parliament of india rajya sabha - … of india rajya sabha 27 department-related parliament ary...

PARLIAMENT OF INDIA

RAJYA SABHA 27

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDINGCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES,

LAW AND JUSTICE

TWENTY SEVENTH REPORT

ON

ACTION TAKEN REPLIES ONLAW’S DELAYS : ARREARS IN COURTS

TH (PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 29 APRIL, 2008)TH

(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON 29 APRIL, 2008)

TH (PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 29 APRIL, 2008)TH

(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON 29 APRIL, 2008)

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT

NEW DELHI

APRIL, 2008/VAISAKHA, 1930 (SAKA)APRIL, 2008/VAISAKHA, 1930 (SAKA)

Website : http://rajyasabha.nic.inE-mail : [email protected]

PARLIAMENT OF INDIARAJYA SABHA

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDINGCOMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES,

LAW AND JUSTICE

TWENTY SEVENTH REPORT

ON

ACTION TAKEN REPLIES ONLAW’S DELAYS : ARREARS IN COURTS

(PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 29TH APRIL, 2008)(LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE LOK SABHA ON 29TH APRIL, 2008)

RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIATNEW DELHI

APRIL, 2008/VAISAKHA, 1930 (SAKA)

CS(P&L)-53

CONTENTS

PAGES

1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ........................................................................................ (i)-(ii)

2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ (iii)

3. REPORT ................................................................................................................................... 1

(i) CHAPTER-IRecommendations/Observations which have beenaccepted by the Ministry ..................................................................................... 2—4

(ii) CHAPTER-IIRecommendations/Observations which the Committeedoes not desire to pursue for now in view of theGovernment’s replies ............................................................................................ 5—13

(iii) CHAPTER-IIIRecommendations/Observations in respect of whichthe Committee has not accepted repliesof the Government ................................................................................................ 14—18

(iv) CHAPTER-IVRecommendations/Observations in respect of whichfinal replies of the Ministry have not beenreceived ................................................................................................................... 19—32

4. MINUTES ................................................................................................................................. 33—39

5. ANNEXURES ............................................................................................................................ 41—47

A. Institution, disposal and pendency of cases inthe Supreme Court ......................................................................................................... 43

B. Institution, disposal and pendency of cases inthe High Courts ............................................................................................................. 44—45

C. Institution, disposal and pendency of cases inthe Subordinate Courts ................................................................................................. 46—47

(i)

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE(2007-08)

1. Dr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan – Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Dr. Radhakant Nayak

3. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi

4. Shri Balavant alias Bal Apte

5. Shri Virendra Bhatia

6. Shri Tariq Anwar

7. Shri Ram Jethmalani

8. Shri Tarlochan Singh

9. Vacant

10. Vacant

LOK SABHA

11. Shri Raj Babbar

12. Dr. Shafiqur Rahman Barq

13. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan

14. Shri Chhattar Singh Darbar

15. Shri N.Y. Hanumanthappa

16. Shri S.K. Kharventhan

17. Shri A. Krishnaswamy

18. Dr. C. Krishnan

19. Shri Shailendra Kumar

20. Shri Harin Pathak

21. Shri Dahyabhai Vallabhbhai Patel

22. Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan

23. Prof. M. Ramadass

24. Shri Bhupendrasinh Solanki

25. Shri Vishvendra Singh

26. Shri Anirudh Prasad alias Sadhu Yadav

27. Vacant

28. Vacant

29. Vacant

30. Vacant

31. Vacant

(ii)

SECRETARIAT

Shri Sham Sher Singh, Joint Secretary

Shri K.P. Singh, Joint Director

Shri K.N. Earendra Kumar, Deputy Director

Ms. Niangkhannem Guite, Committee Officer

(iii)

INTRODUCTION

I, the Chairman of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel,Public Grievances, Law and Justice, having been authorised by the Committee to submit thisReport on its behalf, do hereby present its Twenty-Seventh Report on the ‘‘Action Taken Repliesof the Government on the recommendations contained in the 85th Report of the Committee onHome Affairs on the subject ‘‘Law’s Delays: Arrears in Courts’’. The Department RelatedParliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, after itsbifurcation from the Committee on Home Affairs on 26th July, 2004, had taken up forconsideration the Action Taken Replies on the 85th Report of the Committee on Home Affairs.

2. The Committee on Home Affairs had examined the subject in detail and had made exhaustiverecommendations. Since the recommendations pertain to important and crucial issues relating tojudiciary such as, judicial arrears, revamping of judicial system, modernization of Courts,strengthening of judicial infrastructure etc., the Committee decided to consider the Action TakenReplies of the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice). In the light of the above,the Committee requested the Ministry to furnish the updated Action Taken Replies on the1st October, 2007. The Ministry sought extension of time till the 15th February, 2008. However,on Committee's request the matter was expedited. The Committee heard the presentation of theSecretary, Department of Justice in its meeting on the 14th February, 2008 on the subject.

3. The Committee considered and adopted the Report in its meeting held on 24th April, 2008.

4. For the facility of reference and convenience, the observations and recommendations of theCommittee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report.

DR. E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPANNEW DELHI; Chairman,24th April, 2008 Committee on Personnel,

Public Grievances, Law and Justice

1

REPORT

The Action Taken Report of the Committee deals with the action taken by the Ministry ofLaw and Justice (Department of Justice) on the recommendations/observations of the thenDepartment related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in its 85th Report on 'Law'sdelays: Arrears in Courts'. The Report was presented to Rajya Sabha on 7th March, 2002 and laidon the table of Lok Sabha on 26th February, 2002.

2. Action taken replies have been received from the Department of Justice in respect of therecommendations contained in the above mentioned report. These replies have been categorised asfollows :

Chapter – I — The recommendations/observations which have been accepted by the Ministryin respect of Paras 38.2, 44, 45 and 77. The Committee is pleased to note that the Ministry hasaccepted its recommendations as mentioned in Chapter – I of the report.

Chapter – II — The recommendations/observations which the Committee does not desire topursue in view of the replies given by Department of Justice in respect of paras 48, 51, 52,54, 73 and 84. The Committee is convinced with the explanations advanced by the Department ofJustice and does not want to pursue as of now.

Chapter – III — The recommendations/observations in respect of which the Committee hasnot accepted replies given by Department of Justice with regard to paras 32.1, 32.2, 38, 65and 70. The Committee expresses its concern for not accepting the recommendations of theCommittee contained in Chapter – III of this report and desires that the Ministry should furnishlogical explanations in respect of these recommendations.

Chapter – IV — The recommendations/observations in respect of which final replies of theDepartment of Justice have not been received with regard to paras 7, 20, 22, 26, 28, 30 and49. The Committee observes that the Ministry has furnished interim replies and the Committeedesires that the Ministry should furnish action taken notes in respect of recommendationscategorised in Chapter – IV.

3. The recommendations/observations of the Committee in its 85th report, the ATRs furnishedby Department of Justice and the Committee’s further recommendations/observations have beendealt with in the succeeding chapters.

2

CHAPTER-I

RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BYTHE MINISTRY

Recommendation/observation

1. Strength of Judges

The Committee is of the considered view that the Government may reconsider therecommendations of the 120th Report of the Law Commission and take steps to increasethe strength of judges per million population, at the earliest. The Committee endorses theLaw Commission’s recommendations and suggests that variations can be made for differentjurisdictions on the basis of pendency, rate of disposal and other relevant factors inconsultation with the judiciary. The Committee understands that the States are generallynot able or willing to provide the finances that are required to create courtrooms and otherinfrastructure consequent upon the number of the judges being increased. The Committeerecommends that the Union Government must take the initiative to provide funds andcreate mechanisms to monitor their utilization. (Para 38.2)

Action Taken Reply

In so far as the Judge strength is concerned, the position is as follows:

The Law Commission had recommended and the Supreme Court has spelt out that theexisting Judge population ratio should be increased from 10.5 per million population to 50 Judgesper million. This increase in Judge strength of 50 Judge per million population should be effectedand implemented in a phased manner within a period of five years. The Central Government haverequested the, Supreme Court through an Interlocutory Application to modify its order (dated21.3.2002 in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India) to allow creation of judge strengthon the basis of work-load and not on the basis of population alone. The matter is still sub judice.

Judges strength in High Courts was reviewed in 2007. It has been decided to create 152posts of Judges taking the strength of Judges in High Courts from 725 to 877.

Government proposes to set up Gram Nyayalayas and the Gram Nyayalaya Bill which wasearlier referred to the Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee will be pursued in theParliament with official amendments based on the recommendations of the Department relatedParliamentary Standing Committee. The strength of judicial officers of the country is expected toincrease after such Nyayalayas are set up.

In so far as providing infrastructure facilities for the judiciary, it is the primaryresponsibility of the State Governments to provide such facilities for the High Courts andSubordinate judiciary. However to augment the resources of the State Governments, the UnionGovernment initiated a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for development of infrastructure facilities forthe judiciary since 1993 — under which grant is released for construction of court buildings andresidential accommodation for judges and the States have to provide matching share. UTs are notrequired to provide matching share. From 1993-94 upto 2006-07, a sum of Rs.690.65 crore wasreleased as Central share to the States/UTs. As per available information, States/UTs have spentRs.1442.59 crore till 2006-07 including their share.

2

3

The Central Government also provides infrastructure support by way of computerization ofthe courts and presently has under implementation a scheme in this regard.


2. Case load and Judicial manpower requirement

The Committee has carefully considered the computations made in the Departmentof Justice for the reduction of pendency of cases over a period of 3, 5 or 7 years, besidesdisposal of regular year to year institution of cases. The Committee notes that theGovernment has proceeded on the hypothesis that arrears should be cleared in a period of6 years. The Committee questions the hypothesis. (Para 44)

The Committee is of the view that the aim should be to clear the arrears withinthree to four years, that the primary sanctioned strength should be maintained on the basisof an optimum judge population ratio worked out on the basis of the pendency and the rateof disposal, and that judges’ strength should be augmented protem to deal with theaccumulated arrears. The system should ensure a zero accrual of arrears beyond threeyears. The judges’ strength should be increased or augmented in the phased manner andwithout compromising the quality of judges for numbers can never be a substitute forquality. (Para 45)

Action Taken Reply

The recommendation has been forwarded to all the High Courts and State Governments andUT Administrations.

The Supreme Court has spelt out that the existing Judge population ratio should beincreased from 10.5 per million population to 50 Judges per million. This increase in Judge strengthof 50 Judge per million population should be effected and implemented in a phased manner withina period of five years. The Central Government have requested the Supreme Court through anInterlocutory Application to modify its order (dated 21.3.2002 in All India Judges Association Vs.Union of India) to allow creation of judge strength on the basis of work-load and not on the basisof population alone. The matter is still sub judice.

Judges strength in High Courts was reviewed in 2007. It has been decided to create 152posts of Judges taking the strength of Judges in High Courts from 725 to 877.

The proposed Gram Nyayalayas is also expected to contribute in reduction of arrears.


