There has always been a lot of attention of the authorities focussed on long pendency of the cases in various courts of the country. One of the remedies has been a gradual increase in the number of courts/ judges. Lok Adalat too has become a regular event in which parties are encouraged to compromise their claims by mutual settlements and obviate the long-drawn process of judicial adjudication. Of late, the pre-litigation mediation process has also been made mandatory in all commercial disputes – to mediate negotiated settlements in lieu of judicial trials.
Along with these systemic reforms, most of the honourable judges too can be indeed seen on record working tirelessly to be upto the performance of their solemn duty. But the constant figures of perpetual pendency continue to be quoted to un-see the systemic intent as well as the judges’ efforts.
The interesting thing in these figures is that roughly 77% of these cases are criminal matters, and only 23% are civil matters! And here is the most significant point that all of us have been missing on. This ratio of more than three times criminal cases to the civil ones has an altogether badly different storey to tell.
On the contrary, crimes are committed in exceptional circumstances by exceptional people who are far out-numbered by the general masses. The habitual criminals generally have selective targets of their own. And even in lawless societies the general masses prefer not to confront the bandits.
This universal trend of human behaviour is visible everywhere – and litigation is no exception. The Union Government of India employs approximately 35.6 lakh personnel across various ministries and departments. This total includes both civilian staff and the armed forces, with the Ministries of Railways and Home Affairs accounting for the largest share of this workforce. Obviously, some of these employees will have some service disputes with the Government of India, and some of them also must have some criminal conducts to their credit.
The service matters of Central Government employees are heard by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which has its benches all across the country. There are currently 69,581 cases pending across all benches of CAT. Since its establishment in 1985, CAT has received 9,88,738 cases and disposed of 9,19,157 thus far.
On the other hand, just over 6,900 corruption and bribery cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are pending trial in various courts nationwide, with 361 of them pending for more than 20 years. Over a five-and-a-half-year period, the CBI has registered cases against 216 civil services officers (including IAS, IPS, and IRS officers) for various criminal and corruption-related offenses. (Figures are available online.)
The difference is very stark. Unlike the other court cases, the service disputes of the Central Government employees, which are matters of civil nature, are almost ten times the number of criminal cases against some of them. This is quite natural and normal outcome of the overall interaction between the employer and her employees.
The big question that begs the answer is why this big difference in the ratio of civil-criminal matters in the civil courts and that in CAT? Very likely, the answer lies in the flawed judicial system which people tend to avoid whenever possible in private disputes. In service matters, since the other party is the government itself, an employee cannot drag it to any “self-styled adjudicator” other then the CAT alone. So, every service matter comes only before the CAT. Likewise, all criminal matters come to the regular courts because corporal punishments are hard to inflict informally.
On the contrary, in most of the civil disputes as the other side is a private party, it can be dragged before anyone. So the people preferably tend to settle their disputes outside the judicial system because it fails on speedy justice – for whatever reasons.
This is not to say that all extra-judicial mediation or resolution is bad or evil. Local elders and other persons of influence are doing a wonderful job in resolving minor local disputes. But their limitations are obvious, and they cannot be expected to do more than what they do.
For big disputes these forums are too naïve to grasp the intricacies – let alone, suggest a solution. Most of these matters are then resolved by muscle power wielded by the men-that-be: just because the normal judicial process is exhausting.
Importantly, the painful thing is that this alternate mechanism is utterly lacking in fairness, scruples and uniformity. It is a grey mare enjoying itself as a better horse because the real horse is hobbled.
The remedy is not any difficult. If the judiciary’s legs are untied, nothing can stop its horse from galloping. We have to do away with the non-sensical procedures of bringing counter-parties to the court, and putting the judge on trial. Parties can submit to the courts with their controversies and leave with the opinion of the court in the form of a verdict.
mfarooqrather@gmail.com
