Model Answers

Introduction

The timely resolution of court cases is fundamental to ensuring access to justice and upholding the rule of law. However, judicial pendency, or the backlog of pending cases, has become a significant challenge in India. As of recent reports, over 4.70 crore cases remain pending across various courts. This delay undermines public trust in the judiciary and hampers the delivery of justice.

Factors Contributing to Judicial Pendency

1. Poor State of Subordinate Judiciary: District courts suffer from inadequate infrastructure and poor working conditions, leading to slow case resolution.
2. Impact of COVID-19: The pandemic further worsened pendency, with the National Judicial Data Grid reporting a 27% increase in pending cases from December 2019 to April 2022.
3. Shortage of Judges: India has only 20 judges per lakh population, which is insufficient. By April 2021, 38% of High Court positions were vacant.
4. Government as a Major Litigant: The government is involved in nearly 50% of pending cases, many of which are inter-departmental disputes.
5. Vague Laws and Drafting Issues: Outdated and poorly drafted laws, along with differing interpretations, contribute to prolonged litigation.

Measures to Address Pendency

1. Government Litigation Reduction: Platforms like LIMBS and AMRD aim to monitor and reduce government-related litigation.
2. Fast-Track Courts: Established to handle a large volume of cases within a set time frame.
3. Promoting ADR: The government is encouraging alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like arbitration and mediation.
4. Technological Integration: The e-Courts project and SUPACE are enhancing court efficiency using technology and artificial intelligence.

Conclusion

Addressing judicial pendency requires continued reforms in infrastructure, judicial staffing, and technological integration to improve access to justice and the efficiency of the judicial system.

Sources:

• Department of Justice data
• National Judicial Data Grid

Model Answer

Importance of Improving Administration of Justice at Lower Levels of the Judiciary

Improving the administration of justice at the lower levels of the judiciary is essential for enhancing the overall justice delivery system in India. The District and Sessions Courts, Metropolitan Magistrate Courts, and Civil Judge Courts serve as the first point of contact for citizens seeking justice, making their role crucial in ensuring timely and fair resolution of disputes.

Addressing Backlog and Pendency of Cases

A major challenge in India’s judicial system is the high pendency of cases. According to the Department of Justice, there is a backlog of approximately 4.15 crore cases in subordinate courts. This backlog, compounded by slow disposal rates, creates a vicious cycle of delay, contributing to a massive delay in justice for litigants. Addressing this issue at the lower court level will reduce the caseload burden on higher courts and expedite the resolution process for all levels of the judiciary.

Tackling Judicial Vacancies and Administrative Challenges

Another critical issue is the 23% vacancy of judges at the district level. Delays in judicial appointments further exacerbate this situation, leading to a shortage of manpower and slow case disposal. The administrative burden on judges, due to insufficient staff and resources, also diverts their focus from adjudicating cases. By streamlining judicial appointments and increasing staff support, the lower judiciary could function more efficiently.

Enhancing Infrastructure and Technological Advancements

Inadequate infrastructure, including poorly maintained courtrooms and insufficient record-keeping facilities, hampers the functioning of lower courts. Improvements in court infrastructure and the digitization of records, as advocated by initiatives like the eCourts Mission Mode Project, can significantly boost efficiency. Technological solutions for case management, scheduling, and monitoring would streamline the process, reducing delays and errors.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

The promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods, such as arbitration and mediation, can alleviate the pressure on lower courts by offering quicker and cost-effective dispute resolution options. By integrating ADR into the justice delivery system, the burden on the judiciary can be reduced, leading to faster justice for the public.

Conclusion

Strengthening the lower judiciary through reforms in infrastructure, staffing, technology, and case management is pivotal in improving overall justice delivery. A more efficient and accessible lower judiciary will enhance access to justice and reduce delays, ultimately contributing to a fairer and more effective legal system in India.

Model Answer

The Conflict Between Internet Access and Shutdowns in India

In recent years, India has grappled with the tension between ensuring public order through internet shutdowns and upholding citizens’ fundamental right to access the internet. The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) in 2016 recognized internet access as a fundamental human right, and the Indian Supreme Court has affirmed this stance by declaring it a fundamental right under Articles 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution in landmark cases like Anuradha Bhasin (2020) and Faheema Shirin (2019). Despite this, the Indian government frequently imposes internet shutdowns to maintain law and order, citing concerns such as national security, preventing misinformation, and curbing public unrest.

Impact on Fundamental Rights

The frequent internet shutdowns raise significant concerns about the violation of fundamental rights. According to the Anuradha Bhasin case (2020), shutdowns restrict the right to livelihood, especially in sectors like e-commerce and information technology, which are highly dependent on internet access. Moreover, Faheema Shirin (2019) emphasized that access to the internet is crucial for the right to life and liberty, particularly for education and access to information. Thus, frequent shutdowns infringe upon citizens’ ability to live with dignity and fully participate in society.

Disproportionate and Unlawful Bans

While internet shutdowns are often imposed with the intent to control violence or prevent the spread of misinformation, they are sometimes enacted on disproportionate grounds. In states like Rajasthan and West Bengal, shutdowns have been imposed to prevent cheating during exams, a decision that has little connection to the scale of disruption caused. This raises concerns about the lack of effective safeguards in the current legal framework. Despite the 2017 Suspension Rules, shutdowns are still often enforced under Section 144 of the CrPC, which lacks procedural transparency and accountability.