3. Computerization of Courts

The Committee strongly recommends that the task of computerization should betaken up on a high priority basis; proper networking should be achieved between theSupreme Court, High Courts and all Subordinate Courts within a specific time schedulewhich will definitely help in disposing of the cases faster. (Para 77)

Action Taken Reply

Government has approved a scheme of comprehensive computerization of all District andSubordinate Courts in the country and has commenced implementation of the scheme whichincludes up gradation of the IT infrastructure in the Supreme Court and the High Courts and linkingthe lowest court to the highest court electronically. The scheme which is based on the National

4

Policy and Action Plan presented by the E-Committee is envisaged at a total estimated cost ofRs.854 crore for implementation in a period of five years. Presently, the first phase of the scheme,at a total cost of Rs.442 crore (with scope for 10 per cent enhancement) is under implementationfor being completed in a period of two years.

The above mentioned scheme is being implemented by the Government as a Mission ModeProject called E-Courts.

5

CHAPTER-II

RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS WHICH THE COMMITTEEDOES NOT DESIRE TO PURSUE IN VIEW OF THE REPLIES

GIVEN BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


1. Liquidation of pendency in High Courts

The Committee notes that in order to liquidate the pendency in High Courts withina span of one to three years, additional judges will be required and also the supplementalcreation of supporting staff for each judge and other infrastructural support. TheCommittee would like to impress upon Government to make full use of the centrallysponsored scheme for infrastructural development of the judiciary started by it since 1993.The main problem the Committee foresees is that State Governments may not be veryenthusiastic about the scheme as they have to share the cost on 50:50 basis. It may bepointed out that the Committee on Home Affairs in its 72nd Report on Demands for Grants(2001-02) of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, has urged upon theGovernment to consider the idea of giving substantially larger contribution to the StateGovernments in carrying out the scheme. The Committee would urge the Government tomake a specific plan for improving, augmenting and streamlining the facilities andresources for existing courts and tribunals and for new courts and tribunals to be createdto cut the monstrous problem of arrears to size. (Para 48)

Action Taken Reply

The scheme of development of infrastructure facilities for the judiciary which isimplemented as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme is being continued in the Eleventh Five Year Planwith an outlay of Rs.701.08 crores. This scheme is exclusively for, construction of courts andresidential accommodation for the judges and judicial officers. The Department of Justice hadearlier taken up the matter of enhancing the central share for this Centrally Sponsored Schemefrom 50 per cent to 75 per cent with the Planning Commission which was not agreed to. Priorto the finalization of the Eleventh Plan outlay for the scheme, a proposal was made to the PlanningCommission for enhancing the central share in respect of the North Eastern States to 90 per centwhich also did not find favour with the Planning Commission. In the period from 1993-94 to2006-07 an amount of Rs.690.65 crore had been released to the States and UTs as central share.The States/UTs have reported spending Rs.1442.59 crore (including their share) in the same period,which indicates that some of the States do have the ability to share 50 per cent or more of thecost of infrastructure development.

In addition, the Central Government provides support for computerization of the courts asan entirely central sector initiative. As has been mentioned separately, a scheme of comprehensivecomputerization of the District and Subordinate Courts is under implementation. This scheme isbeing implemented with the National Informatics Centre as the implementing agency. The firstphase of the scheme is expected to cost Rs.442 crore. As part of the scheme laptop computershave been provided to judges and judicial officers (12155 laptops), laser printers for these laptopsare being procured for delivery, training is underway to familiarize the judges and the court staff

5

6

with the computerization. Internet connectivity and facility is being provided to the judges. Theabove measures are part of Government’s efforts at improving and augmenting the infrastructurefacilities and resources for the judiciary.

Recommendations/observations

2. Alternative mode of dispute settlement

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in its 49th Report (1998)accepted the proposal of arbitration, conciliation, mediation and judicial settlement and itbecame part of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999. (Para 51)

The Committee is hopeful and cautiously optimistic that efforts of this kind woulddefinitely help reduce the burden on the courts and decrease the accumulation of arrears.The Committee feels that the Government should encourage Non-Governmentalorganizations to spread awareness among the people, especially people of low income groups,about the futility of frivolous cases to be filed in the court and persuade them to adoptmethods like arbitration, mediation, and out of the court settlement. The Committee is ofthe view that an enlightened Bar and the Bar Councils have a crucial role to play in theprocess. (Para 52)

Action Taken Reply

The Department of Legal Affairs, who are concerned with the subject matter, havefurnished the following information:

Part - I:

The following fora are available for encouraging awareness among low-income groups inthe matters of arbitration, mediation and out of court settlement:

(1) The International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR),

(2) Lok Adalats and Legal Aid to Poor.

(3) Arbitration and Conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(4) The International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR)

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has already been amended to incorporate provisions ofsection 89, which enjoin upon the courts a duty to try settlement of cases through ADR Modeslike arbitration, conciliation, Lok Adalats, etc.

ICADR has been spreading awareness amongst various Group of citizens about the futilityof frivolous cases to be filed in the courts and persuade them to adopt methods like arbitration,mediation for out of the court settlement. In this connection ICADR has organised around 54Seminars/Workshops/Training Programmes upto the F.Y. 2005-06 and trained around 6000 personsas Arbitrators and Conciliators.

It has further organised the following Seminars/Workshops/Training Programmes/Lectures/Diploma Courses during the year 2006-07.

(1) ICADR, Headquarters organised a National Workshop on Plea Bargaining on 23rd and24th September, 2006 in SCOPE Complex in collaboration with Ministry of HomeAffairs.

(2) The second Workshop on Plea Bargaining was held jointly by ICADR and OrissaJudicial Academy, Cuttack on 28th January, 2007 in Cuttack.

7

(3) ICADR organised an International Level Conference on ‘‘Alternative DisputeResolution’’ on 10th February, 2007 at Hotel Inter-Continental, The Grand, NewDelhi. It was inaugurated by Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Chief Justice ofIndia. The said Conference was attended by Rt. Hon. Baroness Hale of Richmond,DBE, PC, FBA Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, U.K. and Prof. (Dr.) Julian Farrand, QC,LLD, FCIArb.

(4) A National Seminar on ‘‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism – Nationaland International Perspective’’ was held jointly by ICADR and University LawCollege, Jaipur on 24th March, 2007 in Jaipur. About 300 delegates attended theSeminar.

(5) A Seminar on ADR-Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation was held jointly by ICADRand Bar Association and Bar Council, Punjab and Haryana, on 21st April, 2007 atAbout 400 delegates attended the Seminar, which was a great success.

(6) A Workshop on ‘‘Insolvency and Creditors Rights Reform’’ was held by ICADR incollaboration with Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and theWorld Bank on 29th August, 2007 in Hotel Taj Mahal, New Delhi.

(7) ICADR are making efforts to approach Heads of the Government Departments, PublicSector Undertakings, etc., and request them to include Arbitration/Conciliation Clausesof ICADR in the Agreements to be entered into by such Departments/PSUs with otherparties so that in case of future disputes arising between them, the cases are referredto ICADR for settlement.

(8) The Chief Engineer (Projects), Irrigation, Government of Andhra Pradesh informedthat it is proposed to refer two cases, involving the claim amount belowRs.10,00,000/-, to ICADR for arbitration. In other cases, where claim amount is inexcess of Rs.10,00,000/-, civil courts are being approached, subject to agreementbetween the parties concerned, for withdrawal of cases which will then be referredto ICADR.

(9) A Convocation Ceremony was held in the office premises of Regional Centre,Hyderabad, on July 22, 2006 to present Diplomas and Certificates to the successfulstudents of P.G. Diploma in ADR (2005) and P.G. Certificate Course in ADR (2005)conducted at Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam respectively.

(10) Post Graduate Diploma in ADR [Proximate Education (2006-07)] : ICADR incollaboration with NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad started the third batch ofthe said diploma course through the distance education. 157 candidates enrolled forthe diploma course from various parts of India.

(11) Post Graduate Diploma in ADR [Regular (2006-07)]: ICADR in collaboration withNALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, started the P.G. Diploma Course in ADR forthe academic year 2006-07 (seventh batch). 58 candidates enrolled for the saiddiploma course and the classes started in January, 2007. The course will conclude inOctober, 2007.

(12) Post Graduate Diploma in Family Dispute Resolution (2006-07): ICADR incollaboration with NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, started the P.G. DiplomaCourse in Family Dispute Resolution for the academic year 2006-07 (fourth batch).19 students enrolled for the said diploma course and the classes started inMarch, 2007. The course will conclude in November, 2007.

8

(13) The Regional Centre, Hyderabad conducted a Workshop on ADR for 3 days from12-8-2006 to 14-8-2006 for 23 District Judges and 26 Additional District Judges andSenior Civil Judges of Andhra Pradesh at A.P. Judicial Academy, Secunderabad. ThisWorkshop on ADR was held to facilitate implementation of the provisions of Section89 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Andhra Pradesh.

(14) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India referred a Family Dispute matter in the case ofK. Nagasri vs. K. Nageswara Rao [Transfer Petition Civil No. 983 of 2005] toICADR, Hyderabad for reconciliation purpose. One student of ICADR was appointedas Conciliator and after protracted negotiations, a Memorandum of Understanding wassigned by the parties to live together.

(15) The Family Court, Hyderabad has referred 258 cases to ICADR for conciliationpurposes. The Regional Centre, Hyderabad has appointed the diploma holders of P.G.Diploma in Family Dispute Resolution as Conciliators. They are making their sincereand diligent efforts to conciliate between the disputing spouses without charging anyfee. In 14 cases the Conciliators through their efforts have succeeded in making theparties to arrive at amicable settlements.

(16) A meeting of the Advisory Council of ICADR, Hyderabad was held on 22-7-2006. Itwas presided over by Hon’ble Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court,Shri Justice G.S. Singhvi and attended by Prof. V. Nageswara Rao, Law Secretary,Government of A.P. and others. It was decided in the meeting that to spread themessage of Conciliation and Mediation, a Committee may be constituted with twosenior most High Court Judges, a Member from ICADR and Secretary, A.P. StateLegal Services Authority to prepare and implement programmes, to go to each Districtto impart training to Judicial Officers, Advocates, Doctors, Teachers, Engineers andSocial Workers so that wider Panels of Conciliators could be prepared who will workunder the supervision of the District Judge.

(17) A Workshop on ADR for the benefit of Judicial Officers, Advocates, Professors andothers was conducted in the office of the District Legal Service Authority, Gunturfrom 28th to 31st December, 2006. About 60 persons attended the Workshop.

Similar Workshops on ADR were also conducted by the Regional Centre, Hyderabad in otherdistricts of Andhra Pradesh:

(a) A Workshop in ADR was conducted at Nalgonda from 18th to 21st January, 2007.

(b) A Workshop in ADR was conducted at Kurnool on 10th-11th February, 2007.

(c) A Workshop in ADR was conducted at Eluru on 24th - 25th February, 2007.

(d) A Workshop in ADR was conducted at Karimnagar on 24th-25th March, 2007.

(18) A Presentation Ceremony of Post Graduate Diplomas and Certificates was held inRegional Centre, Hyderabad on 3rd June, 2007 for the successful candidates of P.G.Diploma in ADR (Regular Course), P.G. Diploma in ADR (Proximate Education), P.G.Diploma in Family Dispute Resolution, P.G. Certificate Course in ADR atVisakhapatnam and also for presentation of the Gold and Silver Medals to the two topranking students of P.G. Diploma in ADR (Regular Course) (2006).

