Report
Working Paper III: A Framework for Extremely Delayed Cases
Report content
Introduction A crucial factor in the ever-increasing pendency burden on courts is the fact that a significant number of these cases remain pending for multiple years. The National Judicial Data Grid (“NJDG”) notes that nearly 4.4 crore cases are currently pending across district courts in the country, with approximately 1.1 crore of those cases (nearly 24%) having been pending for more than 5 years. Such “extremely delayed” cases are often listed before courts with decreasing frequency over the years, until they ultimately disappear within the system. The reasons for such cases getting lost in the system are myriad. Lack of ability in one or both the parties to push for steady progress of a case, presence of perverse incentives with one or both the parties to keep the case pending, lack of proactive measures by the courts to ensure time-bound progress in cases – these are some of the reasons why cases may continue to remain pending, ultimately reflecting poorly on the ability of the Indian courts to deliver timely justice. Although the problem is well known, very few measures have been taken to ensure that extremely delayed cases are tackled systemically and in a targeted manner. Old cases continue to be listed alongside fresh cases without any regard for their previous progress, the underlying causes for delay and specific requirements. However, in October 2023, the Supreme Court in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi & Ors. brought this issue to the forefront, calling for greater coordination at all High Courts between the Bench and the Bar to identify cases pending for more than 5 years and take measures for speedy disposal. For this directive to yield positive results, it is high time for the judiciary to adopt a more nuanced approach to tackle these cases. The Differentiated Case Management (“DCM”) framework outlined in this paper seeks to aid the judiciary in enforcing its intent, by relying on a well thought-out strategy based on judicial data to ensure that the court is able to make timely and effective interventions. Issues Identified Presently, our courts lack a mechanism for: Identifying and analysing the varying reasons for delay for extremely delayed cases; Customising strategies at various levels based on the reasons for delay and specific requirements of a case; Identifying the specific stakeholders who must coordinate with the Bench to enable effective case progress in different circumstances; and Harnessing the potential of judicial data and technology to ensure that any framework which is adopted is smart and effective. Proposed Solutions The DCM framework outlined in this paper takes a two-fold approach: For any DCM strategy to be effective, judicial data pertaining to pendency and reasons for delay must first be aggregated, collected, and analysed. To this end, templatisation of a portion of order sheets and the creation of data dashboards, which provide information at a glance pertaining to a case’s prior progress and history, pendency statistics, and reasons for delay at each step, would be necessary. Once the data has been made available in this manner, the following steps would have to be undertaken: Creating different tracks for future case progress (priority track, median track, regular track, and dormant cases track) based on the extent to which the reasons for delay are within the court’s immediate control to tackle; Identifying cases which have passed the 5+ year mark, and segregating them into these tracks based on certain metrics; and Following customised strategies devised for each track, based on an underlying analysis of reasons for delay. These metrics and strategies would have to be re-examined periodically to ensure that the DCM strategy effectively tackles extremely delayed cases. Below is a flowchart depicting the DCM framework for extremely delayed cases: The paper provides suggestions for templatisation and the creation of data dashboards. Further, it provides for an illustrative list of potential metrics for segregating cases into different tracks, and the nature of strategies which may be used for future progress for each track, depending on the most common reasons for delay which have been identified through data analysis.
Report document
Authors
Priyamvadha Shivaji
Senior Resident Fellow
At JALDI, I have worked on engagements with the High Courts of Meghalaya and Delhi and government departments in Karnataka, and produced independent research on various aspects including re-imagined Civil Rules of Practice, a Court Design Handbook for improving court infrastructure in India, a proposal for introducing Differentiated Case Management for the Indian judiciary etc. My work focuses on process re-engineering and the need for ensuring user-friendly, accessible, and efficient courts. I graduated with a B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) from NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad in 2020 and obtained the BCL from the University of Oxford in 2021. I have previously provided research assistance on various other independent projects. My dream for the Indian judiciary is for the system to inspire trust and confidence in all stakeholders. This occurs when the judiciary is deeply committed to accessibility, transparency, efficiency, technology and a culture of continuous learning and adaptability to meet the evolving needs of a dynamic society. Ultimately, courts should become well-equipped and welcoming spaces to make the pursuit of justice a vibrant, participatory and meaningful exercise. I love reading, writing speculative fiction, quizzing and learning new languages.
Shreya Tripathy
Senior Resident Fellow
Since 2018, I have worked in JALDI on topics such as judicial diversity, infrastructure and efficient budgeting for the judiciary. I have also undertaken several data-driven projects intending to understand the systemic problems of the judiciary at all levels and provide targeted solutions. I have publications in the Economic and Political Weekly and other law & policy review journals. I have also published in the Outlook and platforms such as Hindustan Times and The Print. My areas of interest include Human Rights & Judicial Reforms. I graduated with B.B.A.LL.B. from National Law University, Odisha in 2018. Before joining Vidhi, I interned in organizations like Nyaaya, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre and Partners for Law in Development. My dream for the Indian judiciary is that it becomes more inclusive and accessible for all. The general narrative when it comes to accessibility and the judiciary tends to shift towards litigants who may be Persons with Disabilities. It is high time that the judiciary starts changing this narrative and starts considering accessibility for all and at all levels including judicial officers and staff. I am an enthusiastic collector of cookbooks and love trying out recipes from around the world.
Deepika Kinhal
Former Team Lead, JALDI
Deepika Kinhal was the Team Lead of JALDI. Since 2017, she authored several data-driven research reports seeking to understand the systemic issues that plague India’s justice delivery systems. She has been a part of expert committees constituted by the eCommittee of the Supreme Court of India and NITI Aayog to improve justice delivery through technology, and has led engagements with multiple High Courts to study and improve their case and court management systems. She also appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committees on Mediation Bill and Judicial Impact Assessment. At JALDI, she was focused on translating our research findings into tangible solutions and enabling evidence-based reforms in the judiciary. In this, she collaborated with experts from various domains and worked with similar minded organizations across the board. Her dream as an Indian citizen and a judicial reforms enthusiast is to have a modern, responsive judiciary that delivers quality, effective justice in a manner that befits the aspirational 21st century Indian. She graduated from NLSIU, Bengaluru in 2012. Before joining Vidhi, she practiced as a civil-commercial lawyer in Karnataka with Dua Associates, and as a real-estate and capital markets lawyer at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.