been pleased to set up a Secretariat in the Registry of the Supreme Court of India for collection of Information and Statistics. The Information and Statistics Secretariat is in regular contact with High Courts for various statistical information and the same is being collected and compiled. The experience shows from many quarters inflow of incomplete and incorrect information from High Courts apart from being delayed. In this era of computerization no reason would suffice why a network cannot be established of a portal from where each Court in the country can feed monthly quarterly half-yearly and yearly figures compiled in given Formats and timely correct information of filing and disposal of cases becomes available at the click of a button. If E-tickets of Railways can be booked in one part of the country and print generated in any other part of the country generating information of statistics relating to Judiciary may not be difficult.

slide 16:

15 3.3. Information and Statistics Cell of the Supreme Court of India has collected information regarding institution and disposals for the year 2011. The same is as under: - FIGURE - 1 Updated as on 16/9/2012 CASES INSTITUTED AND DISPOSED OF IN THE YEAR 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Name of Court Total Difference Number Number 1 Supreme Court 54562 77090 73133 58519 3957 7.25 6445 11.01 52074 88.99 58519 2 High Courts 4251041 1947006 1784301 4324742 73701 1.73 1602191 37.77 2553247 60.12 4155438 3 Subordinate Courts 27734599 17996886 18615075 26986307 -748292 -2.70 6289715 23.49 19321092 72.15 25610807 4 Total 32040202 20020982 20472509 31369568 -670634 -2.09 7898351 25.41 21926413 70.55 29824764 S. NO. Pendency of Cases as on 1/1/2011 Institution in 2011 Disposal in 2011 Pendency as on 31/12/2011 Difference in i.e increase or decrease in pendency No. of Cases Pending for more than 5 years as on 31/12/2011 with age No. of Cases Pending for less than 5 years as on 31/12/2011 with age For Pendency of more and less than five years: except High Court of Jammu Kashmir For Pendency of more and less than five years: except Jammu Kashmir Kerala and Lakhsadweep. Figures yet to be reconciled from the Calcutta High Court and High Court of Kerala.

slide 17:

16 3.4 Information has also been collected regarding number of Judges including their sanctioned and working strengths and vacancies. The same is as under: - FIGURE – 2 Updated as on 16/9/2012 NUMBER OF JUDGES AS ON 31/12/2011 S.No. Name of Court/s Sanctioned Strength Working Strength Vacancies 1 Supreme Court 31 27 4 2 High Courts 895 622 273 3 Subordinate Courts 17945 14275 3670 Total 18871 14924 3947 3.5 A perusal of the Chart at Figures-1 shows that various informations from different High Courts are still not available. Even the available information is not accurate. For example total of Columns 6 and 10 should ideally match. Some of the High Courts have not reconciled figures and hence the difference. Incomplete or incorrect information creates difficulties in planning and more particularly while dealing with Government on the issues of development in Judiciary apart from needless public gaze. 3.6 If Figure-1 is examined it can be appreciated that in 2011 20020982 cases were instituted and 20472509 cases were disposed of. This could be achieved through the productive effort of meagerly available 14924 Judges/Judicial Officers see Figure-2 who at times discharge obligations in difficult circumstances. It shows an average disposal of 1372 matters per Judge in a span of 12 months. Thus overall pendency reduced by 670634 cases. 3.7 The overall pendency in 2011 was reduced from 32040202 to 31369568. The Chart at Figure-1 makes it clear that 70.55 cases

slide 18:

17 pending in the Courts are less than 5 years’ old. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on 8.11.2011 wrote letters to all the Chief Justices of High Courts to take up “Five plus Zero” initiative to ensure that cases pending for more than 5 years are taken up on priority basis and such cases are brought down to zero level. In the Supreme Court of India 88.99 cases are less than 5 years old. 3.8 It is necessary to identify reasons for non-filling of vacancies and efforts are required to be taken to fill up vacancies not only of Judges/Judicial officers but also of support staff. Courts cannot function without sufficient and efficient Court staff. 3.9 Number of available Court Buildings Court Halls and other infrastructural facilities have not been described clearly. In the absence of correct statistics regarding the number of Court Halls available transfers and postings effected by the High Courts have at times created piquant situations. Instances have come to fore that number of Judicial Officers posted at a place could not function for want of Court Halls also conversely at other places vis-à-vis number of Judicial Officers posted the number of pending matters were negligible. In the absence of necessary statistics less number of Court Halls have been constructed in Districts where number of pending matters were very high and non-availability of adequate number of Court Halls have resulted in hampering smooth dispensation of justice. In big cities there are problems for expansion of infrastructure. Planning is based on accurate statistics and in the absence thereof and set guidelines proper establishment and expansion of Courts are not feasible. 3.10 There is therefore need for compilation of correct and complete statistical and other data at different levels.

slide 19:

18 3.11 Professional Statisticians need to be appointed by High Courts for collection and processing of data. 3.12 It is necessary to post data on website of High Courts giving details of institution filing disposal and pendency of different type of matters.

slide 20:

19 CHAPTER – 4 INFRASTRUCTURE 4.1 Supreme Court of India in the matter of “All India Judges Association v. Union of India” took up Interlocutory Application No. 279 of 2010 and has passed various directions from time to time to monitor development of infrastructure in Subordinate Judiciary. 4.2 Formats- B and D adopted in the above matter for compilation of information regarding infrastructure of Courts and Residential Quarters have been updated by the Information and Statistics Secretariat of Supreme Court of India for the perusal of the Hon’ble Court. The information is as follows:-

slide 21:

20 FIGURE – 3 FORMAT-B-I Updated as on 16/9/2012 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT AT NATIONAL LEVEL STATUS OF COURT BUILDINGS S. No Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 4223 757 330 255 27 39 28 71 73 6990 411 120186.21 152379.22 109001.61 449 In column no. 13 at State Share the State of Punjab has submitted the amount from the Financial year 1993-94 to 2011-2012. Updated as on and till 16/9/2012. Name of State Number of Court Buildings Number of Proposals pending for land acquisi- tion with Collector Number of proposals sent by Principal District Judges to Executive Engineers PWD Number of proposals pending with PWD to be sent to Architect Number of Proposals pending with Chief Architect/ Deputy Architect. Number of proposals received back with plans from Architect and still pending with PWD Number of proposals received back with plans and estimate from PWD pending with Principal District Judges Number of proposals pending with High Court for confirmation before sending to the government Number of proposals pending with State G ovt./ Administrator for administrative approval Number of proposals pending with State Govt./ Administrator for release of finance with amount How much funds Government provided for the pending projects till last year In Lakhs Budgetary position for current year for pending projects In Lakhs In how many projects constr- uction has actually started. In own premises a In rented premises b Number of proposals Amount In Lacs 1201.86 Crore 1523.79 Crore 1090.01 Crore Extracts from Format B-I as received from States/UTs. Figures of States/UTs of Delhi Gujarat Nagaland have yet not been updated by them inspite of reminders and thus their figures included are as updated till 12/9/2011.

slide 22:

21 FIGURE – 4 Updated as on 16/9/2012 FORMAT-D-I CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT AT NATIONAL LEVEL STATUS OF RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS Name of State Number of Residential Quarters Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total 8224 2637 2340 463 401 35 20 23 69 47 500 447 70447.35 43456.26 43801.89 613 In column no. 13 at State Share the State of Punjab has submitted the amount from the Financial year 1993-94 to 2011-2012. Updated as on and till 16/9/2012. S.No Number of Proposals pending f or land acquisition with Collector Number of proposals sent by Principal District Judges to Executive Engineers PWD Number of proposals pending with PWD to be sent to Architect Number of Proposals pending withChief Architect/ Deputy Architect. Number of proposals received back with plans f rom Architect and still pending with PWD Number of proposals received back with plans and estimate f rom PWD pending with Principal District Judges Number of proposals pending with High Court f or conf irmation bef ore sending to the government Number of proposals pending with State Govt./ Administrator f or administrati-ve approval Number of proposals pending with State Govt./ Administrator f or release of f inance with amount In Lakhs How much f unds Government provided f or the pending projects till last year In Lakhs Budgetary position f or current year f or pending projects In Lakhs In how many projects construction has actually started. Judicial quarters a Rented premises b Common Pool C Number of proposals Amount In Lacs 704.47 Crores 434.56 Crores 438.02 Crores Extracts from Format D-I as received from States/UTs. Figures of States/UTs of Delhi Gujarat Nagaland have yet not been updated by them inspite of reminders and thus their figures included are as updated till 12/9/2011.

slide 23:

22 4.3 Information has also been compiled regarding developments since 12.07.2010 when Supreme Court of India started monitoring infrastructure till date mentioned. The information received is as below:- FIGURE - 5 Updated as on 16/9/2012 FORMAT-E Dev elopments between 12.07.2010 till date. Court Buildings 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Andaman Nicobar 1 1 0 500.000 0 2 4 48 23 9675.670 1 3 2 0 0 0.000 0 4 Assam 5 0 0 1202.280 5 5 2 50 17 16594.560 3 6 Chandigarh 7 6 1879.420 1 7 4 8 6 2938.680 2 8 0 0 0 65.820 0 9 0 0 0 0.000 0 10 Govt of NCT Of Delhi 0 0 0 0.000 1 11 Goa 0 0 12 Gujarat 6 1 0 4 13 0 19 11 4070.000 12 14 0 1 1 360.250 1 15 3 2 2 4345.740 3 16 73 37 37 1801.639 25 17 42 44 43 25790.250 18 12 11 5 19 NA NA NA 20.000 NA 20 Madhya Pradesh 5 1 22 15333.660 7 21 Maharashtra 50 102 95 50863.000 46 22 0 4 3 51.030 2 23 4 1 1 0.000 0 24 178.000 0 25 0 0 0 0.000 26 10 30 30 3751.670 6 27 0 0 1 1250.000 0 28 Punjab 9 10 10 20955.000 10 29 37 3 5 5014.300 48 30 Sikkim 2 2 2 1555.000 31 4 32 32 21148.520 19 32 0 1 3 45.850 6 33 4 5 21 885.870 19 34 2 81 23 17280.100 8 35 West Bengal 0 8 8 3352.420 0 Total 269 510 413 210908.729 234 Data has not yet been received hence the data of previous year has been included. Column No. 6 contains the amount for the Financial year 2010-11 to 2012-13. Sl. No. Name of State / Union Territories Total number of proposals cleared by Collectors and land acquired Total number of P roposals cleared by the High Court for construction of new court buildings Total number of proposals cleared by the State Governments/ Administrators for construction of new court buildings granting administrative and financial sanction Total amounts sanctioned in lakhs for infrastructure including new construction repairs and maintenance Total number of court buildings of which construction has been got completed Remarks detailing problems if any being faced for early progress in proceeding with projects Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Bihar Chhattisgarh Dadar Nagar Haveli Daman Diu Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Lakshadweep Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Puducherry Rajasthan Tamilnadu Tripura Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh

slide 24:

23 FIGURE – 6 Updated as on 16/9/2012 FORMAT-F Developments between 12.07.2010 till date Residential Quarters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Andaman Nicobar 0 500.000 0 2 4 28 16 1272.100 0 3 3 0 0 0.000 1 4 Assam 4 3 3 1048.400 7 5 1 63 8 1940.940 0 6 Chandigarh 1 1 204.500 8 7 4 5 235.300 1 8 9 1 10 Govt of NCT Of Delhi 0 0 0 0.000 0 11 Goa 2 2 30.000 0 12 Gujarat 2 0 0 0.000 2 13 21 18 4000.000 48 14 2 94.730 7 15 2 2 2 60.000 0 16 109 31 31 2062.774 10 17 185 205 205 19942.500 0 18 0 2 3 0.000 1 19 NA NA NA 2.960 NA 20 Madhya Pradesh 9 181 124 4571.530 51 21 Maharashtra 46 82 96 5168.390 23 22 0 0 0 0.000 0 23 4 0 0 0.000 0 24 3 1 65.360 0 25 0 0 0 0.000 0 26 18 7 7 118.900 27 0 0 1 300.000 0 28 Punjab 9 9 9 20955.000 9 29 33 1 0 575.800 18 30 Sikkim 2 2 2 899.000 0 31 12 33 24 4426.750 47 32 0 0 1 60.370 2 33 3 3 26 972.700 10 34 2 49 17 3836.420 9 35 West Bengal 0 13 13 878.440 0 Total 452 742 617 74222.864 254 Data has not yet been received hence the data of previous year has been updated. Column No. 6 contains the amount for the Financial year 2010-11 to 2012-13. Sl. No. Name of State / Union Territories Total number of proposals cleared by Collectors and land acquired Total number of Proposals cleared by the High Court for construction of new residential quarters Total number of proposals cleared by the State Governments/ Administrators for construction of new residential quarters granting administrative and financial sanction Total amounts Sanctioned in lakhs for infrastructure including new construction repairs and maintenance Total number of residential quarters of which construction has been got completed Remarks here mention problems if any being faced for early progress in proceeding with projects. Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Bihar Chhattisgarh Dadar Nagar Haveli Daman and Diu Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Lakshadweep Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Orissa Puducherry Rajasthan Tamilnadu Tripura Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh

slide 25:

24 4.4 It is clear that due to positive response of States and Union Territories to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in All India Judges Matter in a period of just two years lot of progress has taken place on the front of infrastructure. Funds released for Court Buildings and Residential Quarters are to the extent of Rs.2851.31 crores which is a good initiative. 4.5 The Central Government has been releasing amounts under the Central Sponsored Scheme to the State Governments for development of infrastructure. The figures available from Department of Justice as under:- FIGURE – 7 State 7683.45 1888.00 0.00 9571.45 4036.37 0.00 0.00 4036.37 2907.47 2097.00 0.00 5004.47 Goa 627.93 172.00 0.00 799.93 Gujarat 5371.42 0.00 0.00 5371.42 3516.42 2138.00 0.00 5654.42 1507.00 0.00 0.00 1507.00 1687.60 1035.00 1286.00 4008.60 1906.52 0.00 0.00 1906.52 6536.85 2961.00 5073.00 14570.85 3419.30 1169.00 1499.00 6087.30 Madhya Pradesh 6382.04 4403.00 0.00 10785.04 Maharashtra 11131.62 12915.00 3587.00 27633.62 5074.27 2416.00 767.00 8257.27 Punjab 2677.92 0.00 3817.00 6494.92 4188.51 1172.00 1042.00 6402.51 5835.46 0.00 0.00 5835.46 1635.35 0.00 829.76 2465.11 17542.57 15659.00 0.00 33201.57 West Bengal 6435.46 2518.00 0.00 8953.46 Total A 100103.53 50543.00 17900.76 168547.29 NE States 441.44 972.00 0.00 1413.44 Assam 5926.40 2890.00 0.00 8816.40 641.71 0.00 0.00 641.71 297.00 0.00 0.00 297.00 1099.95 0.00 0.00 1099.95 3860.64 169.00 0.00 4029.64 Sikkim 1278.05 0.00 0.00 1278.05 1097.25 0.00 745.60 1842.85 Total B 14642.44 4031.00 745.60 19419.04 AN Islands 395.55 500.00 0.00 895.55 Chandigarh 3400.95 500.00 0.00 3900.95 206.25 500.00 0.00 706.25 190.00 0.00 0.00 190.00 Delhi 3647.08 2250.00 2000.00 7897.08 51.25 0.00 0.00 51.25 1898.88 1250.00 0.00 3148.88 Total C 9789.96 5000.00 2000.00 16789.96 124535.93 59574.00 20646.36 204756.29 STATEMENT GIVING GRANTS RELEASED UNDER CSS SCHEME FOR INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITIES FOR JUDICIARY Rs. in Lakhs Sl. No. Release from 1993- 94 to 2010-11 Release in 2011-2012 Release in 2012-13 Total 1993-94 to 2012- 13 1.      Andhra Pradesh 2.      Bihar 3.      Chhattisgarh 4.      5.      6.      Haryana 7.      Himachal Pradesh 8.      Jammu Kashmir 9.      Jharkhand 10.    Karnataka 11.    Kerala 12.    13.    14.    Orissa 15.    16.    Rajasthan 17.    Tamilnadu 18.    Uttarakhand 19.    UttarPradesh 20.    1.      Arunachal Pradesh 2.      3.      Manipur 4.      Meghalaya 5.      Mijoram 6.      Nagaland 7.      8.      Tripura UTs 1.      2.      3.      Dadra Nagar Haveili 4.      Daman Diew 5.      6.      Lakshadw eep 7.      Pondicherry Grand Total A+B+C Rs.2047.56 Crores

slide 26:

25 4.6 Figures-3 and 4 above indicate that progress has been made but still more is required to be done for providing sufficient infrastructure. There is need for greater allocation of funds for planning creation development and maintenance of judicial infrastructure. To achieve best results High Courts will have to put in place strict monitoring systems if required even setting up Infrastructure Bench. Infrastructure does not merely include buildings but also includes furnishing and facilities which include computers and libraries. If independence of Judiciary has to be ensured sufficient resources are required to be made available at its disposal for proper discharge of obligations. 4.7 Judicial independence cannot be interpreted only as a right to decide a matter without interference. If the institution of Judiciary is not independent resource-wise and/or in relation to funds from the interference of the Executive judicial independence will become redundant and inconsequential. Executive cannot be allowed to interfere in the administration of Justice by holding back funds for development of judicial infrastructure and expansion of Courts and declining right to appoint sufficient staff etc. The concept of independence of judiciary further conceives that Judges cannot be allowed to be overburdened by continuous pressure of deciding large number cases at the cost of quality of adjudication. 4.8 Entry 11A was introduced in the Concurrent List of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India in 1977 vide 42 nd Amendment Act of 1976. By this Amendment subject of “Administration of Justice constitution and organization of all Courts except Supreme Court and High Courts” was brought in the Concurrent List of the Constitution. It has become

slide 27:

26 incumbent on the Central Government to make sufficient and appropriate provisions in Budget keeping in view the Central Laws so as to share the burden of States. As far as possible the sharing between Centre and the State should be in the ratio of 50-50 . Policies may have to be framed in such a way that Centre and State do not play blame-game against each other at the cost of administration of justice. 4.9 Judiciary needs to be separately dealt with in the Plans by the Planning Commission and separate allocation is necessary by the Planning Commission and the Finance Commission. Experience shows that States have been making negligible provision in the Budgets to the third pillar of democracy i.e. Judiciary. This is revealed from the following figures:- FIGURE - 8 Year-wise percentage allocation of Budget to Judiciary and few other major Departments in each State as available for the years 2006-07 to 2010-11 Andhra Pradesh Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.47 2.45 3.33 10.88 2 2007-08 0.45 2.12 3.37 9.94 3 2008-09 0.35 2.22 3.35 10.64 4 2009-10 0.39 1.53 3.69 10.78 5 2010-11 0.43 1.68 3.78 11.13

slide 28:

27 Arunachal Pradesh Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.045 1.72 4.06 10.11 2 2007-08 0.035 1.68 3.84 8.34 3 2008-09 0.035 1.36 3.93 8.84 4 2009-10 0.064 1.45 3.86 10.12 5 2010-11 0.338 1.55 2.90 7.30 Assam Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.41 1.66 5.76 17.90 2 2007-08 0.49 2.85 5.56 15.80 3 2008-09 0.46 1.34 4.59 13.47 4 2009-10 0.37 2.02 4.72 18.52 5 2010-11 - - - - Chhattisgarh Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.28 1.03 3.15 6.88 2 2007-08 0.29 1.28 2.94 7.46 3 2008-09 0.24 1.23 2.62 7.98 4 2009-10 0.26 1.15 2.51 10.88 5. 2010-11 0.28 1.32 2.54 12.66

slide 29:

28 Delhi Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 1.08 1.38 6.89 13.52 2 2007-08 0.92 1.20 6.59 11.81 3 2008-09 1.23 1.73 6.24 11.98 4 2009-10 1.12 2.67 7.28 14.94 5 2010-11 1.41 3.10 7.35 13.92 Gujarat Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.47 6.06 2.74 12.42 2 2007-08 0.47 7.92 2.66 11.87 3 2008-09 0.44 9.34 2.67 11.48 4 2009-10 0.70 9.90 2.91 11.64 5 2010-11 0.94 2.91 3.63 13.84 Haryana Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 .32 3.72 2.52 11.47 2 2007-08 .30 3.94 2.04 11.37 3 2008-09 .29 3.63 1.96 10.81 4 2009-10 .36 3.13 2.36 12.88 5 2010-11 .40 4.45 2.31 13.21

slide 30:

29 Himachal Pradesh Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.66 2.2 4.20 13.91 2 2007-08 0.67 2.4 3.80 14.68 3 2008-09 0.66 2.9 3.96 15.20 4 2009-10 0.69 3.2 4.07 15.63 5 2010-11 0.70 2.9 4.12 15.74 Jharkhand Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 1.06 - - - 2 2007-08 1.05 - - - 3 2008-09 1.43 - - - 4 2009-10 1.30 - - - 5 2010-11 1.48 - - - Karnataka Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.62 2.69 3.92 15.40 2 2007-08 0.62 3.19 4.22 17.21 3 2008-09 0.65 3.29 4.30 18.59 4 2009-10 0.61 4.20 4.28 17.97 5 2010-11 0.75 4.50 4.44 18.88

slide 31:

30 Kerala Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.362 1.608 3.512 13.182 2 2007-08 0.379 1.766 3.199 13.668 3 2008-09 0.418 1.867 3.239 13.020 4 2009-10 0.464 1.684 3.191 13.805 5 2010-11 0.438 2.111 3.504 13.444 Madhya Pradesh Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.68 2.63 4.02 15.74 2 2007-08 0.67 2.85 3.70 14.58 3 2008-09 0.66 3.56 3.25 12.56 4 2009-10 0.72 5.02 3.50 16.59 5 2010-11 0.76 4.72 3.77 15.76 Maharashtra Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 2.28 2.36 13.89 0.48 2 2007-08 2.77 2.25 12.84 0.46 3 2008-09 2.87 1.96 13.21 0.46 4 2009-10 2.12 1.70 14.12 0.54 5 2010-11 3.96 2.29 18.62 0.62

slide 32:

31 Manipur Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.32 1.68 2.77 9.86 2 2007-08 0.34 1.90 3.47 9.75 3 2008-09 0.36 2.32 3.02 9.80 4 2009-10 0.37 1.93 3.23 10.55 5 2010-11 0.40 2.04 3.10 11.95 Mizoram Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.25 0.91 3.68 10.08 2 2007-08 0.26 1.07 3.75 10.19 3 2008-09 0.33 0.83 5.98 9.90 4 2009-10 0.38 1.01 4.18 10.80 5 2010-11 - - - - Orissa Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 .38 5.88 3.61 12.15 2 2007-08 .36 6.32 .88 12.80 3 2008-09 .37 6.03 3.75 14.07 4 2009-10 .54 7.67 5.01 18.24 5 2010-11 .62 7.33 4.07 18.46

slide 33:

32 Sikkim Sl. No. Year Judiciary Rs. in Thousand Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 28583 - - - 2 2007-08 32683 - - - 3 2008-09 32668 - - - 4 2009-10 58095 - - - 5 2010-11 55080 - - - Tamilnadu Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.53 2.38 3.99 14.12 2 2007-08 0.53 3.16 4.39 14.40 3 2008-09 0.55 2.91 4.47 14.15 4 2009-10 0.70 3.10 5.33 16.33 5 2010-11 0.70 3.60 5.26 16.12 Tripura Sl. No. Year Judiciary Social Welfare Health Education 1 2006-07 0.60 8.75 7.49 24.82 2 2007-08 0.58 9.83 7.51 24.82 3 2008-09 0.58 9.51 6.82 23.70 4 2009-10 0.57 10.84 6.62 25.05 5 2010-11 0.87 10.44 4.72 23.37

slide 34:

33 4.10 For the development of judicial infrastructure time has come when States should provide requisite resources to the Judiciary without cutting/rejecting the demands made by it so that it is able to smoothly discharge its judicial functions. Legislature enacts new legislations and increases the workload of Judiciary and on the other hand Executive holds back funds and facilities as required for administration of Justice which tantamounts to interference in the administration of justice. One Branch of the Constitution should not ideally decline the needs of another parallel Branch thereby creating difficulties in discharge of its constitutional responsibilities. 4.11 The Government may not enact new Laws without assessing the judicial impact and without assessing the number of new cases the new Legislation would generate. Enactment of new Laws results in floodgates of new cases generated by new Legislations and refusal of resources towards litigation generated by such new Legislations may not be in the interest of the country. In case the State does not provide necessary support of sufficient and fully furnished infrastructure and trained and sufficient personnel by way of Judges/Judicial Officers and Staff the blame on the judiciary would be misplaced on account of pending number of cases in courts. 4.12 There is need for proper and sufficient infrastructure for efficient Record Management/proper management of case files including complete digitization of case records. 4.13 Standard Plans for Court Buildings and Residential Quarters for Judicial Officers are necessary. Infrastructure does not merely mean building but includes provisions for furnishings and facilities which need to be fixed. 4.14 It is bounden duty of the Central Government and State Governments to make adequate provisions for sufficient and furnished infrastructure for High Courts as well as Subordinate Courts.

slide 35:

34 CHAPTER – 5 PERSONNEL 5.1 Staff of the Registries of various Courts is an important element of Justice Delivery System which gets ignored most of the times. Proper care is not taken to ensure appointment of properly qualified staff. Their working and living conditions are deplorable. Service careers are not clear. Large number of matters are shouldered by few staff members. Most of the States have only clerical staff recruitment who rise to become Clerks-of-Courts Nazir or Registrar. Between Judicial Officers and such clerical staff there is no Officer level recruitment of officials. 5.2 Minimum number of staff in a given Court is fixed by Government Circulars unmindful of the number of matters in that Court. Most of the times one Bench Clerk one Assistant Bench Clerk one Stenographer and two Peons are provided to Judicial Officers of Joint Courts. Same staff is required to deal with files whether they are 800 or 8000 files. Increase in Court files does not result in increase in number of staff. Principal District Judges have not been delegated with powers to create posts of additional Assistant Bench Clerks even where the overall average pendency has been very high. At many places identification of ideal number of matters per Court have not been done. 5.3 Policy is required to be made regarding ideal number of files to be handled by court staff for different Courts at different levels and if the number of average matters increases provision for additional staff be made. An outer limit may have to be fixed for cases where number of files increases double than the ideal number how the same should be dealt with and what will be the responsibility of the State in such

slide 36:

35 matters. State cannot keep legislating new provisions and laws and crowd cases in Courts and then decline to give more infrastructure and staff. 5.4 Recruitment Policy Standard Staffing Patterns and Training Policies for Staff working in Courts need to be settled. There is need of “Human Resource Department” to be established at the High Courts. Posts of Court Managers are necessary for professional working of Registries.

slide 37:

36 CHAPTER – 6 MANAGEMENT OF COURTS AND CASES 6.1 It is necessary to identify best practices for Court Management and how to guard against malpractices. Computerization is the riposte. 6.2 For Case Management various aspects may require to be looked into such as:- a. Settling issues b. Encouraging parties to resort to ADR c. Extensive use of Order X of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in civil matters to narrow down issues d. Fixing time schedules for specific steps. 6.3 Procedure for assigning cases to specialized Courts need resolution. Computerization of Procedures be done. Procedures be so computerized that the moment a case crosses a particular stage the website shows and computer sets the next stage. 6.4 Extensive use of video conferencing facilities be done including use of free video-conferencing software available on the Internet. 6.5 Matters of ADR are stress-less. Throughout the country various Lok Adalats and Literacy Campaigns in all the three tiers are being held under the guidance of National Legal Services Authority NALSA and State Legal Services Authorities. Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court of India High Courts and Members of Subordinate Judiciary have been actively participating in this regard. Figures available relating to Lok Adalats and Mediation Centers are as follows: -

slide 38:

37 Compiled Report of Lok Adalat Mediation Centres between 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012 S.No. State No. of Lok Adalats Conducted No. of Cases disposed of by Lok Adalats No. of Legal Literacy- cum-Legal Awareness Programmes No. of beneficiaries of such programmes 1 Uttar Pradesh 3753 566035 1287 664000 2 Andhra Pradesh 16258 139660 6039 831074 3a Maharashtra 3197 559704 6596 633191 3b Goa 92 693 226 14878 3c Daman Diu 7 136 25 2535 3d Dadra and Nagar Haveli 12 252 19 1384 4a West Bengal 1516 24610 358 60666 4b Andaman Nicobar 8 4780 19 2450 5 Chhatisgarh 1052 6497 4259 375010 6 Delhi 1203 248830 176 12000 7 Gujarat 10475 342282 7686 420141 8a Assam 20 1059 88 5562 8b Nagaland 58 276 44 3582 8c Meghalya 16 406 45 15000 8d Manipur 4 128 49 6168 8e Tripura 264 9551 259 58890 8f Mizoram 27 54 197 15810 8g Arunachal Pradesh 9 Himachal Pradesh 513 11889 237 23739 10 Jammu Kashmir 467 8184 176 9000 11 Jharkhand 375 96160 796 190788 12 Karnataka 26832 169103 2670 1432039 13a Kerala 3259 24907 1427 229441 13b U.T. of Lakshadweep 121 113 7 268 14 Madhya Pradesh 1314 1416515 3690 580565 15a Tamil Nadu 538 9821 372 2592 15b Puducherry 238 5218 169 72110 16 Odisha 624 182971 1073 123802 17 Bihar 4176 24620 781 52018 18a Punjab 765 76407 1066 142564 18b Haryana 716 45798 2346 126847 18c Chandigarh 844 33850 147 23900 19 Rajasthan 25677 356544 8449 678106 20 Sikkim 154 776 74 5310 21 Uttaranchal 153 36942 111 45637 Total 104728 2496522 50963 3702799 Data not yet received. Mediation and Conciliation Centres are in the process of being set up. It is clear from the above figures that 2496522 cases were disposed of during the period above-mentioned which certainly is a credible achievement. Further progress in the direction of permanent Lok Adalats with steady flow from regular Courts can help in disposal of cases and thus Court Management.

slide 39:

38 6.6 Principles for institutional capacity building need development. 6.7 There is need of having 5-year Development Plans for Courts for effective management. Judge-Case Ratio and Staff-Case Ratio needs to be worked out. “Court Management Committees” are required to be made at High Court levels. “Performance Index for Judicial Officers” needs to be settled. 6.8 Sufficient number of Public Prosecutors is necessary. Timely recruitment and promotions of Judicial Officers and Staff are necessary for effective Court Management. For convenience of litigants “Public Relation Officers” are required to be appointed. 6.9 “In-House Information Technology Departments” are required for taking advantage of technology. 6.10 Principles required to be adopted for effective Court Management and Case Management need to be identified. 6.11 It is necessary to settle Policies regarding having common nomenclature for different types of matters in the High Courts as well as Subordinate Courts.

slide 40:

39 CHAPTER – 7 ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 7.1 In the interest of Judiciary Annual Confidential Reports of Members of Subordinate Judiciary be maintained properly and on regular basis. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Registrar General Patna High Court v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad and Others Civil Appeal No. 4553 of 2012 J.T. 2012 5 SC 457 has observed as under: - “18. However before parting with the judgment we deem it necessary to make a mention about the recording of the ACRs of judicial officers. We feel that the present system of recording the ACRs leaves much to be desired and needs to be revamped. Experience has shown that it is deficient in several ways being not comprehensive enough to truly reflect the level of work conduct and performance of each individual on one hand and unable to check subjectivity on the other. This undoubtedly breeds discontent in a section of the judicial service besides eroding proper and effective superintendence and control of the High Court over subordinate judiciary. The process of evaluation of a judicial officer is intended to contain a balanced information about his performance during the entire evaluation period but it has been noticed that many a times the ACRs are recorded casually in a hurry after a long lapse of time in some cases even after the expiry of one year from the period to which it relates indicating only the grading in the final column. It needs no elaboration that such hurried Assessment cannot but be either on the basis of the Assessment/grading of the preceding years or on personal subjective views of the Inspecting Judges which is unfair to the judicial officer. Undoubtedly ACRs play a vital and significant role in the Assessment evaluation and formulation of opinion on the profile of a judicial officer particularly in matters relating to disciplinary action against a judicial officer. The ACRs of such officer hold supreme

slide 41:

40 importance in ascertaining his conduct and therefore the same have to be reported carefully with due diligence and caution. We feel that there is an urgent need for reforms on this subject not only to bring about uniformity but also to infuse objectivity and standardisation.” 7.2 Reforms need to be made keeping in view the observations of the Supreme Court of India.

slide 42:

41 CHAPTER – 8 INVESTIGATIONS AND ENQUIRIES 8.1 Special Investigation Department for Judicial Officers and Vigilance Cells for Staff Members is essential. Guidance is required to be given in case of minor lapse. Departmental actions are warranted in case of prima facie misconduct. At the same time Judicial Officers and Staff need to be protected against motivated attacks from unscrupulous elements acting with ulterior motives. Justice is required to be done not only on Judicial Side but also on Administrative Side. Policies may have to be set to institutionalize internal mechanism for quick and effective system of departmental actions in deserving cases and parental protection in cases of motivated attacks. In promotion or in punishment justice shall and should be manifest. 8.2 In-House Mechanism for holding Departmental Enquiries under supervision of the High Courts needs to be ensured. In matters relating to departmental actions Police Machinery should not be involved.