(19) A Workshop on ADR was conducted in the district of Ongole of Andhra Pradesh on28th-29th April, 2007.

(20) The ICADR, Regional Centre, Bangalore, conducted a two days Training Programmeon ‘‘Arbitration, Conciliation and Mediation’’ for Engineers of Karnataka Water

9

Resources Department in three batches on 18.4.2006-19.4.2006, 18.5.2006-19.5.2006, 18.7.2006-19.7.2006.

(21) The ICADR, Regional Centre, Bangalore organised a three days Seminar on‘‘Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Development Initiative’’ from 27th August,2006 to 29th August, 2006.

(22) The ICADR, Regional Centre, Bangalore, conducted the fourth batch two days’training Programme on ‘‘Arbitration, Conciliation and Mediation’’ for Engineers ofKarnataka Water Resources Department at IAS Officers Association, Infantry Road,Bangalore, on 1.12.2006 and 2.12.2006.

(23) The High Court of Kamataka launched a pilot training programme on ‘Mediation’ incollaboration with ICADR, Regional Centre, Bangalore, at Karnataka Judicial Academypremises from 20.1.2007 to 25.1.2007 and 24.3.2007 to 28.3.2007 to trainexperienced, dynamic young and energetic Lawyers as Mediators with a view tocomplement the provisions of section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thetraining programme was implemented with technical co-operation and support of theInstitute for the Study and Development of Legal Systems (lSDLS), San Francisco.

2. Lok Adalat

With the steep growth in the number of laws and the number of litigations, the Courts arechoked with cases. Civil disputes, in particular, are fought for several decades. There is seriousproblem of overcrowding of dockets. Because of the ever-increasing number of cases, the Courtsystem is under great pressure. The existing strength of Judges and infrastructure at theircommand is unable to tackle the problem of ‘docket explosion’.

In order to reduce the heavy demand on Court time, cases must be resolved by resortingto ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods’ before they enter the portals of the court and LokAdalat may be one of the best method of A.D.R. to resolve the disputes pending in the courts aswell as at pre-litigative stage.

The Institution of Lok Adalats has been given a statutory status by the Legal ServicesAuthorities Act, 1987. The provision of statutory support to Lok Adalats has helped in taking justiceto the doorsteps of the poor and needy and made justice quicker and less expensive. Under thesaid Act, the award made by the Lok Adalats is deemed to be the decree of Civil Court, and isfinal and binding on all parties and no appeal lies before any court against its award.

Presently, Lok Adalats are being held by the State Legal Services Authorities all over thecountry for amicable settlement of the following disputes beside others :—

➢ Motor Accident Claim Cases.

➢ Matrimonial/Family disputes

➢ Criminal Compoundable Offence cases

➢ Land Acquisition Cases.

➢ Labour Disputes

➢ Workmen’s compensation

➢ Bank Recovery cases, (Nationalised, Multinational and Private Banks)

➢ Pension cases

10

➢ Housing Board and slum clearance cases and Housing Finance cases

➢ Consumer Grievance cases

➢ Electricity matters

➢ Telephone Bills disputes

➢ Municipal matters including House Tax cases

➢ Disputes with Cellular Companies viz. Airtel, Vodafone, Tata Tele services etc.

Chapter VI-A has been inserted in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 by the Parliamentwith a view to provide compulsory pre-litigative mechanism for conciliation and settlement ofdisputes relating to ‘Public Utility Services’.

The Public Utility Services covered under the Legal Services Authorities (Amendment)Act, 2002 are :—

1. Transport services for the carriage of passengers or goods by air, road or water;

2. Postal, Telegraph or Telephone service;

3. Supply of power, light or water to the public by any establishment;

4. System of public conservancy or sanitation;

5. Service in hospital or dispensary;

6. Insurance service etc.

The basic purpose behind the amendment of the Act is to prevent harassment of consumersby organizations responsible for providing Public Utility Services and to ensure speedy settlementof disputes relating to such public utility services at a pre-litigative stage.

Subsequent to the coming into force of the said Amendment in the Act, the States ofAndhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Haryana, Jharkhand, Kerala, Punjab, Rajashtan, Sikkim, U.T.of Chandigarh have established Permanent Lok Adalats under chapter VI-A of the Act.

However, a number of State Legal Services Authoritites could not get established PermanentLok Adalats for the public utility services under Chapter VI-A of the Legal Services Authorities(Amended) Act, 2002 due to lack of positive response from the State Governments. The proposalsfor establishment of such Lok Adalats are pending with the State Governments.

As on 30.6.2007, more than 2.22 crore cases have been settled in Lok Adalats organizedall over the country.

Section 89 lays down that where it appears to the Court that there exist elements ofsettlement, which may be acceptable to the parties, the Court shall formulate the terms ofsettlement and give them to the parties for their comments. On receiving the response from theparties, the Court may formulate the possible settlement and refer to either (i) arbitration(ii) conciliation (iii) Judicial Settlement including the settlement through Lok Adalat or(iv) Mediation.

Efforts are being made to provide an additional forum to the litigants for settlement of theirdisputes by setting up of Mediation Centres in the Country. Such Centres have been set up inAndhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharahstra, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand,Chandigarh, and Delhi.

The main problem being faced by Alternative Dispute Redressal System, is that there arenot many trained ‘Mediators’ and ‘Conciliators’ whom the cases can be referred for pre-trial

11

settlement by the court. This is also one of the reasons why the people do not accept this modeof pre-trial settlement-as an alternative to the regular courts of law. As on date there are not manytrained personnel to impart training to prospective Mediators and Conciliators including JudicialOfficers and members of the Bar about Alternative Dispute Redressal methods and pre-trialsettlement of cases.

It has, therefore, been decided to start training programme in all the High Courts of theCountry to impart training to the Trainers who shall further impart training to the persons to actas Mediators.

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for conciliation and amendment of thelaw relating to domestic arbitration, international, commercial arbitration and enforcement of foreignarbitrational awards as also to define the law relating to conciliation and for matters connectedtherewith or incidental thereto.

Committee’s further observation

While placing on record its appreciation on the various steps taken by theGovernment in the matter, the Committee reiterates its earlier view that non-GovernmentalOrganisations should be roped in to spread awareness to all strata of society and to everyrural and urban area covering the length and breadth of the country regarding arbitration,conciliation and out of court settlements.


3. Suggestions received from individuals/lawyers/retired judges

The Committee finds that many of the suggestions though well-intentioned are notpracticable. On the other hand, some of them arise from practical experience and insightand those suggestions are the stuff of judicial reforms at the operational level. TheGovernment should examine the whole range of suggestions and many more which may bereceived from time to time carefully with a view to implement those which are foundacceptable and feasible. It would give the people a sense of participation in the reformprocess. (Para 54)

Action Taken Reply

The suggestions before the Committee that were mentioned in Para 54 have been forwardedto all State Governments and Union Territories. Some of the practicable suggestions in the directionof judicial reform at the operational level have been acted upon.

For instance, the Civil Procedure Code has been amended which, inter-alia, limit thenumber of adjournments which can be granted to a party to three, provide for speedy processservice by speed post, courier services, fax or e-mail, authorize the court to fix time limit for oralarguments and provide for a number of other measures aimed at ensuring expeditious disposal ofcases.

On the matter of enhancement of working days in the courts, the Department of Justicehas requested all the High Courts to consider that the vacation/holidays of the High Court may befixed in such a manner that the number of working days (Bench sitting of High Courts) may notbe less than atleast 222 days per year. In the Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices heldon March 11, 2006, Hon’ble CJI has announced that this time they will curtail their vacations inSupreme Court by one week. Consequently there will be corresponding increase in working daysin the Supreme Court.

12

The comprehensive scheme of computerization of the District and Subordinate Courts(E-Courts), presently under implementation, envisages, inter alia, availability of digitally signedcourt orders, issues of certified copies of orders and judgements within 24 hours, production ofunder-trial prisoners before Magistrates through Video-conferencing, examination of witnessesthrough Video-conferencing, status of pending as well as disposed of cases online and E-filing ofcases.

Judicial Reform is, however, a continuous process and all practicable suggestions are notedfor examination and feasibility of implementation.


4. National Judicial Academy

The Committee is of the opinion that the establishment of NJA is an important steptowards judicial reforms and the expenditure on the improvement of judicial system wouldbe an investment for a future. The Committee is of the view that the NJA should establisha Research Centre on Judicial Reforms including subject such as Arrears and shouldinculcate the mind set of problem solving and the spirit of reform. (Para73)

Action Taken Reply

The recommendation of the Committee was earlier forwarded to the National JudicialAcademy. The NJA had then informed that although, apparently, the proposal is in no wayinconsistent with the objects of the Academy yet, the final decision in this regard can only becommunicated after consideration of the matter by the Governing Council and the General Bodyof the Academy.

The Academy became functional with the joining of a full time Director duringOctober, 2003.

The courses and the training curriculum in the NJA as decided by the Academic Councillay emphasis on reduction of arrears, problem solving and the spirit of reform in the varioussubjects in which training, workshop and seminars are organized by the Academy. The NJA’sacademic activities in 2005-06 covered judicial reform oriented subjects such as role of judiciaryon Intellectual Property Rights Development and Adjudication, Civil Justice and Alternative DisputeResolution, gender justice dimension, cyber laws, cyber forensics and E-governance in Judiciary,training methodologies and capacity building of judicial training institutions, environmental disputesand adjudication, court management, judicial planning and administration, juvenile justice, sciencelaw and ethics, media and judicial relations, advancing the cause of justice, alternate disputeresolution method and judicial settlements without trial, combating corruption and reducing arrearsin courts etc.


The Committee notes the reply of the Department and would appreciate if the decisionof the National Judicial Academy on the issue of establishing a Research Centre on JudicialReforms is communicated to it for its consideration.


5. Fast Track Courts

The Committee welcomes the plan for establishment of 1734 Additional Courts underthe Special Problems Grants of XI Finance Commission. However, if it is calculated that 542

13

courts (which have been started functioning), were to clear 25 cases per month, then in 6months i.e. from 1st April, 2001 to 31st October, 2001, they should have cleared 94,850cases. In fact they had cleared only 15,078 cases. Taking into account the fact that all 542courts did not start functioning from 1st April, 2001, still figures are not at all encouraging.The Committee recommends that the Government should closely monitor theimplementation of the proposal. Every step taken to reduce arrears and ensure swiftdisposal of cases is a step to restore and reinforce the faith of the people in the judiciaryand the fundamental values of rule of law, (Para 84)

Action Taken Reply

Government has continued with the scheme of Fast Track Courts (FTCs). Out of the 1734FTCs recommended by the Eleventh Finance Commission, 1562 FTCs were reported operational bythe States as on 31.3.2005, the date up to which the scheme originally was in force. Governmenthas extended the scheme in respect of the 1562 FTCs in the States for a further period of fiveyears up to 31.3.2010. Central assistance is being provided to the States for the FTCs. During theyear 2005-06, an amount of Rs.l00.00 crore and during 2006-07, an amount of Rs.102.93 crorewas released to the State Governments. During the current financial year 2007-08, an amount ofRs.33.32 crore has been released to various States.

