There is a backlog figure of 29.1 million in the court system. This is horrendous and it?s not quite the case that there have been no attempts to reduce the backlog. Two such recent attempts are Lok Adalats and Fast Track Courts.
In 1980, a Committee known as CILAS (Committee for Implementing Legal Aid Schemes) was set up to monitor legal aid activities. This led to Lok Adalats and the first Lok Adalat was held in 1982 in Junagadh, Gujarat. Lok Adalats are supplementary forums to provide quick, easy, accessible, non-technical and sympathetic dispute resolution mechanisms. In 2002, the Legal Services Authorities Act was amended, requiring establishment of permanent Lok Adalats for public utility services. Lok Adalats differ from the earlier Nyaya Panchayats in that they are not constrained by being restricted to specific categories or ?minor? matters. Through a compromise between parties, they have the jurisdiction not only to settle matters that have not yet been formally instituted in a court of law, but also those which are pending in courts. This covers both civil and criminal cases. However, an offence that is not compoundable cannot be decided by a Lok Adalat, even if the two parties agree to this. There are no court fees and if the case had earlier been lodged in a regular court, that court fee is refunded. The key is consent and a Lok Adalat decision cannot be forced on either party. However, once the two parties have agreed to refer a matter to a Lok Adalat, the decision is binding. The Supreme Court has also held that if the consent of the parties has not been obtained, the Lok Adalat?s decision is not executable and the regular litigation process must be resorted to. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) not only has the responsibility of providing legal services to those who are eligible, it also has the responsibility of organising Lok Adalats. Hence, funds to State Legal Services Authorities are also channeled through NALSA for organising Lok Adalats.
With all these advantages, the Lok Adalat system should have exploded. But this isn?t quite what has happened. The number of Lok Adalats organised increased from 33,810 in 2001-02 to 35,167 in 2002-03 and 43,493 in 2003-04.
However, this apparent success has not been matched by the number of cases that Lok Adalats have disposed of. That figure was 14,48,472 in 2001-02, but dipped to 12,52,021 in 2002-03 and 11,80,371 in 2003-04. The problem does not seem to be paucity of financial resources. What is also noticeable is the great inter-state variation in performance of Lok Adalats. For instance, if cases disposed of divided by number of Lok Adalats organised is an acceptable indicator of Lok Adalat productivity, among major States, the performances of Bihar, Gujarat, Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh have been outstanding.
The Eleventh Finance Commission recommended and sanctioned the setting up of 1,734 Fast Track Courts (FTCs), with a special focus on cases involving under-trials who had remained in jails for a period of more than two years, approving a total grant of Rs 5.029 billion for this purpose. Grants for FTCs were one of the 12 upgradation grants recommended by the Commission and Rs 4.3375 billion was released as grants until 28th March, 2005. Of this, Rs 3.0148 billion was reported as utilised. Dr Manmohan Singh, speaking at the conference of chief ministers and chief justices of High Courts on Administration of Justice on Fast Track in April 2007, pointed out that the government had provided Rs 5.09 billion for the organisation of FTCs and expressed concern that the receipt of utilisation reports from states was not satisfactory, thus leading to a delay in disbursal. In the first five years of their creation (2000-05), FTCs have disposed of 8,00,000 cases, compared to the 5,00,000 cases that they were expected to dispose of in a single year. The FTCs have disposed of roughly half the 15,00,000 cases that have been transferred to them. Till March 31, 2005, state governments notified only 1,711 FTCs and only 1,562 were functional. The FTC scheme was supposed to end on March 31, 2005. However, since they have been at least partly effective, their term has been extended by another five years, till March 31, 2010.
Judicial response to FTCs often is that they need to be made permanent, with appointments into a regular judicial service under the disciplinary control of the High Court. This confuses the intent behind FTCs with a broader objective of improving court systems in general. It is a separate matter to argue that, in addition to cases from sessions courts, those from magistrates? courts and even civil cases, should also be transferred to FTCs.
The regional variation across FTC performance is also evident. The all-India average of cases disposed per month is 15, per FTC. As originally envisaged, this was meant to be a per judge norm, not per FTC. Per FTC, Tamil Nadu has been logging 63 cases per month. There is no getting away from the fact that there are broader governance (including judicial) problems in parts of the country. The FTC scheme has only ensured funds, without ensuring accountability. It hasn?t incentivised reforms.
?The author is a noted economist