India is grappling with a massive crisis that strikes at the core of justice — an overwhelmed judicial system burdened by an astonishing backlog of over 50 million criminal and civil cases.
This crisis goes beyond administrative inefficiency or a shortage of judges; it raises crucial questions about the potential erosion of judicial independence and the encroachment of political influence. Examining the prolonged delays and tragic stories of those seeking justice reveals a disturbing connection between political interference, particularly under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the exacerbation of India’s judicial predicament.
Exploring the deep-rooted issues contributing to India’s judicial crisis involves delving into systemic failures, historical constraints, and the nexus between political interference and the worsening backlog. By shedding light on specific cases and analyzing the broader context, this article underscores the urgent need for reforms to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and expedite the delivery of justice.
The tale of Binod Paswan, who witnessed the massacre of 58 Dalits 26 years ago and is still awaiting justice, illustrates the systemic failures within India’s judiciary. With conflicting verdicts, fading witnesses, and hundreds of court hearings, Paswan’s cry for justice has transformed into a lifelong nightmare. This case is not an isolated incident but emblematic of a larger issue: a backlog that has doubled over the past two decades, leaving more than 50 million cases pending across the nation.
Moving from individual cases to the broader crisis, several factors contribute to this alarming backlog. It forms a complex web, ensnaring the quest for justice in India. The abysmally low ratio of judges to the population is noteworthy. India has only 21 judges per million people compared to 150 in the United States, laying the foundation for delays. Despite a longstanding target of 50 judges per million people, the lack of substantial funding increases impedes the hiring of more judges and the modernization of court facilities.
Additionally, the Indian judicial system remains shackled by archaic rules inherited from the British colonial era, perpetuating a slow and cumbersome legal process. The persistence of handwritten testimonies and time-consuming witness examinations further exacerbates the delays, rendering the system resistant to much-needed reforms.
The impact of political interference on the escalating judicial backlog becomes evident when scrutinizing the actions of successive administrations, especially under the leadership of Modi. A notable factor is the significant involvement of the Indian government as the largest litigant, contributing to almost 50 percent of pending cases. This vulnerability is exploited by political leaders as a potent tool, further exacerbating the backlog.
The Modi administration, in particular, has faced criticism for its role in exacerbating conflicts between the judiciary and the executive branch over judicial appointments. By consolidating power across various institutions, Modi has seemingly cowed the courts, compromising their ability to function independently. The result is a judiciary bogged down by less consequential matters while crucial cases linger unresolved.
Harvard Law School fellow Nick Robinson’s critique of India’s Supreme Court reveals a troubling aspect contributing to the judicial backlog. Robinson accuses the court of using its backlog to avoid politically sensitive cases, potentially neglecting its core responsibilities. By actively prioritizing ordinary cases over crucial and politically significant matters, the court not only perpetuates delays but also raises concerns about its commitment to addressing issues of national importance. This strategic choice may lead to a misallocation of judicial resources, leaving pressing concerns entangled in the backlog while routine matters take precedence.
Traditionally considered the last resort for justice, the Supreme Court of India now finds itself entangled in less significant matters, leaving critical cases unresolved. The judiciary’s increasing alignment with the government, as observed in judicial appointments and verdicts favoring the ruling party, raises concerns about the erosion of the court’s independence. Critics argue that the judiciary’s ability to act as a cheque on executive power is being compromised, further contributing to the prevailing backlog.
The glacial pace of the Indian judiciary is starkly evident in the experiences of individuals like Tungnath Chaturvedi, who spent 23 years navigating the legal system to resolve a minor overcharge by Indian Railways.
Such protracted legal battles underscore the challenges faced by citizens, regardless of the gravity of their cases. Moreover, the disparities in the treatment of opposition politicians and activists versus government supporters facing legal issues reinforce the perception that political influence can sway the course of justice.
Neelam Krishnamoorthy’s agonizing journey seeking justice for her two children who perished in a 1997 theater fire in New Delhi encapsulates the profound toll of delayed justice. Despite activism leading to improved safety measures, the legal battle unfolded over two decades, culminating in a Supreme Court ruling that waived the prison sentence for the theatre owners. The prolonged ordeal prompted Krishnamoorthy to question whether she would have opted for extrajudicial means if she had known justice would be so elusive.
Similarly, the 1997 village massacre in Bihar, where 26 people were initially found guilty but later acquitted due to a lack of evidence, exemplifies the capricious nature of justice in India. Eyewitnesses like Binod Paswan find themselves entangled in a legal quagmire, with the Supreme Court hearing the case nine times without providing a resolution.
In a nutshell, the burgeoning judicial backlog in India is not merely a statistical anomaly but a reflection of systemic issues exacerbated by political interference. The protracted delays, the erosion of judicial independence, and the preferential treatment of government litigants underscore a concerning trend that demands urgent attention.
To address this crisis, India must prioritize substantial funding increases for hiring more judges, modernizing court facilities, and digitizing procedures. Reforms to streamline the legal process and eliminate archaic practices are imperative for expediting cases.
Moreover, safeguarding the independence of the judiciary from political influence is paramount to restoring faith in the justice system. The international community, including legal scholars and human rights organizations, should scrutinize India’s judicial challenges and advocate for reforms that reinforce the principles of justice, fairness, and accountability. India must untangle systemic deficiencies and political interventions to restore justice for its citizens.