As per information furnished by the States the FTCs have disposed of 18,57,098 cases outof 26,69,495 cases transferred to these courts since inception.


The Committee, while endorsing the establishment of Fast Track Courts, would like tosuggest that the Government should keep track of the disposal rate of the Fast Track Courts andclosely monitor their effective functioning as well.

14

CHAPTER-III

RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS IN RESPECTOF WHICH COMMITTEE HAS NOT ACCEPTEDREPLIES GIVEN BY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


1. Vacancies of Judges

The Committee is aware that for this state of affairs of inordinate delay in fillingup of vacancies for that the Union Law Ministry is not blameworthy, as the entire processof initiation of proposal for appointment of new Judges is no longer the responsibility of theExecutive as a result of a decision of the Supreme Court. Though it was not contemplatedin the Constitution, responsibility for judicial appointments now rests in the domain of thejudiciary. The Union Law Minister is accountable to Parliament for the delay in filling upof the vacancies of judges but he has functionally no contribution to make. The SupremeCourt read into the Constitution a power to appoint judges that was not conferred upon itby the text or the context. The underlying purpose of securing judicial independence wassalutary but the method of acquiring for the Court the exclusive power to appoint judgesby the process of Judicial interpretations is open to question. Against this backdrop theCommittee recalls a recent discussion in the Rajya Sabha in which the Government wasasked regarding alternate arrangements to fill up the vacancies and whether there was anyscope for having a fresh review of the Supreme Court's judgment. (Para 32.1)

The Committee is of the view that the delays in judicial appointments is a matterof serious public concern. The Committee is duty bound to point out that the failure to filljudicial vacancies promptly and punctually cannot be shielded or defended in the name ofjudicial independence. (Para 32.2)

Action Taken Reply

No comments. The position remains the same.


The Committee reiterates its recommendation on the issue and suggests the Governmentto earnestly consider the Constitutional provisions in this regard. The Committee is of the firmopinion that the provisions of the Constitution accord primacy to the Executive in the matterof appointment of the Judges, which was taken away through a judicial interpretation. TheCommittee is of the considered opinion that the earlier system of consultations with the judiciaryand the primacy of the Executive in the appointment of Judges worked well and was inconsonance with the Constitutional intent and provisions and there were no delays in judicialappointments. The Committee also feels that Judicial independence in appointment of judgeshas gone through the tests of time and has proved futile in expeditiously filling up vacant postsand thereby checking the ever increasing pendency of cases. In the light of the above, theCommittee strongly recommends the restoration of the primacy of the Executive in the matterso that judicial vacancies are filled up promptly and expeditiously.

14

15


2. Judge population ratio

The Committee is of the opinion that the judge population ratio recommended by theLaw Commission should be accepted as a starting point with sufficient scope for variationon the basis of pendency and disposal. (Para 38)

Action Taken Reply

The judge population ratio recommended by the Law Commission, which has also beenspelt out by the Supreme Court mentions that the existing Judge population ratio should beincreased from 10.5 per million population to 50 Judges per million. This increase in Judge strengthof 50 Judge per million population should be effected and implemented in a phased manner withina period of five years.

The Central Government have requested the Supreme Court through an InterlocutoryApplication to modify its order (dated 21.3.2002 in All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India)to allow creation of judge strength on the basis of work-load and not on the basis of populationalone. This is in line with this recommendation of the Committee.


The Committee notes that a time span of over 2 (two) decades has elapsed since therecommendation regarding increasing the judge population ratio to 50 Judges per million to beeffected and implemented in a phased manner within a period of five years. However, there hasbeen minimal result in this regard. Therefore, the Committee desires the Government to deviseways to accelerate the implementation of the said recommendation in order to restore the faithof the public on the judiciary, which has eroded to near irrepair.


3. Implementation of Law Commission reports

The Committee strongly feels that when almost 50 per cent of the reports of theCommission are not being implemented, the efficiency, if not the utility of the Commissionmay well be questioned. It is for the Government and the Parliament to take note of theLaw Commission’s reports with a view to consider them and to implement them rather thanto allow them to gather dust on bureaucratic and ministerial shelves. A strong conventionshould be evolved in this respect. (Para 65)

Action Taken Reply

The Department of Legal Affairs are concerned with the subject. Based on the informationfurnished by that Department the position is as follows:

The Law Commission of India have submitted its 202 Reports till date. Out of these 202Reports, action has been completed in respect of 143 reports by way of full or partialimplementation. 52 reports are pending for implementation. All these Reports have been laid in theParliament. As per the terms and conditions of the Constitution of the 18th Law Commission, thereport submitted by it shall also be made available on the Website as soon as reports are submittedto the Government.

Further to the above, information has been given by the Department of Legal Affairs that203rd Report of the Law Commission has also been received recently and is under examination.

16


The Committee notes the reply of the Department of Justice in the matter. However, itrecommends that the remaining 52 Reports of the Law Commission of India should also beconsidered for implementation within a stipulated time period. The Committee recommends foran early affirmative action on the part of the Government in this regard.


4. Legal Education in India

Though setting up Centres of Excellence for Legal Education is the first importantstep, a long distance is yet to be travelled, if we want to improve our legal education andconsequently legal system in the country. The Committee is hopeful that necessary steps,such as improving the infrastructure in Law Colleges, introduction of curriculum meant toproduce high standards of law professionals, recruitment of dedicated teachers will be takenup by the Government of course in close partnership with the Bar Council of India toaugment legal education in the country. (Para 70)

Action Taken Reply

The Department of Legal Affairs who are concerned with the subject matter, have informedas follows:

‘‘Under section 7( 1) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the responsibility ‘to promote legal education andto lay down, standard of such education’ rests with the Bar Council of India.

The Bar Council of India has furnished following comments on the Report of the Committee onHome Affairs on the subject of ‘‘Law’s Delays: Arrears in Courts’’:

(a) With regard to improving the infrastructure of law colleges, the Bar Council of Indiais insisting for improvement of the physical infrastructure like land, building, etc.library and the faculty during the stationary inspection of the law colleges in thecountry. Extension of approval in the case of existing colleges is granted subject tothe specific conditions for improvement on the above and time limit is also prescribedfor complying with the said conditions and to report compliance to the Bar Councilof India.

(b) Regarding introduction of new curriculum, the Bar Council of India has proposedrevision/amendments to the existing curriculum framed in 1996 and the revision ofcurriculum along with the proposed amendments on the rules of legal education hasalready been circulated to all the Universities in the country, imparting legal education,as well as the State Bar Councils as provided under Part IV of the Rules relating tostandards of legal education and recognition of degree in law. Bar Council of Indiaare awaiting for the responses from the Universities and the State Bar Councils forfinalizing the same.

(c) Regarding recruitment of dedicated teachers, the fact remains that the country isexperiencing acute shortage of competent law teachers to man the modern lawschools/Universities. Although the subject matter of post graduate legal education doesnot come within the purview of the Bar Council of India, the Bar Council of Indiais taking keen interest in improving the quality of law teachers also. Towards thisdirection, the Bar Council of India has initiated a programme of training the lawteachers in various batches at various centres in collaboration with the National Law

17

Universities of our country. The first training programme in this series has alreadybeen conducted at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore in themonth of May, 2007 where about 40 law teachers from various law collegesparticipated. Bar Council of India proposes to conduct similar regional trainingprogramme to law teachers at the National Law Universities at Hyderabad, Bhopal,Calcutta and Jodhpur.

(d) The Bar Council of India propose to set up a National Institute of Lawyers on thelines of National Judicial Academy and this Central Institute will concentrate onimproving the standard of the legal profession as well as legal education in thecountry. For this venture the Bar Council of India is looking forward for timelyfinancial assistance from the Government of India through the Ministry of Law andJustice.

2. The 184th Report of the Law Commission which deals with the subject of Legal Educationand Professional Training (‘‘The Legal Education and Profession Training and Proposals forAmendment to the Advocates Act, 1961 and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956’’) hasbeen forwarded to the Bar Council of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development(Department of Higher Education) for their comments/views. Copies of the report have also beenendorsed to the University Grants Commission and the All India Council for Technical Educationfor their views.

3. The Department of Higher Education has informed that a proposal for withdrawal of the‘‘The University Grants Commission (Amendment) Bill, 1995’’ which is pending in Rajya Sabha forthe last ten years, has been drafted for seeking Government’s approval. The recommendation ofthe 184th Report of the Law Commission is proposed to be taken into account while preparing acomprehensive amendment in the University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

4. A proposal for establishment of National Law University along with its three centres inEastern, Western and Northern regions is under consideration. Further, Department of HigherEducation, has also desired that the proposal of National Law University to have one more centrein the Central Region apart from its other centres.

5. The Government of Haryana has earmarked 25 Acres of land for the proposed National LawUniversity to be established at Manesar (Gurgaon). The CPWD has provided tentative layout planand Area Statement of the proposed National Law University. The matter is under examination.


The Committee takes note of the reply of the Department of Legal Affairs in the matter.The reply appears to be untenable in as much as for imparting quality legal education physicalinfrastructure should not be the sole starting point. As for revision of curriculum the replysimply states that the Bar Council of India has circulated the same in the year 1996 to all theuniversities. It is a matter of serious concern that the new curriculum is still to be finalized.Further the reply of the Department of Legal Affairs at para (4) above is factually contradictorywith the information furnished by the Department to this Committee on 20th March, 2008 aspart of consideration of Demands for Grants (2008-09) of the Ministry of Law and Justicewherein it has informed that the National Knowledge Commission headed by Shri Sam Pitrodahas recommended setting up four autonomous, well networked Centre for Advanced LegalStudies and Research (CALSAR) and the proposal to establish the National Law University isbeing re-examined. The Committee, therefore, would appreciate if the factual proposition of theGovernment is conveyed to the Committee for its consideration. The Committee, further,reiterates its recommendation for taking steps for imparting quality legal education in India in

18

consultation with Bar Council of India especially in the revision of curriculum, which is longover due in view of the current curriculum, as stated in the reply of the Government, beingframed in 1996. The Committee further impresses upon the Government to preventmushrooming of incompetent Law Colleges/institutions in the country by framing-stringentrules.

19

19

CHAPTER-IV

RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS IN RESPECT OF WHICH FINALREPLIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED


1. Malimath Committee recommendations

The Committee has been informed that the Malimath Committee was asked tosubmit its report within six months. However, it has now been given extension up to31 March, 2002. The Committee welcomes the setting up of this Committee to go into therevamping of the criminal justice system and is hopeful that its recommendations would befar reaching as far as revamping of the criminal justice system is concerned. TheCommittee would also expect of the Government to steadily process the recommendationsand thereafter implement those which are found acceptable. (Para 7)

Action Taken Reply

The Malimath Committee submitted its report in April 2003 and made 158 recommendations.Thirty five of these recommendations of the Committee have been implemented.

Provisions relating to anticipatory bail have been introduced in the Code of CriminalProcedure (Amendment) Act 2005 and the provision for plea-bargaining has been introduced in theCriminal Procedure Code vide Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2005. Further, 10 recommendationsof the Committee regarding legislative changes are sought to be implemented through a newlegislation i.e. Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 2006. The recommendations relatingto rape laws are under active consideration before the Government. The recommendations ofadministrative nature have been implemented by issuing suitable instructions/advisories to the StateGovernments.

