With law minister expressing himself in favour of courts sitting in shifts, as a formula for doing away with the judicial backlog of cases, it is important to critically evaluate the implications of such a proposed system
With a view to speed up the disposal rate of cases, government is considering to introduce a system whereby courts may start working in shifts. Courts may have to work in morning, evening and night shifts to clear the heavy backlog of pending cases. It seems that this shift system would be implemented for lower courts i.e. the courts working at the district level. Some of the state governments have already introduced this shift system in a limited manner through evening courts however, significance of courts that sit at odd hours is still uncertain.
Sitting of courts in shifts will not address the backlog of cases. Shifts could be the solution to minimise the number of people attending courts and will accommodate them. However, it will stretch the workinghours of practicing lawyers. Shifts may help to secure the presence of litigants/witnesses but mere non-presence of litigants/witnesses is not the main reason behind the backlog of cases.
The main reason behind the backlog of cases is the present working system of regular courts. The offices of the regular court remain open daily from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm and the courts hold sittings on all working days from 10.30 am to 4.30 pm including a small break for lunch. The cause-list of lower courts generally list out 50 to 60 cases per day for hearing. On an average, courts can give a few minutes for a case. Courts also need time for dictating orders on miscellaneous applications and judgments in completedcases. Maximum office hours seem to be consumed in rotating cases/items listed in the daily cause list. They hardly get enough time to dictate orders/judgments on interim applications and finally heard matters. All this is because of the large number of cases listed daily.
The main reason behind the heavy cause list is less number of judicial officers. Therefore, there is definitely a need to increase number of judges to reduce each court’s burden. This will automatically lower the time cycle for rotation of cases.
In lower courts, a case on an average has a 3/4 months rotation cycle, which is the difference between one date of hearing and the next date of hearing. Reasons for adjournment of cases vary from nonappearance of parties/witnesses, non-availability of counsel and on other grounds like written statement/reply not being ready, counsel busy in some other court etc. Once an adjournment is requested, the matter is generally heard again after 3 to 4 months, because of pending cases in a court. If number of judges is increased, each court will ultimately have lesser number of cases, which will automatically decrease the rotation cycle by say a week, and cases will reach maturity sooner irrespective of the reasons.
Courts working during odd hours have their own limitations. Each matter cannot be transferred or made subject matter of such courts. Criminal cases involving trial with the help of police will have administrative problems and producing accused persons in custody before the court at odd hours will not be an easy task. Therefore, there seems to be less scope of transfer of cases to courts sitting at odd hours for criminal cases. Civil cases, cases filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for cheque bouncing) and traffic challans (which should not be counted as backlog of cases) can be the subject matter of courts sitting at odd hours. However, this will only work when the number of judicial officers is increased. If the number of judges is increased, it will definitely work to reduce the backlog, irrespective of introduction of shifts in court sittings.
It may appear that odd hour courts will share the burden of pending cases, but this will bring hardship to many parties including, litigants, witnesses, practicing lawyers and other support staff (stenographers and stamp vendors whose importance cannot be ruled out). Even the presence of litigants as well as the witnesses is doubtful, let alone the presence of practicing lawyers. It would not be easy for litigants coming from rural areas to attend morning, evening or night courts. It would also not be easy for odd hour courts to ensure presence of official witnesses from banks and government offices. Even if the presence of official witnesses is compelled, it would not be easy for such witnesses to bring official records at odd hours. This would also require government offices to remain open in the morning, evening and night to facilitate presentation of official records to odd hour courts.
The proposed shifts system would affect practicing lawyers the most. In addition to being a burden, this would seriously affect the preparedness of such lawyers for future cases. Operating in shifts is generally adopted by manufacturing units to maximise their production by using the same building and machine but with different manpower in each shift.
Following the same, running of courts in shifts will be successful only if the number of judicial officers is increased. Also, in a judicial system, use of the same infrastructure for shifts may not be feasible since judicial officers have to sit after court hours for dictating order/judgments. A better way to reduce the backlog of cases would be to appoint more judicial officers in the present system.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