slide 43:

42 CHAPTER – 9 JUDGE-POPULATION RATIO 9.1 Hon’ble 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

slide 44:

43 be filled if possible latest by 31st March 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 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 Hon’ble 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.

slide 45:

44 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.

slide 46:

45 CHAPTER – 11 INSTITUTIONALISING NCMS 11.1 To implement the Scheme approved by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India it is proposed to establish under the Secretary General Supreme Court of India an Office for recommending Policy Strategy and Planning. Under this Office mechanisms of following will be created:- i. National Judicial System performance standards qualitative and quantitative ii. A System of Court Statistics CS for monitoring the achievement of the standards including coordination of data from related agencies such as police and jails iii. An Informatics System for digitalizing and streamlining all documents and data of the Judicial System across the country in a phased manner in accordance with local circumstances iv. A National Framework of Court Management and Case Management for achieving those standards and v. A Court User Interface to enhance user friendliness including a Grievance Redress System vi. A Budget and Planning System to identify the financial and other resources needed for the development of the Judiciary vii. A Human Resource Development System for systematic planning of the development and training of human resources of Bench and Bar including prosecutors and court staff as well as development of related capabilities such as investigation and staff required for functioning of courts such as Protection Officers Counsellors etc. viii. Planning for the development of ADR ix. Planning for the development of access to justice and legal aid under guidance of NALSA. x. Communication System for effective communication to public and media about judicial decisions.

slide 47:

46 11.2 In furtherance of approval of the Scheme of National Court Management Systems NCMS by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to institutionalize NCMS following steps have already been taken:- 11.2.A. Under directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India Order was issued on 2 nd May 2012 for establishment of National Court Management Systems see Appendix – A. 11.2.B. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India issued Order on 2 nd May 2012 nominating Prof. Dr. G. Mohan Gopal as Chairperson of National Court Management Systems Committee see Appendix – B. 11.2.C. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India issued further Orders on 2 nd May 2012 nominating Honble Judges to Advisory Committee and Members of National Court Management Systems Committee see Appendix – C.

slide 48:

47 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 Hon’ble 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

slide 49:

48 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. AND FURTHER WHEREAS Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. He will be paid honorarium and given such facilities as may be decided by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for Chairing N.C.M.S.C.

slide 50:

49 Members: 1. Four Sitting Judges preferably one from each zone in India nominated by the Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 5. Director National Judicial Academy. 6. Two practising Advocates nominated by the Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble Chief Justice of India. 9. An expert in Computer Technology relevant to Court Management nominated by the Hon’ble 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 Indiaex-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 In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India c. Personal Assistant - One

slide 51:

50 In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India d. Court Assistant - One In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India e. Junior Court Assistants - Two In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India f. Chauffeur - One In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India g. Junior Court Attendants - Three In the pay-scale as applicable in the Registry of Supreme Court of India The staff shall be on establishment of Supreme Court of India and/or called on deputation on such terms conditions and facilities as Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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

slide 52:

51 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 Enclosures: Scheme of NCMS . Copy to: All concerned.” See Chapter-2.

slide 53:

52 Appendix – B “Reference: Office Order No. 4/SG/NCMS/2012 Dated 02.05.2012 of Secretary General Supreme Court of India. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India O R D E R Prof. Dr. G. Mohan Gopal former Director National Judicial Academy a Jurist is nominated to be Chairperson of National Court Management Systems Committee. He shall also be Member of the Advisory Committee. S/d- S. H. Kapadia Chief Justice of India Dated: 02.05.2012.”

slide 54:

53 Appendix – C “Reference: Office Order No. 4/SG./NCMS/2012 Dated 02.05.2012 of Secretary General Supreme Court of India. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India O R D E R 1 Following are nominated to be on the Advisory Committee of the National Court Management Systems NCMS for enhancing timely justice: - a Hon’ble Shri Justice Altamas Kabir Judge Supreme Court of India. b Hon’ble Shri Justice P. Sathasivam Judge Supreme Court of India. c Hon’ble Shri Justice P. C. Tatia Chief Justice Jharkhand High Court. 2 Following are nominated as Members of National Court Management Systems Committee NCMSC: - a Hon’ble Shi Justice D. Murugesan Judge Madras High Court. b Hon’ble Shri Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Judge High Court of Bombay. c Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitava Roy Judge Gauhati High Court. d Hon’ble Shri Justice B.D. Ahmed Judge High Court of Delhi. e Registrar General High Court of Gujarat. f Registrar General Calcutta High Court. g Registrar General High Court of Karnataka. S/d- S. H. Kapadia Chief Justice of India Dated: 07.05.2012.”

authorStream Live Help