Acceptance/implementation of many recommendation/suggestions made by the MalimathCommittee would require amendments to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 through an amendment Bill. Since the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedureare on the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and criminal lawsare administered by the State Governments, any amendment to them requires consultation with theStates. The report was forwarded to the State Governments and Union Territories Administrationson October 8, 2003 to obtain their comments. So far comments of 18 State Governments and 6UT Administrations have been received. The other States, who have not responded, are beingreminded regularly to send their comments. The report is being processed in consultation with theState Governments and no time frame can be fixed.

Twenty eight recommendations relating to functioning of courts etc. were forwarded to thevarious High Courts for taking necessary action and 14 recommendations were concerned withMinistry of Finance and they have been asked to take action on them.


The Committee notes that after a lapse of 2(two) years the progress of action taken inimplementing the recommendations of the Malimath Committee Report is appalling that only

20

35 recommendations out of the total 158 recommendations have been implemented so far andthe remaining recommendations are in various stages of implementation i.e. requiring legislativechanges, consultations with the State Governments and action on the part of the High Courtsetc. The Committee recommends that the Government should devise ways and means to speedup the process of consultations with the State Governments and the matter should be expeditedin urgency especially in the cases where the Malimath Committee has recommended changes inthe substantive laws viz. the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.In the light of the above the Committee desires for a time bound implementation of theMalimath Committee Report and not allow the implementation process to linger on muchlonger. The Committee may accordingly be apprised of the such a time bound plan and the stepstaken by the Government in this regard.


2. Pendency in Supreme Court and High Courts

The Committee is impressed by the various steps taken by the Supreme Courttowards reducing the arrears successfully. Though similar methods are said to have beenapplied by various High Courts also, similar results have not been achieved. The Committeeis particularly perturbed to note that cases are pending for over 50 years, 40 years and 30years in certain High Courts. As per the data furnished by the Government, M.P. HighCourt has a case pending since 1950, Patna High Court has a case pending since 1951,Rajasthan since 1956, Kolkata since 1955. The Committee is equally disturbed to note thatover 5 lakh cases are pending in the High Courts for over 10 years. And the number ofcases pending for 6-10 years are also as high as 3 lakh. (Para 20)

Action Taken Reply

The observations of the Committee have been forwarded to the Chief Justice of theconcerned High Courts and the Chief Ministers of the concerned State Governments vide UnionLaw Minister's D.O. letter of 25th February, 2002 with the request to work out special plans totake necessary steps for expediting the disposal of cases which have remained pending for a longtime.

The position (as on 30.9.2007) with regard to institution, disposal and pendency of casesis at Annexures A, B and C. It will be observed that the overall institution of cases is comparableor higher than disposal of cases. With a view to facilitate speedy disposal of cases and reducingpendency, Government has, inter alia, taken up the implementation of a scheme of computerizationof all District and Subordinate Courts in the country thereby making use of Information andCommunication Technology in Indian Courts to ensure speedy disposal of cases.


While acknowledging the initiatives taken by the Government to combat pendency ofcases in High Courts and Subordinate Courts, the Committee expresses its concern over the hugependency of cases in these Courts inspite of the initiatives taken. The highest pendency, as perthe data provided by the Department of Justice, is at Allahabad High Court followed by Madras,Bombay, Calcutta, Punjab and Haryana, Orissa and Rajasthan High Courts. These seven HighCourts have more than 25 Lakh cases pending with them. Six High Courts viz. Andhra Pradesh,Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Patna have more than seven Lakh casespending with them. Though the rest of the High Courts have less pendency as compared to theabove stated High Courts none the less pendency exist at each High Court. The situation is farworse at the Subordinate Courts level. Huge arrears of pending cases are in U.P. Maharashtra,

21

Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Bihar and Rajasthan. Uttar Pradesh alone has48,17,554 cases pending at the Subordinate Courts level. The Committee feels that the arrearsof cases is a serious malady requiring immediate corrective steps. Further, the huge arrears area poor reflection on the working of the judicial system. In the light of the above the Committeefurther recommends for concerted and need specific plans for the High Courts and Subordinatecourts to clear the backlog of cases in addition to their computerization. The Committee,therefore, recommends improvement of judicial infrastructure and adequate budget allocationfor the subordinate judiciary. The Committee also recommends for appointment of ad-hocJudges for the High Courts especially to clear the pendency and setting up of fast track courtsat subordinate level. The Committee further suggests that a Monitoring Committee be constitutedat each High Court to devise specific plans to clear the backlog of cases.

Recommendations/observation

3. Pendency in High Courts

The Committee strongly feels that urgent steps are needed to be taken for thedisposal of huge pendency of cases in the High Courts, especially of Allahabad, Madras,Calcutta, Kerala and Bombay. The Committee would like that the Government be urgedupon to take up this matter with the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justices of the concernedHigh Courts and the State Governments with a view to work out or devise special plans toreduce the pendency and revive public confidence in the Judiciary with regard to delays inthe disposal of cases and accumulation of arrears. (Para 22)

Action Taken Reply

The recommendation has been forwarded to the Chief Justices of the concerned HighCourts and the Chief Ministers of the concerned State Government vide Union Law Minister's D.O.letter dated 25.2.2002.

While the disposal of the pendency of cases in the High Courts is a matter of generalconcern and steps have been taken both by the High Courts and the Government to disposepending cases, with particular reference to the High Courts mentioned in the para above, the HighCourts of Kerala, Madras, Allahabad and the Bombay High Court have recently informed as follows:

High Court of Kerala: While sharing the concern on the issue of arrears, the Registry ofthe High Court has mentioned various steps that have been taken for the reduction of arrears inthe High Court. For the analysis of the status of case disposal, statement of filing, disposal andpendency of cases in the High Court is prepared every month and circulated among the Hon'bleJudges and Officers on the Judicial side of the High Court. Based on an analysis on the above,the Chief Justice gives direction thereby taking every positive step for the speedy disposal andreduction of arrears by accelerating the process of Justice Delivery.

In the High Court, classification and grouping of cases involving similar question of Lawis done for the expeditious disposal of cases coming under a separate category or group identifiedas per the classification. While constituting Benches and allocating work to each Bench, the ChiefJustice takes utmost care to see that optimum output is obtained in the disposal of cases by eachHon’ble Judge.

Also, certain categories of cases are given priority in the daily cause list and hearing list.Rules 92 and 94 of the Rules of the Kerala High Court, 1972 specify the matters to be includedin the said list. Out of these, priority is given to the Part-heard cases, Death Sentence References,cases of under-trial prisoners, cases in which reports have been called for or findings havebeen submitted, cases which have been directed to be posted to a specific date or on the

22

expiry of a specified period and cases in which the hearing has been directed to be expedited oradvanced.

Priority is also given to cases in which other proceedings are stayed, cases, the pendencyof which causes delay in the disposal of cases pending in the lower courts, appeals from decisionsof a Single Judge/against orders of remand, probate and Succession Appeals, Matrimonial Appeals,Land Acquisition Appeals, Appeals under Special Acts such as Companies Act, Guardian and WardsAct and Insolvency Act, Reference under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitions forspecial leave to appeal to Supreme Court, Tax Matters and Revenue Recovery Matters, casesinvolving Senior citizens and Civil and Criminal cases.

As far as the High Court is concerned, while finalizing the daily roster, the Chief Justicegives priority in listing old cases by constituting special benches to hear such cases, taking intoaccount the categories mentioned above which are to be given priority for disposal. High CourtLegal Services Committee is also conducting periodical Lok Adalats for the purpose of speedysettlement of cases in the High Court. In addition to the above, special priority is given for thetrial and disposal of stayed cases.

As a result of these measures taken for reduction of arrears, at present there is downwardtrend in the pendency of cases. The statement of filing, disposal and pendency of cases in the HighCourt of Kerala year-wise from the year 2002 to 2006 and for the period from 1.1.07 to 31.10.07is given below:—

Year Filing Disposal Pendency

2002 70842 70365 126314

2003 72517 71504 127327

2004 73960 65883 135404

2005 74693 76721 133376

2006 72812 88639 117549

1.1.07 66674 69593 114630to

31.10.07

From an analysis of the above figures it is clear that from 2005 onwards the disposal isfar above the filing which has resulted in a decrease in pendency of cases. As a result of thesemeasures taken for the clearance of arrears, at present there are only 22 cases pending which werefiled during the period from 1.1.81 to 31.12.90, The pendency of cases filed from 1.1.91 to31.12.2000 are 10002. The remaining 104606 cases were filed after 1.1.01.

High Court of Madras: The following steps have been taken by the High Court of Madrasfor speedy disposal of cases and to reduce the arrears:

1. Cases covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court are alsoidentified and posted for final disposal

2. Division Bench has been constituted exclusively to deal with Criminal Appeals wherethe priority is for the accused are in Jail.

3. Priority given in listing of cases of rape and sexual harassment and other casesinvolving offences committed against women.

23

4. In respect of Prevention of Corruption Act cases, exclusively a Judge is to benominated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice to deal with the matter so as to reduce thedelay in disposal of cases.

5. Value of appeals in civil courts increased to Rs.15 lakhs from Rs.5 lakhs for beingposted before the Division Bench.

6. Cases of similar points of law are grouped and posted before the same Bench.

7. One court has been constituted exclusively for the cases pending before the Tribunaland transferred to the High Court after the abolition of the State AdministrativeTribunal.

8. To reduce the pendency of Misc. Petitions some Hon’ble Courts are allotted to dealwith them on alternative days.

9. Old Civil Suits, Original Matrimonial Suits and Testamentary Original suits pending upto the year 1997 are listed before one Hon’ble Court.

10. Original Side Appeals against orders passed in Arbitration matters taken up for hearingin priority bases.

11. Steps are taken to identify the cases of the following nature and post them for hearing:

(a) Senior Citizen cases

(b) Cases in which stay injunction has been granted by the High Court by which thetrial of cases are pending before lower courts.

The above said cases are all identified and given priority and posts for final hearing.

12. Though the working days of the High Court is 210 days, the working hours of theHigh Court has been increased by 15 minutes daily for arriving at 220 days.

13. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Chief Justice/Patron-in-Chief, continuous LokAdalats for cases pending before High Court are organized. Sitting and retired judgesof the High Court are two members who sit and dispose of cases.

14. Mediation Centre proposal was mooted and it is progressing in full swing.

15. Digital Display Board was installed in the High Court which has helped the advocatesIn avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

16. Two more Additional Master Courts were constituted apart from the existing MasterCourt to take evidence of the parties and witnesses in Civil Suits.

17. Out of Eleven Judges, three Judges are nominated to hear the First Appeals in thePrincipal Seat at Madras and similarly in the Madurai Bench to clear the backlog ofFirst Appeals, five Judges are nominated to hear the Final Hearing of Second Appealsyear-wise to clear the backlog of Second Appeals.

