Layer for dispute resolution: Lower court, High court, and the Supreme Court
Accumulation of cases (case backlogs) in the upper court cannot be overcome by just increasing the number of judges and filling vacancies quickly.
37 million cases delayed in India
The legal system must provide credible incentives and prevention. The resolution of disputes must be efficient. There is a layer for dispute resolution: lower court, high court, and the Supreme Court. Of the 37 million case backlogs in India, the contribution of the Supreme Court (as of March 1, 2021) was only 66,727. In June 2012, the number was 61,716. If someone returns a decade, the number will drop to around 40,000.
Issued a consultation paper on the Case Backlogs and regional gap of the Supreme Court
In other words, because the disposal of the case of the Supreme Court is smaller than the newly institutionalized case, the Case backlogs increase. In 2015, Vidhi issued a consultation paper on the Case backlogs and regional gap of the Supreme Court in access to the Supreme Court.
Number of constitutional cases discharged has declined steadily
“However, the prima facie analysis of the history of the Supreme Court recently will show that it must be lost from the original character and has turned into a regular appeal court. Recent studies show that disputes related to taxation, corporate law, land acquisition, service issues, and criminal law issues are most of the Supreme Court docket.
Provisions of the Indian Constitution related and limit the Supreme Court
While the number of constitutional cases discharged has declined steadily, data from the Supreme Court suggests that the two regularity amounts to be discarded and pending cases (case backlogs) have grown exponentially. Constitutional, the Supreme Court must be accessible and open to everyone who wants to get remedy from its jurisdiction under the provisions of the Indian Constitution related and limit the Supreme Court”.
Extraordinary presence of special leave petition (SLP)
In 2016, the analysis of 49,000 cases was followed, showed an extraordinary presence of special leave petition (SLPS). Therefore, reducing the Case backlogs in the Supreme Court is not a simple problem to increase the number of judges and fill vacancies quickly.
Minister of Law and Justice
Recently, the Minister of Law and Justice answered starry questions at Lok Sabha about the restructuring of the Supreme Court. “The eleventh law commission in the 125th report entitled ‘The Supreme Court – Fresh Look’, submitted in 1988, reiterated the recommendations carried out by the Tenth Law Commission in the 95th report to divide the Supreme Court to two, namely (i) the Court Constitution. In Delhi and (ii) Appealing Court or Federal Court sitting in North India, South, East, West, and Central.
Constitutional Division and the Legal Division
“The 95th report recommended that there must be two divisions in the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Division and the Legal Division. I hope more people read the 95th report. It’s beautifully arguing and written, not just content, but also a language. As mentioned by the Minister, in 1988, there was the 125th report.
The Supreme Court is left only to deal with constitutional problems.
I prefer the 95th report language, but that the 125 report is also quite good. “If this recommendation has been applied in the letter and the Spirit, maybe the situation can be very much taken. Non-Implementation Reports left one guess whether the split was annoying in any way. In fact, the Supreme Court itself recently recommends the creation of the National Court for appeal so The Supreme Court is left only to deal with constitutional problems. If on previous occasions there are some hostilities seen from the bar on suggestions to divide the court into two divisions, no one is heard since the judgment (the 1988 Supreme Court Assessment).
Recommendations from the Law Commission for case backlogs
The Supreme Court’s institutional response thus supports the separation of the court. Therefore the government must develop the willingness needed to make an effect on it; Otherwise, the impression tends to be established that where little resistance comes, the willingness to deal with recommendations from the Law Commission is far away. “
Furthermore, once again mentioned by the minister in the answer, there was a report 229 of the Law Commission in 2009.
Inability of the power of the judge responsible for the accumulation of cases
To quote, “The Agony of A Litigan came to New Delhi from distant places such as Chennai, Puducherry, Puducherry, Puducherry, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa in the West, Assam or other states in the east to attend the case at the Supreme Court can be imagined; the large amount is spent on the trip; bringing the lawyer himself who has handled this problem in the High Court to increase costs; delay into the barrier; the cost is multiplied. That, it is clear that there are other reasons besides the inability of the power of the judge responsible for the accumulation of Case backlogs that have not been determined in the Supreme Court.
Permanent parliamentary committee on law and justice
In this context, it can be noted that on the 2nd (2005), 6th (2005).) 15th(2006) reported that the permanent parliamentary committee on law and justice has repeatedly suggested that to promote the speedy justice available for people, the Supreme Court bench must be established in the south, west, and northeast. country.
Constitutional bench along with the cassation bench
Apart from these reports, the Supreme Court has so far disagreed with the advice on the setting of its benches. The concept of having a constitutional bench along with the cassation bench (this does not research the facts, but interpreting relevant laws) is not a matter new.
To establish the Supreme Court bench outside Delhi for case backlogs resolution
I think anyone who reads various reports will be convinced. But Lok Sabha was told, “The problem was called by the chief justice of India, who has notified that after consideration of this issue, the full court in his meeting was held on February 18, 2010, found not to establish the Supreme Court bench outside Delhi.”
Law Forum News:
