1. Citizen’sAppeal : Ensuring expeditious
and timely justice to all

2. Need for speedy justice
 There is no denying the fact that delay frustrates justice. Speedy
justice is the right of every litigating person.
 In the present set-up it often takes 10 – 20 or even more years before
a matter is finally decided.
 In the recent past, litigation has increased immensely. The population
growth, improved financial conditions, lack of tolerance and
materialistic way of life may be some of the causes.
 But the delay in dispensation of justice has to be eliminated by taking
effective steps otherwise the day is not far when the whole system will
collapse.
 Recently, one Hon’ble Judge of Delhi High Court calculated that 464
years will be required to clear the arrears with the present strength of
the judges in that High Court. The position may not be that gloomy
but is still alarming.

3. Facts at a glance
 3.5 crore cases are pending across courts in the
country.
 India’s judge to population ratio (14 judges per
10 lakh people) is the lowest in the world;
 whereas the average in developing countries is
roughly 40 judges per 10 lakh people.
 Number of vacancies in the judiciary as of
January 2013 is at 3,000.
 Average disposition time of a case is 15 years.
 The Union government spends less than 1% of its
plan expenditure on the judiciary.

4. In the Battlefield…
 Attack
 Although operationally
independent but Financially
Dependent on both Central and
State Governments
 Plan expenditure by Central
Government 1% on judiciary
 Even out of the budget allocated
less than half actually reaches the
target group
 Counterattack
 90% of litigation handled by the
lower courts. Therefore the state
government should increase the
plan budgetary allocation for the
judiciary
 Central government should
extend the aid to the state
governments so that they have a
strong financial backup and
hence an efficient judiciary
 Committees at Central and State
level to supervise that the budget
allocated reaches the target group

5. In the Battlefield…
 Attack
 Proposed bill to set up a Judicial
Appointment Commission calls for
excessive executive interference in
appointment of judges of High
Courts and Supreme Court.
 Government say in the
appointment can in no way curb
the corruption rather such measures
may aggravate the problem of
corruption and hamper the judicial
independence and impartiality as
envisaged by our constitution
 Counterattack
 The present criteria of the
appointment of the judges of High
courts and the Supreme Court by
the collegium should be retained
because the knowledge and
experience held by the members of
the collegium can in no way be
substituted by that of the
executives.
 They select the judges on merit
basis, by gaining personal
knowledge by interacting with the
judiciary and bar in states and
reading the judgements of the
prospective judges.

6. In the Battlefield…
 Attack
 Few Lawyers graduating to
become judges reason being their
shift towards law firms and
corporate houses
 There are poor infrastructural
facilities in the courts which
discourages the law graduates and
further decreases the efficiency of
the system
 Counterattack
 The salary and the incentives
should match up to the demand of
the post to prevent the exflow of
talented lot and also this will go a
long way in curbing corruption
 Quality of education imparted in
law colleges need to be strictly
monitored by BCI so that better
standard of lawyers are available to
serve justice
 Budgetary allocation for judiciary
should be increased to improve the
infrastructure of the court rooms

7. In the Battlefield...
 Attack
 Number of cases disposed off
being proportional to fresh filings
 Highest number of pending cases
are the criminal cases that amount
to 65% of the total pending cases
 Faster socio-economic growth
resulting in more and more cases
 Counterattack
 New Benches should be created to
benefit the litigants and lawyers
 Suggestions of Law Commission
report 221 should be accepted
which calls for having one forum
for filing revisions against orders
passed by magistrate instead of
two alternative forums and also
for amendment of various
provisions of Code of Criminal
Procedure
 Strength of judges should be
increased by filling up the existing
vacancies without compromising
upon the quality of judges

8. In the Battlefield…
 Attack
 Delay caused by not just judiciary
but by various other stakeholders
like the police during investigation.
 Laws of the 19th century continuing
till date without substantial
changes being introduced to meet
the needs of the ever-changing
society.
 Counterattack
 Suggestions as given by Law
Commission Report 230th should
be accepted which calls for full
utilization of the court working
hours and use of technology to
dispose off cases filed on similar
points.
 Moreover police reform is the need
of the hour because it is more
susceptible to the evil of corruption
resulting in unnecessary delay in
investigation and the subsequent
filing of chargesheet.
 Suggestions forwarded by Law
Commission Report 221 must be
applied to bring the law in tune
with the current society.

9. Fighting in the Battlefield
 Attack
 Justice costly for the poor
 Doors of the Supreme court and
High court are open only for a
rich few.
 Counterattack
 Work of the High courts should
be decentralized by establishing
more benches in all states.
Benches should be so established
so that a litigant is not required to
travel long.
 Concept of public interest
litigations go a long way in
solving the problem of
unawareness and ignorance of the
indigent.

10. In the Battlefield…
 Attack
 Improportionate number of Fast-
track courts with the needs and
hence they are insufficient to
tackle the long list of pending
cases
 Fast Track Courts only are named
so but in reality all efforts are
done to prolong the proceedings
as witnessed in the recent rape
cases also
 Counterattack
 Need to have more fast-track
courts not only in the capital but
also in various other states
 Need to fast-track the procedure
too by focusing upon the quality
rather than the quantity of the
evidences.
 Day to day trial means trial
should be conducted on day to
day basis without any delay.