High Court of Allahabad: The following steps have been taken by the High Court ofAllahabad for speedy disposal of cases and to reduce the arrears:

1. Benches have been constituted keeping in view the pendency of cases of particularnature.

2. Whenever a Bench is unable to sit, the cases of that Bench are transferred immediatelyto another Court by the order of the Hon’ble Chief justice.

24

3. A broad categorization of cases being filed in the High Court is being done with thehelp of a Code Book. Each petition is allotted a Code number and with the help ofcomputerization all such cases of one particular category are sorted out. AClassification Section dealing with grouping and bunching of cases prepares a list ofcases of the like nature, likely to be decided by single/identical judgement.

4. A massive exercise was undertaken by the High Court of stock-taking of the casespending and to get each cases entered in computer so as to reach the correct figureof the pending cases.

5. A permanent Mediation and Conciliation Centre has been set up in the High Court.

6. Lok Adalat is being held regularly in each month in the High Court for disposal ofMotor Accident claims petitions.

7. Certain powers and duties in relation to judicial proceedings have been given toRegistrar General of the High Court. Matters such as sufficiency of service are beinglisted before the Registrar General and Officers of the H.J.S. rank working in theregistry.

Bombay High Court: The Registry of the Bombay High Court has informed that constantefforts are being taken at the Principal Seat, as well as the Benches of that High Court for speedydisposal of the cases and to effectively reduce the pendency. The measures taken under thedirections of the Hon’ble Chief Justice to effectively deal with the pendency of cases both at macroand micro level include introduction of latest technology in the nature of IT tools, classification andbunching of cases and allocation of the afternoon session exclusively for the purposes of finalhearing of the matters.

On 31.10.2007, the full House of the Bombay High Court approved a software programmeviz. Case Management and Information System in which there is a provision for automatic listingof cases on the basis of slots which has relevance to the pendency and the average final figuresin a particular category of cases. This programme has innovative features of sending notices byFAX or e-mail and automatic general of notices. This software is supposed to be implemented atthe earliest.

The Registry has further informed that there has been classification and bunching of casesmore particularly in the matters of First Appeals arising out of the Land Acquisition Act and MotorVehicles Act. It has been informed that starting from the second quarter of 2007-08, the ChiefJustice has constituted Special Benches initially at Bombay both on the Original side and Appellateside followed by similar Special Benches at Nagpur and Aurangabad which have shown encouragingresults. For instance Special Bench constituted at Nagpur to take up Single Judges matters disposedof 390 matters out of 914 in a span of four days. The sanction strength of the High Court hasalso been increased from 64 to 75.

Information is yet to be received from the High Court of Calcutta.

As part of Government’s initiatives aimed at disposal of arrears and prompt disposal ofcases Government is implementing the scheme of computerization of the courts which includeupgradation of the existing IT facilities at the High Courts.


The Committee takes note of the steps taken by the High Courts of Kerala, Madras,Allahabad and Bombay to reduce the pendency of cases. However, as per the informationprovided by the Department of Justice the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay and Madras still

25

have huge pendency. The Committee desires that the steps taken by the High Courts in reducingbacklog of cases be practical and feasible and must result in reduction of arrears. In thiscontext, the Committee recommends that the Government may take upon itself to make anassessment of the various steps taken by the various High Courts to reduce pendency and identifythe measures that have had substantial impact. This assessment can pose a guideline to all HighCourts and Subordinate Courts in combating the huge pendency lying with them.


4. Pendency in High Courts and Subordinate Courts

The Committee notes that the problem of pendency in the High Court is the mostacute. It fully agrees with the observation of the Law Minister that the High Courts havebecome the slowest layer in the judicial process. It is significant that despite poorinfrastructure and other constraints in lower courts they have made a dent, however small,on the problem of arrears. Those courts deserve better facilities and better workingconditions. The Committee, also recommends that all necessary steps may be taken tosecure expeditious handling of cases in the High Courts and the Subordinate Courts byfilling the vacancies of Judges in High Courts; stricter control over adjournments;reallocation of cases, when a bench is unable to sit; Bench stabilization, and Man-powermanagement to reduce time taken in file movement. The Committee also recommends tothe Government to accord top priority to improve manpower and infrastructural facilities atthe Subordinate/District Court levels so as to facilitate wiping out of the arrears and swiftdisposal of cases. Budgetary allocations have to be augmented substantially. There is needfor a greater sense of purpose. (Para 26)

Action Taken Reply

The recommendation of the Committee has been forwarded to all the High Courts byDepartment of Justice initially on 26.3.2002 with copy to all the State Governments and UTAdministrations.

In so far as filling up of vacancies is concerned, the Government has been requesting theChief Justices of the High Courts, Chief Ministers and the Governors of the States, from time totime, to initiate proposals for filling up of the present and anticipated vacancies in keeping with theprovisions of the Memorandum of Procedure for appointment of Judges in the High Courts.

In his D,O. letter dated 26.4.2002 addressed to Chief Justices of all the High Courts andthe Chief Ministers of all the States, the Union Law Minister had requested them to take early stepsin filling up the vacant posts of Judicial Officers of Subordinate Courts by 31 st March, 2003, asdirected by the Supreme Court.

As regards according priority to infrastructure facilities for facilitating wiping out of arrearsand better disposal of cases and augmenting budgetary allocations, it may be mentioned that in theEleventh Five Year Plan the Department of Justice will be implementing schemes for improvementof infrastructure facilities covering construction of Courts, computerization of Courts and CourtManagement Techniques etc. at a total outlay of Rs.1470 crore which is much higher than theTenth Plan outlay of Rs.700 crores.


The Committee notes the reply of the Ministry. The Committee recommends that theGovernment should pursue the matter vigorously with all the High Courts so that vacant postsare filled up expeditiously. As for the allocation of funds, in the Eleventhth Five Year Plan to

26

the Judiciary for creating infrastructural facilities and computerization etc. the Committeerecommends that the allocation should be made in proportion to the number of cases pending.The Committee recommends working out a formula for matching demands to the Judiciary asit strongly feels that the Judiciary is provided with insufficient funds invariably. The Committeeopines that insufficiency of funds has played a major factor in contributing to arrears. Theincrease in the Eleventh Plan for the judiciary works out to Rs.770 crore only which, in theopinion of the Committee, is meager in comparison to the huge pendency of cases at variouslevels. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government should allocate enoughfunds to the judiciary.


5. Implementation of Malimath Committee Report

The Committee feels that the recommendations of the Malimath Committee,especially those cited above when implemented in all the States/UTs, will definitely expeditethe disposal of cases and suggests that the Government may persuade the States/UnionTerritories with all sincerity, which are still in the process of implementing them, tocomplete the process without further delay. (Para 28)

Action Taken Reply

The observations of the Committee have been conveyed to all the High Courts with copiesto the respective State Governments with a request to implement the Malimath Committeerecommendations which pertain to them without further delay.


The Committee would like the Ministry to pursue the matter with the High Courts andthe respective State Governments in all sincerity and not merely play a role of the post-office,but earnestly monitor the implementation process of the States by seeking their periodic status.


6. Alternative tribunals to counter arrears

The Committee is of the firm view that setting up of alternative tribunals viz;Industrial Relations Commissions; Rent Tribunals; and setting up of tribunals withjurisdiction on various educational malpractices are likely to help reduce the burden oncourts. The Committee recommends that Government may take necessary steps to set upthese Tribunals at the earliest. (Para 30)

Action Taken Reply

As the Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation andMinistry of Human Resource Development (Department of Education) are the concerned Ministriesto set up Industrial Relations Commissions, Rent Tribunals and Tribunals with jurisdiction onvarious educational malpractices respectively, these Ministries were requested to take necessaryaction.

The Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation has informed that Rent Controlis a State subject and as such the State Governments have the exclusive powers to legislate onthe subject. It is, however, open to the Central Government to prepare a Model Legislation foradoption by the States and they may adopt it with such suitable modifications to suit the local

27

condition. The Ministry had prepared a Model Rent Control Legislation and the same wasforwarded to the State Governments in 1992 for amending their existing Rent Control Laws orenacting new rent acts on the lines of Model Legislation. The Model Legislation among other thingssuggested ‘‘setting up of a two tier system of adjudication with Rent Controllers and Tribunals andinstalling speedy and simplified procedure for settlement of disputes’’.

Most of the States have modified their rent laws on the basis of the Model Legislation.However, in some States the action is under way. They are being requested from time to time toamend the Act in accordance with the Model. A Status note showing action taken by States/UTson adoption of Model Rent Control Legislation is enclosed. The Ministry of Labour recently hasinformed that there is no proposal to set up Industrial Relations Commission.

As regards setting up of Tribunal with jurisdiction on various educational malpractices, theresponse of the Ministry of HRD is awaited.

Status note on Action Taken by State Government/UTson Model Rent Control Legislation (As on 31-10-2007)

Sl.No. State/UT Present Status

1 2 3

1. Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control(Amendment) Act, 2005 is enforced from 28.4.2005.

2. Arunachal Pradesh State of Arunachal Pradesh is yet to enact the Rent ControlAct in the State.

3. Assam The Government of Assam has submitted a copy ofnotification dated 3.4.2007 stating that the Governor of Assamis pleased to constitute the Committee for drafting of UrbanRent Control Legislation Bill, Public Disclosure Bill and theCommunity Participatory Bill (Nagararaj Bill) in connectionwith the implementation Reforms Agenda of JNNRUM in theState level and finished the job of drafting the Bills withinthree months from the date of notification.

4. Bihar Subject matter is under consideration.

5. Chhattisgarh No information has been provided.

6. Goa Certain amendments have been carried out in the Goa RentControl Act. The Rent Control Act, as it stands today, coversmost of the suggestions made in the Model Rent ControlLegislation.

7. Gujarat The Government of Gujarat have extended the Bombay Rents,Hotel and Lodging House Rent Control Act, 1947 upto31.3.2011 and have exempted premises constructed/let outafter 30.3.2001 for a period of ten years.

8. Haryana The State Government has prepared ‘‘The Haryana Urban(Regulation of Rent and Eviction) Bill, 2007.’’ Which is underconsideration.

28

1 2 3

9. Himachal Pradesh The matter is under consideration of the State Governmentfor issuing the notification under Section 3(1) of H.P UrbanRent Control Act, 1987.

10. Jammu and Kashmir No information has been provided.

11. Jharkhand State Government has informed in November, 2006, that theAct will be amended within a period of two years.

12. Karnataka A new rent legislation entitled Karnataka Rent Act, 1995 onthe lines of the Model Bill has been brought in. This has comeinto effect from 31.12.2001.

13. Kerala The Government of Kerala has informed that the Hon’ble HighCourt of Kerala in the Judgement dated 4.6.2002 in O.P.No. 10733/97 has struck down Sections 5,6,8 of the KeralaBuilding (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. A draft Billamending the existing Act incorporating suitable provisions,substituting the struck down provisions is being processed.

14. Madhya Pradesh The Select Committee has recommended certain amendmentin the Madhya Pradesh Kiraya Vidheyak Bill. Therecommendations of the Committee are under examination.The amendments recommended by the Committee will beplaced before the Cabinet for its approval and the same willthereafter be sent to State Legislation Assembly.

