GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE …doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/Lok Sabha...

1

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

LOK SABHA

STARRED QUESTION NO.*210

TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY 5TH FEBRUARY, 2014

Judicial Reforms *210. SHRI DHARMENDRA YADAV:

SHRI GAJANAN D. BABAR: Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state: (a) the targets set and achievements made by the National Mission for Justice Delivery

and Legal Reforms; (b) the steps taken by the Government to realise the objectives of the Mission within its

time frame; (c) whether the policy guidelines for developing measurable performance standards for

Indian Courts have been framed; (d) if so, the details thereof; and (e) if not, the time by which these guidelines will be framed?

ANSWER

MINISTER OF LAW & JUSTICE AND COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(SHRI KAPIL SIBAL)

(a) to (e): A Statement is laid on the Table of the House.

2

STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PARTS (a) to (e) of LOK SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. *210 FOR ANSWER ON 05TH FEBRUARY, 2014.

(a) to (e): The overall goal of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal

Reforms is timely delivery of justice and enhancing accountability through structural

changes. Towards this end, it has identified five strategic initiatives, namely (i) Policy

and Legislative Changes, (ii) Re-engineering procedures and Alternate Dispute

Resolution, (iii) Focus on human resource development, (iv) Leveraging ICT for better

justice delivery; and (v) Improving infrastructure. The National Mission was established

in August 2011, and has a time frame of five years (2011-16). The Mission has taken

several steps towards fulfillment of its objectives, including inter alia:

Draft legislations on Judicial Accountability and Standards, Enhancement of Age of

Retirement of Judges, and Judicial Appointments Commission have been formulated.

State Governments have formulated their State Litigation Policies to reduce

Government litigation and contribute to reduction in overall pendency of court cases.

Recommendations have been made for amendments to the Negotiable Instruments

(NI) Act along with other policy and administrative measures to check increasing

litigation relating to cheque bounce cases.

Computerisation of over 13,000 courts at district and subordinate level for delivery of

citizen centric services, such as online availability of case status, cause lists and

orders / judgements.

Support to National Judicial Academy for training of Judges.

Infrastructure support to State Judicial Academies through the 13th Finance

Commission.

Providing support to State Governments for establishing Alternate Dispute Resolution

Centres through the 13th Finance Commission.

Implementation of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Development of Infrastructure

Facilities for Judiciary.

An important aspect of the judicial reforms relates to re-engineering court

procedures and court processes for early disposal of cases. A comprehensive scheme

3

of National Court Management Systems (NCMS) has been formulated and notified by

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The NCMS has constituted a Sub Committee to

develop measurable standards of performance for courts, addressing the issues of

quality, responsiveness and timeliness.

**************************

4



LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.2367

TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY 5THFEBRUARY, 2014

Gram Nyayalayas

2367. SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI: Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

(a) the number and details of States which have set up Gram Nyayalayas and which have not felt the need to set them up;

(b) whether the Government proposes to provide additional funds to the States to set up these Nyayalayas;

(c) if so, the details of the States which have sought more funds; and (d) the tentative details of the Gram Nyayalayas that are scheduled to be set up in the

next three years? ANSWER

MINISTER OF LAW & JUSTICE AND COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL)

(a) to (d): As per the information available, 172 Gram Nyayalayas have been notified by

nine State Governments, of which 152 Gram Nyayalayas have become operational.

The details are as under:-

S. No State Notified Functional

1 M.P. 89 89

2 Rajasthan 45 45

3 Karnataka 2 0

4 Orissa 14 8

5 Maharashtra 10 10

6 Jharkhand 6 0

7 Goa 2 0

8 Punjab 2 0

9 Haryana 2 0

Total 172 152

5

The State Governments of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and West Bengal have

requested for enhanced financial assistance for setting up of Gram Nyayalayas. In

order to provide enhanced financial assistance for setting up Gram Nyayalayas, the

Central Government has decided in-principle to merge the Gram Nyayalayas Scheme

with Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Development of Infrastructure for the Judiciary.

Central Government has been making regular requests to the Chief Ministers of

States and Chief Justices of High Courts for establishment of Gram Nyayalayas in the

respective States. The issues affecting the implementation of Gram Nyayalayas Act

were discussed in the Conference of Chief Justices of the High Courts and Chief

Ministers of States on 7th April, 2013. It has inter-alia been decided by the Conference

that the State Governments and High Courts should decide the question of

establishment of Gram Nyayalayas, wherever feasible, taking into account their local

problems.

