Rising number of legislations blamed for pendency of cases
Government today blamed "increasing number" of state and central legislations, vacancies of judges and adjournments as some of the main factors responsible for pendency of over three crore cases in various courts across the country.
New Delhi: Government today blamed "increasing number" of state and central legislations, vacancies of judges and adjournments as some of the main factors responsible for pendency of over three crore cases in various courts across the country.
"Increasing number of state and central legislations, accumulation of first appeals, continuation of ordinary civil jurisdiction in some of the high courts, vacancies of judges. Indiscriminate use of writ jurisdiction...Are some of the main factors responsible for pendency of cases in courts," Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad told the Lok Sabha in a written reply.
According to the latest data available, while 63,843 cases are pending in the Supreme Court as on May one, 44.62 lakh cases were pending in the 24 High Courts of the country at the end on 2013.
At the end of 2013, 2.68 crore cases were pending in the various subordinate courts.
The total comes to about 3.13 crore cases.
He said against the approved strength of 906, the 24 High Courts were functioning with a working strength of 636 judges -- a shortfall of 270.
Prasad said while disposal of pending cases in various courts is within the domain of the judiciary, to create an enabling environment for judges, government has set up National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms.
The major initiative under the mission relates to infrastructure development for subordinate judiciary and computerisation of courts.
"In order to reduce government litigation in courts, the central government has encouraged the states to notify their litigation policies which contain provisions for weeding out infructuous cases and promote dispute resolution through alternative mechanisms," he said.
The Centre is also looking into the areas prone to excessive litigation for adopting suitable policy and legislative measures to curb unwanted litigation, he said.