15. Maharashtra Maharashtra Rent Control Bill was passed by the LegislativeCouncil on 16.12.99 and Leg. Assembly on 21.12.99 withamendments. The amendments made by the Leg. Assemblywere concurred in by the Leg. Council on 22.12.99. Theprovisions are not strictly in accordance with the Model Law.Ministry of Home Affairs conveyed the President’s assent dt.08.03.2000 to the Maharashtra Government. The Act wasbrought into force but it has been challenged in the SupremeCourt.

16. Manipur The Government of Manipur is preparing a Bill on RentControl on the lines of suggestions made by the Governmentof India for placing before the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

17. Meghalaya State Government is actively considering the matter ofbringing amendments to the State Rent Control Law.

18. Mizoram A Committee on ‘‘Mizoram Urban Area Rent Control Bill’’under the Chairmanship of Secretary General AdministrationDeptt. has been constituted. The matter is under activeconsideration.

19. Nagaland No information.

29

1 2 3

20. Orissa Steps were taken to initiate the proposal to introduce the‘‘Orissa House Rent Control Legislation’’ in Orissa but afterdetailed scrutiny and careful examination of the said proposal,it was decided by the State Government that introduction ofthe Rent Control Legislation will not be beneficial to thepeople of Orissa. The State Government has decided not togo in for such a Legislation.

21. Punjab State Government has taken a decision to amend the existingRent Control Legislation i.e., The East Punjab RentRestrictions Act, 1949. Policy decision in this regard has beentaken and the amending legislation is in the process of gettingfinalised before its presentation to the Legislature.

22. Rajasthan A new legislation entitled the Rajasthan Rent Control Act,2001 on the lines of the Model Bill has been brought in. Thishas come into effect from 1.4.2003.

23. Sikkim Government of Sikkiin already has an Act Called ‘‘GangtokRent Control and Eviction Act, 1956’’. The pre-merger ofold laws in the State of Sikkim have been protected byArticle 371 (F) of the Constitution of India and therefore,bringing in an amendment to the Act on the basis of theMRCL may lead to technical hurdles.

24. Tamil Nadu Issue of comprehensive amendment to the existing TamilNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 onthe lines of Model Rent Control Law is under activeconsideration.

25. Tripura There is an existing Act on Rent Control named as ‘‘TheTripura Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975’’ TheAct contains provisions for constitutions of Rent ControlCourts and various other provisions to protect interest ofland-lords and tenants. The jurisdiction of MRCL is proposedto be limited to larges cities. All the towns in Tripura, exceptAgartala which has a population of 2 Lakh, are small in areaand population. In view of existence of a State Rent ControlAct, it has not been felt necessary to enact a new law on thelines of MRCL However, MRCL and State Rent Act are beingexamined to identity areas where similar provisions are to bemade.

26. Uttar Pradesh The Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rentand Eviction) Act, 1972 has been amended by U.P. Act No.5of 1995.

27. Uttaranchal No information has been provided.

28. West Bengal The Rent Control Laws as amended have been alreadyeffected in W.B. from 10.7.200l.

30

1 2 3

29. Andaman and Nicobar Andaman and Nicobar Islands Rent Control Legislation whichIslands was notified on 19.10.1965 is applicable in Port Blair

Municipal Area. It is not based on the MRCL. The U.T. isexamining the amendment of their existing Rent ControlRegulation and the result shall be communicated at appropriatetime. (26.6.2001).

30. Chandigarh In Chandigarh, East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is inoperation. The Chandigarh Admn. issued notification on7.11.02 exempting buildings and rented lands above monthlyrent exceeds Rs.1500/-from the purview of East Punjab UrbanRent Restriction Act, 1949. It has also been informed that asand when the Punjab Government enacts a new Rent Law onthe lines of Model Legislation, the same will be got extendedto the UT of Chandigarh.

31. NCT of Delhi Delhi Rent Act, 1995 has been assented to by the President.It is not yet enforced. It was decided to bring the Act of1995 into force with amendments. Delhi Rent Act(Amendment) Bill, 1997 was introduced in July; 1997. TheBill was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee onUrban and Rural Development. The Committee completedexamination of the Bill in December, 2000 and submitted itsreport to the Parliament on 21.12.2000. The Government hasaccepted the recommendations of the Committee in toto.Notice for moving official amendments to the Amendment Billwas given to the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. The Billcould, however, not be discussed in the Rajya Sabha and the13 Lok Sabha was dissolved. After the formation of 14th LokSabha and new Government, the matter is required to placebefore the Cabinet for taking a decision. The file containingdraft Cabinet Note has been submitted to the CompetentAuthority for approval.

32. Dadra and Nagar This is a small UT, without Legislature. There is no StateHaveli Rent Law in force. Hence the UT sent nil information.

33. Daman and Diu The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent andEviction) Control Act, 1968 and the Goa, Daman and DiuBuildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1968 areapplicable to the U.T. of Daman and Diu. The matter wasplaced before the Law Committee of the Administration andthe Members of the Committee requested for more time tostudy the matter.

34. Lakshadweep There is no rent control law in force in the Union Territoryof Lakshadweep. As per the Laccadive Minicoy and AmindivIslands (Protection of Scheduled Tribes) Regulation 1964,prior sanction of the Administration is required for transfer ofany interest in any landed property in the U.T. of

31

Lakshadweep to a non Scheduled Tribe. Disputes are veryfew and are being settled under conciliation. Housing problemis not acute at present and inter island migration is limited. Inview of special circumstances, no rent laws are considerednecessary for the U.T. of Lakshadweep.

35. Puducherry Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 isin force in Puducherry. Administration has taken steps toamend the existing Act.


The Committee notes the reply of the Government and desires that the reply of theMinistry of Human Resource Development with regard to setting up of Tribunals withjurisdiction on various educational malpractices is obtained and forwarded to this Committee forits consideration.


7. Central assistance to financially weak States for eliminating arrears

The Department of Justice in its action taken replies to the recommendations of theCommittee on Home Affairs said that the matter regarding enhancement of Central supportto the State Governments which are financially weak has been taken up with the PlanningCommission. A reminder has also been sent to them in this connection. States like Manipur,Meghalaya, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and UTs of Pondicherry and Lakshadweep are laggingbehind at present. Those States/UTs have been requested to ensure that funds are utilizedfully. The Committee is informed that suitable monitoring mechanism is in place. TheCommittee would urge the Government to pursue the plan for elimination of the bulk ofthe arrears by swift and satisfactory disposal of cases through a dynamic multi-prongedapproach with a sense of urgency. (Para 49)

Action Taken Reply

As part of Government’s efforts towards elimination of arrears and disposal of cases, it hasconstantly tried to bring about improvements in the functioning of courts, simplifying proceduresand delivery of speedy justice.

In this direction the measures taken by Government are

(i) Continuation of the Fast Track Courts (FTCs), 1562 numbers in the country, upto31.3.2010: The Central Government through the Department of Justice provideassistance to the States for this purpose. As mentioned separately, the scheme ofFTCs was originally envisaged upto 31.3.2005. Government extended the scheme offinancial support to the States for the FTCs by another five years. During the year2005-06, an amount of Rs.100.00 crore and during 2006-07, an amount ofRs.102.93 crore was released to the State Governments. During the current financialyear 2007-08, an amount of Rs.33.32 crore has been released to various States.

As per information furnished by the States the FTCs have disposed 18,57,098cases out of 26,69,495 cases transferred to these courts since inception.

1 2 3

32

(ii) Implementation of scheme of computerization of the courts: After implementingcomputerization of the city courts in four metros of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai andKolkata, Government took up computerization of the City Courts in the State Capitalsor in cities where Principal Bench of the High Court is located. In view of thesuccess of these efforts at computerization of the City Courts, Government hasapproved for implementation a scheme of comprehensive computerization of allDistrict and Subordinate Courts in the country and has commenced implementation ofthe scheme which includes upgradation of the IT infrastructure in the Supreme Courtand the High Courts and linking the lowest Court to the highest Court electronically.The scheme which is based on the National Policy and Action Plan presented by theE-Committee is envisaged at a total estimated cost of Rs.854 crore for implementationin a period of five years. Presently, the first phase of the scheme, at a total cost ofRs.442 crore (with scope for 10% enhancement) is under implementation for beingcompleted in a period of two years.

The above mentioned scheme is being implemented by the Government as a MissionMode Project called E-Courts. The scheme of computerization of the courts on itstotal implementation is likely to substantially reduce pendency in the courts andfacilitate speedy disposal of cases thereby enhancing confidence of the public in thejudicial system.

(iii) Financial support to the States and UTs for construction of court buildings (includingbuilding for High Courts) and residential accommodation for the judges. In theEleventh Plan period this activity is to be continued at an outlay of Rs.701.08 crorewith specific allocations being made for the States in the North Eastern Region asalso the UTs.


The Committee notes the reply and impress upon the Government that stringentmonitoring of the schemes of the Government, especially the scheme of computerization ofSubordinate Courts and electronically linking of the lowest court to the highest court and theprogress made with regard to construction of court buildings and residential accommodation forthe judges in the States/UTs including the initiatives taken in the North-Eastern States and UTsshould be in place. The Committee further desires that the periodic progress made in this regardbe furnished to it for its consideration.

33

MINUTES

35

35

XVISIXTEENTH MEETING

The Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, PublicGrievances, Law and Justice met at 11.00 A.M. 1.22 P.M. and again at 3.00 P.M. on Thursday, the14th February, 2008, in Committee Room ‘A’, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Dr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA


3. Shri Tariq Anwar

4. Dr. P.C. Alexander

5. Shri Tarlochan Singh

LOK SABHA

6. Shri Raj Babbar



9. Shri A. Krishnaswamy

10. Dr. C. Krishnan


12. Shri Harin Pathak


14. Prof. M. Ramadass

SECRETARIAT

Shri K.P Singh, Joint Director


Shri Vinoy Kumar Pathak, Assistant Director

WITNESSES

I. 1. Shri Satya Prakash

2. Shri D. Shankar

36

II. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (Department of Personneland Training)

1. Shri Satyanand Mishra, Secretary

2. Shri P.K. Misra, Additional Secretary

3. Dr. S.K Sarkar, Joint Secretary

4. Shri C.B. Paliwal, Joint Secretary

5. Shri C.A. Subramanian, Director

III. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (UPSC)

1. Shri D.K. Samantarary, Additional Secretary

2. Shri Biresh Kumar, Additional Secretary

3. Shri K. S. Bariar, Joint Secretary

4. Dr. V. K. Mahna, Director

IV. MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

• Department of Legal Affairs

Shri T.K. Viswanathan, Secretary

• Legislative Department

Shri K.D. Singh, Secretary

• Department of Justice

1. Shri Rajiv Agarwal, Additional Secretary

2. Shri Ramesh Abhishek, Joint Secretary

3. Shri Shashi Bhushan, Joint Secretary

4. Shri S.B. Biswas, Director

2. * * *

3. * * *

4. * * *

5. The Committee took up for discussion the ATRs on 85th Report of the Committee on HomeAffairs on the subject Laws Delays: Arrears in Courts with the representatives of the Departmentof Justice, Department of Legal Affairs and the Legislative Department. The representatives of theDepartment of Justice informed the Committee about the implementation status of the variousrecommendations as contained in the Report specifically on (i) computerization of courts;(ii) Judicial infrastructure; (iii) increase in the Judge strength particularly at subordinate level;(iv) periodic review of Judge strength in various High Courts (v) Fast Track Courts, Gram

*** Relates to some other matter.

37

Nyayalayas; and (vi) efforts to make the National Judicial Academy as an apex training institutionfor judicial officers etc. The Members raised queries on the ATRs which were replied to by therepresentatives.

