Reforms in courts

 Court scheduling and case management continue to be a hurdle that litigants face

Court delay and Dropadi Murmu 

1 Last month, the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, highlighted the issue of court delays. 

2 she noted that these delays are what are making people hesitate approaching courts, as they fear that the pursuit of justice will complicate their lives further.

 3 black coat syndrome’

likening it to white coat hypertension — a condition where patients exhibit elevated blood pressure in clinical settings. 

Why people are disappointed ?

1 Like 

• gruelling process,
• endless adjournments,
•  numerous appeals, 
• and escalating legal costs. 

2 judiciary’s scheduling and case management practices

Effective case management, involving clear timelines for filing documents, conducting witness examinations, scheduling hearings, and limiting adjournments, are crucial. 

Court scheduling and case management have long been challenges within the Indian judiciary, significantly contributing to delays. 

कुछ प्रयास सुधार के लिए 

Case Flow Management Rules for district court 

Mechanisms such as Case Flow Management Rules were introduced for district and High Courts to streamline processes, set timelines, and create more predictable court schedules. 

However, despite their introduction in the late 2000s, these rules and other initiatives, that were aimed at improving scheduling and timely case disposal, have been inconsistently implemented, and with limited impact.

At the level of the district judiciary

Court scheduling issues 

A holistic approach that considers the psychological and behavioural aspects of all stakeholders is essential for meaningful progress.

 challenges in the district judiciary 

Judges 

have a crucial role in enforcing case management timelines. 

But systemic pressures often compromise their ability to do so. 

Higher court's direction 

Judges in the district judiciary have to prioritise cases, with directions from higher courts to dispose of these cases within a specific time or where target disposal numbers have been provided for case types. 

While such oversight aims to ensure timely justice, higher courts often impose deadlines without fully considering their impact on the overall scheduling in district courts. 

This forces district courts to allocate disproportionate resources to expedite certain cases, disrupting scheduling and creating delays.

What is good to handle this ?

1   The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have criticised this trend, noting that such directives often disrupt case management in district courts. 

2 A more balanced approach is needed, wherein higher courts’ deadlines align with district court operational realities to avoid exacerbating delays.

Are judge incentivised  for extra work ? 

Various statutes and rules impose timelines for the disposing of cases or filing documents, but judges are often not incentivised to adhere to these deadlines. 

The performance evaluation system for judges 

This system is known as the units system, exacerbates these challenges. 

Judges are awarded “units” or points based on the type and number of cases they dispose of, with different weights assigned to different case types. 

To maximise their units, judges might prioritise and dispose of the simpler cases quickly, allowing them to accumulate points more quickly.

 This can lead to a situation where judges focus on less complex cases to boost their unit count, potentially neglecting the more challenging cases that require substantial judicial intervention. 

By favouring cases that are easier to resolve and quicker to process, judges may inadvertently contribute to delays in more complex cases, which are sidelined or postponed.

The impact down the line

Lawyers किस प्रकार से डिले करते हैं ? 

They also significantly impact court scheduling and case management. 

Often handling multiple cases scheduled across different courts on the same day, 

they strategically decide about which cases to attend to based on factors such as the 

• likelihood of adjournment,
•  the importance of the case, 
• the perceived mood 
• predispositions of a particular judge. This often leads to adjournments in some matters.

The lack of predictability 

Lawyers often do not have a clear understanding of when a particular case will be heard or the likelihood of adjournment, making it difficult to plan their schedules. 

.

The tendency to extend stays and interim orders 

further diminishes the interest of lawyers in actively pursuing a case. 

For litigants, obtaining a stay on a case can often be seen as a victory, especially in civil matters where a stay order may prevent any immediate adverse action. 

Before a trial begins, the judge sets a schedule with specific dates for each witness’s testimony, and, accordingly, summons are issued. 

Need for holistic reform

To address court scheduling issues

 a holistic approach is needed that goes beyond rules and timelines, and which focuses on incentivising all actors. 

Judges should be evaluated not just by the number of cases they dispose of but also by their ability to manage and resolve more complex cases within the prescribed timelines. 

The unit system needs reform so as to prioritise complex cases that require substantial judicial intervention, encouraging a broader range of case management.

predictable scheduling systems

 Lawyers need better scheduling information to reduce uncertainty and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

 Courts should implement predictable scheduling systems, introduce penalties for delays, and reward lawyers who adhere to schedules. 

Litigants should be discouraged from using stay orders 

and interim reliefs as delay tactics by making such orders temporary and subject to regular review. 

Witnesses require more predictability 

in court appearances, with advance notice and sufficient compensation beyond travel expenses to encourage their participation.

Technological solutions 

could enhance case management, providing real-time updates and the monitoring of timelines. 

Courts can adopt a data-driven approach to identify and address scheduling bottlenecks, improving overall judicial efficiency. Without reform that accounts for the human side of the system, any procedural changes will remain just that — paper reforms.

Source the hindu