RN Bhaskar
The first table is about prosecutors, who fight on behalf of the government, the police, and the administration to bring a culprit a justice. There is a shortage in the number of posts sanctioned for prosecutors. Thus, even if a suspect is arrested, he may have to wait for justice and the final verdict for a long time because there just aren’t enough prosecutors around. The strength of prosecutors in India compared to other countries in the world is pathetic. Does the government really believe is fair dispensation of justice?
But the next chart should make a chill go down the spine. India does not have enough judges even as a percentage of the population. It is then that the realisation dawns that even the sanctioned strength is barely a tenth of what it ought to have been. This also means that the judiciary has been functioning with barely 10% of the judicial strength required.
Cases pile up
Not surprisingly, as admitted by the government on 3 February 2021 (reported with annexures of Lok Sabha documents by Mint the number of cases pending before the Supreme Court had swelled from 57,346 in 2018 to 63,146 in 2020. The number of pending cases before high courts had similarly swelled from 44,48,926 in 2018 to 56,42,567 in 2020.
In 2015, the number of pending cases at high courts was 3,43,451. It must be clarified though, that this data was only for nine courts in the country. However, there is no denying that current numbers point to the rapid decay in the judiciary abetted by the government.
Similarly, the government admitted that the number of pending cases had also gone up in District and Subordinate Courts from 29,173,911 as on 10 December 2018 to 37,183.419 as on 28 January 2021.
Can you ever have an Atma Nirbhar Bharat when the very props on which justice should stand are missing, or have been stolen?
Judges need longer tenures
Stolen is a harsh word, but when one looks at another issue, it all begins to sink in. Bureaucrats generally can serve out their entire career spanning 20-40 years unless there is a serious case of moral or professional turpitude. A politician can complete his full term of 5 years (unless there is a mid-term election called) and even stand for re-election. But many Supreme Court judges are not even given five years as their tenure.
Take the current batch of Supreme Court judges. Of the 30 judges listed on the Supreme Court website at least 11 judges have tenures that are less than five years, some less than two years. Even the current Supreme Court Chief Justice will have a tenure of just 1 year 85 days. Just imagine if legislators were given tenures of les than 5 years! Aren’t Supreme Court Judges meant to be at part with legislators. Why should the ministry of law and the collegium agree to give any judge a tenure of less than five years? How do they plan to bring about change in the dispensation of justice with noticeably short tenures?
In fact, chief justices should normally have a tenure of 10 years, so that they can concentrate on improving on the dispensation of justice. The date of retirement should not matter for them in much the same way as there is no date of retirement for legislators.
Why should legislators and bureaucrats have longer tenures than judges when it should be the other way around? The judiciary is the final bulwark of any civilisation. It has the power to strike down a bad piece of legislation or a rotten executive order. Are these attempts to reduce the numbers of judges to be interpreted as ways to make the judiciary ineffective and ineffectual? Could this be mere myopia? After all, there is little chance of economic revival without a strong judiciary.
This is a frightening thought. And such fears get reinforced as one looks at other aspects of the law and justice scenario. But more a bit later.