(The witnesses then withdrew)

6. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept.

7. The meeting was adjourned at 4.20 P.M.

38

XIXNINTEENTH MEETING

The Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,Law and Justice met at 4.00 P.M. on Thursday, the 24th April, 2008, in Room No. ‘63’, First Floor,Parliament House, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Dr. E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Radhakant Nayak

3. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi


5. Shri Virendra Bhatia

6. Shri Ram Jethmalani

LOK SABHA


8. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan


10. Dr. C. Krishnan


12. Shri Dahyabhai Vallabhbhai Patel


SECRETARIAT

Shri Sham Sher Singh, Joint Secretary

Shri K.P Singh, Joint Director


Ms. Niangkhannem Guite, Committee Officer

2. * * *

3. The Committee also discussed and adopted its 26th and 27th Reports respectively onDemands for Grants (2008-09) of the Ministry of Law and Justice and Action taken Replies onthe Subject ‘‘Law’s Delays: Arrears in Courts’’.

38


39

4. * * *

5. * * *

6. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept.

7. The meeting was adjourned at 4.40 P.M.


ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE-A(Vide Para 2 of the Report)

43

COURT NEWS, OCTOBER-DECEMBER, 2007

INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL AND PENDENCY OF CASES

(A) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM 01-10-2007 TO 31-12-2007)

Pendency(At the end of 30-09-2007)

Admission Regular Totalmatters matters matters

26,170 18,649 44,819

Institution Disposal Pendency(01-10-2007 to 31-12-2007) (01-10-2007 to 31-12-2007) (At the end of 31-12-2007)

Admission Regular Total Admission Regular Total Admission Regular Totalmatters matters matters matters matters matters matters matters matters

14,515 1,522 16,037 12,725 1,205 13,930 27,960 18,966 46,926

44

AN

NE

XU

RE

-B(V

ide

Par

a 2

of th

e R

epor

t)

CO

UR

T

NE

WS

, O

CT

OB

ER

-DE

CE

MB

ER

, 20

07

(B)

HIG

H C

OU

RT

S (F

RO

M 0

1-07

-200

7 T

O 3

0-09

-200

7)

Sl.

Nam

e of

Civ

il C

ases

Cri

min

ial C

ases

Tota

lN

o.H

igh

Cou

rtO

peni

ngIn

stitu

tion

Dis

posa

lP

ende

ncy

Ope

ning

Inst

itutio

nD

ispo

sal

Pen

denc

yP

ende

ncy

Bal

ance

from

from

at t

heB

alan

cefr

omfr

omat

the

of C

ivil

as o

n01

-07-

0701

-07-

07en

d of

as o

n01

-07-

0701

-07-

07en

d of

and

01-0

7-07

toto

30-0

9-07

01-0

7-07

toto

30-0

9-07

Crim

inal

30-0

9-07

30-0

9-07

30-0

9-07

30-0

9-07

Cas

es a

tth

e en

d of

30-0

9-07

12

34

56

78

910

11

1A

llaha

bad1

5965

0040

250

3230

060

4450

2004

2927

443

2409

620

3776

8,08

,226

2A

ndhr

a Pr

ades

h13

4347

1281

614

220

1329

4314

365

2790

2561

1459

41,

47,5

37

3B

omba

y233

1079

3284

734

948

3289

7838

395

6475

6439

3843

13,

67,4

09

4C

alcu

tta23

8721

1739

916

288

2398

3239

261

6251

6026

3948

62,

79,3

18

5C

hhat

tisga

rh50

819

3616

2707

5172

822

953

1618

1598

2297

374

701

6D

elhi

6179

869

5688

9159

863

1766

832

7041

2716

811

7667

4

7G

ujar

at83

275

1173

214

020

8098

729

946

5196

5490

2965

21,

10,6

39

8G

auha

ti51

342

5960

5329

5197

370

9822

7820

1073

6659

339

9H

imac

hal P

rade

sh20

110

4495

4272

2033

364

4766

065

964

4826

781

10Ja

mm

u an

d K

ashm

ir43

334

5782

5492

4362

418

1954

861

717

5045

374

11Jh

arkh

and

2713

227

6221

8527

709

2217

342

9248

9821

567

4927

6

45

12

34

56

78

910

11

12K

arna

taka

8734

313

427

1282

587

945

1555

125

0517

6416

292

1,04

,237

13K

eral

a94

774

1389

517

476

9119

325

714

5077

6234

2455

71,

15,7

50

14M

adhy

a Pr

ades

h12

5489

1824

516

341

1273

9359

118

1046

392

9760

284

1,87

,677

15M

adra

s38

9865

5025

349

002

3911

1633

872

2165

420

295

3523

14,

26,3

47

16O

riss

a20

6107

1116

212

864

2044

0520

983

8023

5659

2334

72,

27,7

52

17Pa

tna3

6878

778

4262

8170

348

3065

218

812

1764

731

817

1,02

,165

18Pu

njab

and

Har

yana

2044

4513

868

9349

2088

754

4487

211

486

9537

4682

12,

55,6

96

19R

ajas

than

1596

9713

546

1298

516

0258

5213

590

5689

9852

193

2,12

,451

46

AN

NE

XU

RE

-C(V

ide

Par

a 2

of th

e R

epor

t)

CO

UR

T

NE

WS

, O

CT

OB

ER

-DE

CE

MB

ER

, 20

07

(C)

DIS

TR

ICT

AN

D S

UB

OR

DIN

AT

E C

OU

RT

S (F

RO

M 0

1-07

-200

7 T

O 3

0-09

-200

7)

Sl.

Nam

e of

Civ

il C

ases

Cri

min

al C

ases

Tota

lN

o.H

igh

Cou

rtO

peni

ngIn

stitu

tion

Dis

posa

lP

ende

ncy

Ope

ning

Inst

itutio

nD

ispo

sal

Pen

denc

yP

ende

ncy

Bal

ance

from

from

at t

heB

alan

cefr

omfr

omat

the

of C

ivil

as o

n01

-07-

0701

-07-

07en

d of

as o

n01

-07-

0701

-07-

07en

d of

and

01-0

7-07

toto

30-0

9-07

01-0

7-07

toto

30-0

9-07

Crim

inal

30-0

9-07

30-0

9-07

30-0

9-07

30-0

9-07

Cas

es a

tth

e en

d of

30-0

9-07

12

34

56

78

910

11

1U

ttar

Prad

esh

1230

938

1383

2213

8500

1230

760

3548

716

5705

5753

2479

3586

794

4817

554

2A

ndhr

a Pr

ades

h148

3637

8532

492

575

4763

8647

0502

8115

584

357

4673

0094

3686

3(a)

Mah

aras

htra

9761

2089

273

1024

6896

2925

3081

797

3561

2936

8657

3069

269

4032

194

3(b)

Goa

1932

037

4739

3019

137

1489

243

6042

1615

036

3417

3

4W

est B

enga

l and

4911

1433

989

3305

549

2048

1634

405

1934

0713

5802

1692

010

2184

058

A &

N I

slan

ds

5C

hhat

tisga

rh51

414

7934

8367

5098

121

6277

4336

046

638

2129

9926

3980

6D

elhi

214

1226

2241

720

080

1435

6362

4843

7799

952

646

6501

9679

3759

7G

ujar

at74

6868

6472

271

186

7404

0418

3302

934

4509

3735

8218

0395

625

4436

0

8(a)

Ass

am64

813

1132

276

9268

443

1359

4643

070

3722

714

1789

2102

32

8(b)

Nag

alan

d17

0917

414

117

4237

5334

340

236

9454

36

8(c)

Meg

haly

a40

1427

635

439

3668

8641

744

468

5910

795

8(d)

Man

ipur

3016

646

553

3109

3402

1523

1381

3544

6653

8(e)

Tri

pura

6382

1508

1797

6093

2772

416

343

1689

727

170

3326

3

47

12

34

56

78

910

11

8(f)

Miz

oram

1455

366

259

1562

4257

1236

917

4576

6138

8(g)

Aru

nach

al P

rade

sh39

890

4244

650

7218

144

248

1152

57

9H

imac

hal P

rade

sh64

858

1226

213

516

6360

483

280

2863

030

455

8145

514

5059

10Ja

mm

u an

d K

ashm

ir60

061

1426

813

244

6108

510

1276

4673

546

355

1016

5616

2741

11Jh

arkh

and

4327

457

0257

0243

274

2235

5126

517

2944

122

0627

2639

01

12K

arna

taka

5668

4244

917

6500

854

6751

5289

3514

2362

1223

4354

8954

1095

705

13(a

)K

eral

a39

7767

6208

772

348

3875

0653

2491

1701

9715

2405

5502

8393

7789

13(b

)Lak

shad

wee

p86

99

8695

3130

9618

2

14M

adhy

a Pr

ades

h20

3537

5478

055

629

2026

8880

6056

2148

1719

9622

8212

5110

2393

9

15(a

)Ta

mil

Nad

u47

2332

2201

5220

4185

4882

9942

1537

2090

7820

2444

4281

7191

6470

15(b

)Pud

uche

rry

1379

952

5052

9513

754

7545

7997

7789

7753

2150

7

16O

riss

a17

9922

1295

013

455

1794

1782

6583

5727

053

986

8298

6710

0928

4

17B

ihar

2502

1710

892

1076

825

0341

1080

155

7325

854

244

1099

169

1349

510

18(a

)Pu

njab

2733

9534

828

3291

727

5306

3145

6912

0270

1276

6230

7177

5824

83

18(b

)Har

yana

2179

7530

659

3242

721

6207

3164

5472

675

5941

132

9718

5459

25

18(c

)Cha

ndig

arh

2099

824

2725

7220

853

7535

218

990

1403

480

308

1011

61

19R

ajas

than

2803

2145

462

4472

928

1054

8059

9719

7918

1820

5182

1864

1102

918

20Si

kkim

205

5764

198

588

253

232

609

807

21U

ttara

khan

d29

619

6049

5555

3011

310

4802

2382

523

677

1049

5013

5063

TO

TAL:

7297

632

1022

861

1058

422

7262

071

1784

0767

3145

412

2962

268

1802

3911

2528

5982

Not

e:A

bove

sta

tem

ent

is c

ompi

led

on t

he b

asis

of

figu

res

rece

ived

fro

m t

he H

igh

Cou

rts.

1P

ende

ncy

figu

res

at t

he e

nd o

f 30

-06-

2007

has

bee

n re

vise

d by

the

A.P

. H

igh

Cou

rt.

2P

ende

ncy

figu

res

at t

he e

nd o

f 30

-06-

2007

has

bee

n re

vise

d by

the

Del

hi H

igh

Cou

rt.

Printed at : Bengal Offset Works, 335, Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

parliament of india rajya sabha - … of india rajya sabha 27 department-related parliament ary...

Documents