*****************************

6



LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3417

TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY 12TH FEBRUARY, 2014

Pending Court Cases

†3417.SHRIMATI SUMITRA MAHAJAN:

PROF. (DR.) RANJAN PRASAD YADAV: SHRI ANANTH KUMAR: SHRIMATI RAJKUMARI RATNA SINGH; SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SULE: SHRI JAI PRAKASH AGARWAL: SHRI ANURAG SINGH THAKUR:

Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

(a) whether a number of criminal and civil cases are pending in various courts in the country;

(b) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor; court-wise, State-wise and nature-wise during each of the last three years and the current year;

(c) the number of pending cases disposed of by the Fast Track Courts (FTCs) and Gram Nyayalayas since their inception;

(d) whether the time taken by the courts in the country to dispose of cases is much more as compared to the time taken by the courts in other countries; and

(e) if so, the details thereof and the reasons therefor alongwith the corrective measures taken by the Government for expeditious disposal of pending court cases?

ANSWER



(a) & (b): Details of number of civil and criminal cases pending in the High Courts during

the last three years are given in a Statement at Annex – I, and State-wise details of

number of civil and criminal cases pending in the Subordinate Courts during the last

three years are given in Statement at Annex – II.

7

Disposal of cases in courts is within the domain of the judiciary. Data on the time

taken for disposal of cases is not maintained by the Government. The time taken for

disposal of a case depends on several factors such as category of the case (civil or

criminal), complexity of the facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of stake-

holders viz. bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants besides the availability

of physical infrastructure, supporting court staff and applicable rules of procedure.

(c): Setting up of subordinate courts is the responsibility of the State Governments

under the Constitution of India. Fast Track Courts (FTCs) are set-up by the State

Government in consultation with the respective High Court. Fast Track Courts (FTCs)

were set-up to handle long pending cases on the recommendation of Eleventh Finance

Commission (EFC). A statement indicating the State-wise number of cases disposed of

by them as on 31.03.2011 is at Annex-III.

As per information available, 172 Gram Nyayalayas have so far been notified by

nine State Governments, out of which, 152 Gram Nyayalayas in four States have

started functioning. The cases disposed of by these Gram Nyayalayas are not very

significant.

(d): The Government is not aware of any empirical comparison having been made

nor can such a comparison be valid between India and other countries for reasons of

difference in availability of infrastructure facilities, use of technology, number of judicial

officers per million of population (judge-population ratio), docket-ratio (population-case

filing ratio), provisions of substantive laws and procedures in courts and court / case

management etc. These differ widely from country to country.

(e): Taking into account the urgent need of Judicial Reforms, a National Mission for

Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms has been set up for increasing access to justice by

reducing delays and arrears in the system and enhancing accountability through

structural changes and by setting performance standards and capacities. The Mission

8

has been pursuing a coordinated approach for phased liquidation of arrears and

pendency in judicial administration which, inter alia, involves better infrastructure for

courts including computerisation, increase in strength of subordinate judiciary, policy

and legislative measures in the areas prone to excessive litigation, re-engineering of

court procedure for quick disposal of cases and emphasis on human resource

development. The Mission has taken several steps towards fulfillment of its objectives,

including inter-alia formulation of draft legislations on Judicial Accountability and

Standards, enhancement of Age of Retirement of Judges, and Judicial Appointments

Commission; formulation of State Litigation Policies to reduce Government litigation;

recommending amendments to the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act to check increasing

litigation relating to cheque bounce cases; Computerisation of over 13,000 courts at

district and subordinate level; Infrastructure support to State Judicial Academies, and

providing support to State Governments for establishing Alternate Dispute Resolution

Centres through the 13th Finance Commission; and Implementation of the Centrally

Sponsored Scheme for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for Judiciary. An

important aspect of the judicial reforms relates to re-engineering court procedures and

court processes for early disposal of cases. A comprehensive scheme of National Court

Management Systems (NCMS) has been formulated and notified by Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India.