Path Forward

To resolve this issue, it is imperative to establish clearer principles of proportionality and more stringent oversight mechanisms. The Indian Telecommunications Bill, 2022 should incorporate the Supreme Court’s directions on internet shutdowns. Additionally, review committees must be strengthened, with the inclusion of non-official members like retired judges to ensure transparency. Rather than blanket shutdowns, targeted restrictions should be considered, focusing on specific services rather than entire networks.

In conclusion, while the government’s use of internet shutdowns may be motivated by public safety concerns, their frequent and indiscriminate nature undermines fundamental rights. A more balanced and transparent approach is necessary to ensure that the right to access the internet is protected.

Model Answer

Introduction

Undertrial prisoners form a significant portion of India’s prison population, accounting for 77.1% of the total inmates in 2022, as per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). The systemic deficiencies in the Indian criminal justice system lead to severe human rights violations for these prisoners.

Overcrowding and Poor Conditions

Overcrowding is a major issue in Indian prisons, with the occupancy rate reaching 118.5% in 2019 (NCRB). This results in substandard living conditions for undertrials, including inadequate accommodation, poor healthcare, and insufficient food. These conditions directly violate the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Delay in Trials and Denial of Right to a Speedy Trial

The slow judicial process is another significant challenge. As of December 2021, 70.9% of undertrial prisoners had been confined for up to one year, often without a verdict. This delay violates their right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Custodial Abuse and Deaths

Custodial abuse remains prevalent, with incidents of torture and deaths in custody. According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), 17,146 people died in judicial or police custody between 2010 and 2020—an alarming statistic that highlights the abuse faced by undertrials.

Discrimination and Marginalization

Most undertrials come from marginalized communities, particularly Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and Other Backward Classes (OBCs). In Tamil Nadu, for example, two-thirds of undertrials belong to these groups, highlighting systemic inequality.

Necessary Reforms

Speedy Trials and Affordable Bail

To address these deficiencies, expediting the judicial process and providing affordable bail options are crucial. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has already set aside Rs. 20 crores annually for financial assistance to poor prisoners to secure bail.

Judicial Accountability and Prison Reforms

Courts must adhere to procedural mandates to prevent arbitrary arrests, as emphasized in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014). Further, comprehensive legal aid, vocational training programs, and the passing of the Prevention of Torture Bill (2010) would significantly improve conditions for undertrials.

Conclusion

By implementing these reforms, India can mitigate the systemic issues in its criminal justice system, ensuring justice, dignity, and human rights for all undertrial prisoners.

Model Answer

Introduction

The role of the judiciary in India has evolved significantly over time. Traditionally tasked with restricting government actions, the judiciary has increasingly played an active role in policy formulation. This shift raises important questions about its influence in shaping laws and public policy, often stepping in where the legislature has failed to act.

Judiciary’s Positive Contribution to Policy Formulation:

1. Addressing Legislative Inaction:
   • Fact: In cases where the legislature failed to pass crucial reforms, the judiciary intervened and directed necessary changes.
   • Example: In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992) and Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court recognized the right to education as a fundamental right, which led to significant policy changes and the eventual enactment of the Right to Education (RTE) Act in 2009.
2. Protecting Fundamental Rights:
   • Fact: The judiciary has actively safeguarded the rights of marginalized communities when government actions were deemed discriminatory.
   • Example: In the Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality, ensuring the protection of LGBTQ+ rights under the Constitution.
3. Promoting Evidence-Based Policymaking:
   • Fact: Judicial rulings have been instrumental in shaping evidence-based policies.
   • Example: In MC Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the Supreme Court’s directives on controlling air pollution played a key role in framing environmental policies.
4. Enhancing Public Participation:
   • Fact: Judicial interventions through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have encouraged civic engagement and policy reform.
   • Example: PIL cases have led to significant public awareness and governmental accountability in areas like healthcare, education, and environmental protection.
5. Filling Regulatory Gaps:
   • Fact: The judiciary has stepped in to develop regulations when necessary.
   • Example: The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Forest Conservation Act case addressed gaps in forest preservation policies.

Critical View

1. Undermining Legislative Supremacy:
   • Fact: The judiciary’s intervention can undermine the authority of the elected legislature.
   • Example: In the case of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act (2014), the Supreme Court struck down the law, asserting its control over judicial appointments, which many saw as judicial overreach.
2. Lack of Expertise:
   • Fact: The judiciary may lack the specific expertise needed to formulate complex policies, leading to potential missteps.
   • Example: The firecracker ban in Delhi (2018) aimed at controlling pollution, but was criticized for its impractical implementation without adequate consultation with experts.
3. Erosion of Accountability:
   • Fact: Heavy judicial intervention may shift accountability away from elected representatives.
   • Example: Judicial involvement in environmental issues, such as air pollution control, can divert attention from governmental responsibility and transparency.

Conclusion

The judiciary’s expanded role in policy formulation has both advantages and drawbacks. While it plays a critical role in addressing legislative gaps and protecting rights, its growing influence must be balanced carefully with the democratic principles of legislative supremacy and executive accountability. It is essential that the judiciary complements, rather than replaces, the legislative and executive branches in ensuring effective governance.