*****************

9

Annex – I Statement referred to in reply to of the Lok Sabha Un-Starred Question No. 3417 for 12th February, 2014, regarding Pending Court Cases Details of number of civil and criminal cases pending in the High Courts during the last three years

High Court 2010 2011 2012

Civil Criminal Civil Criminal Civil Criminal

Allahabad 658892 309018 671127 334400 678946 329733

Andhra Pradesh 171510 26574 171371 26843 184408 25693

Bombay 305697 45600 316893 45992 293169 48800

Calcutta 283248 51653 303375 43779 315444 46687

Delhi 48555 11499 47704 13508 47758 14594

Gujarat 64187 25453 55207 27025 46632 29377

Guwahati 44766 8969 44245 9010 44099 8774

Himachal

Pradesh

39544 6037 43593 5948 50002 5595

Jammu &

Kashmir

66377 3510 77697 4526 78127 4179

Karnataka 200842 21296 156461 15627 167080 16772

Kerala 92741 30245 96852 31925 92880 31181

Madras 401377 46791 415836 57900 437069 63305

Madhya Pradesh 147179 69347 154843 74493 167575 80582

Orissa 251656 29335 271242 30072 299402 33508

Patna 78623 49252 70723 48241 71940 47251

Punjab and

Haryana

186412 46507 192193 51473 195815 55305

Rajasthan 227827 64663 221898 59408 233046 59505

Sikkim 26 19 52 15 52 11

Uttarakhand 12053 6222 13109 6154 13930 6257

10

Chhattisgarh 38384 16993 33175 16988 31223 16528

Jharkhand 32453 28012 31840 29437 31694 30263

Total 3352349 896995 3389436 932764 3480291 953900

*****************

11

Annex – Ii Statement referred to in reply to of the Lok Sabha Un-Starred Question No. 3417 for 12th February, 2014, regarding Pending Court Cases State-wise details of number of civil and criminal cases pending in the Subordinate Courts during the last three years 2010 2011 2012

State/UTs Civil Criminal Civil Criminal Civil Criminal

Andhra Pradesh 456537 506653 450031 495706 455892 469051

Arunachal Pradesh 999 5346 930 5375 887 5313

Assam 76070 167938 72863 186733 70634 182794

Bihar 252998 1287252 258195 1349111 269623 1441757

Chhattisgarh 54407 217151 56982 214424 60231 212292

Goa 17073 12167 17837 12220 18244 11887

Gujarat 685440 1492889 677072 1505954 641120 1533571

Haryana 223631 339310 240800 348012 249710 314575

Himachal Pradesh 73299 102847 75214 114335 79416 145147

Jammu & Kashmir 70344 118676 73901 132407 74112 117032

Jharkhand 51976 240616 54814 237401 64216 235049

Karnataka 551802 592040 561096 567900 577630 561073

Kerala 360818 619604 380854 679202 450988 789176

Madhya Pradesh 210482 895530 224450 864745 238746 852475

Maharashtra 981554 2923051 975750 2300204 1023005 1954301

Manipur 3973 4867 4341 5503 5364 9017

Meghalaya 2933 9658 1333 1848 1905 2198

Mizoram 1434 2759 1454 2958 1500 2069

Nagaland 1918 3142 1706 2699 1559 2027

Orissa 206022 905143 213809 939708 227451 958312

Punjab 273777 295568 275422 277780 268445 268619

Rajasthan 400026 1128292 400112 1051256 415744 1030385

Sikkim 357 842 436 758 381 696

Tamil Nadu 750246 491124 715702 467547 778636 453833

Tripura 6957 45713 7315 40936 8402 47493

Uttar Pradesh 1304645 4348796 1345023 4453025 1391045 4401286

Uttarakhand 32398 123195 32186 113548 31592 132903

West Bengal and A & N Island

550748 2250558 522291 2122578 535774 2069597

Chandigarh 22212 58153 23399 36717 22819 27136

12

D & N Haveli 1069 2892 902 2336 515 2229

Daman & Diu 996 1017 834 905 1414 3091

Delhi 171505 733723 157607 600871 142117 514470

Lakshadweep 114 83 76 163 139 152

Pondicherry 14433 11393 13490 13215 14486 14455

Total 7813193 19937988 7838227 19148080 8123742 18765461

**************

13

Annex – III Statement referred to in reply to of the Lok Sabha Un-Starred Question No. 3417 for 12th February, 2014, regarding Pending Court Cases

Sl. No.

Name of the State Number of cases disposed since inception by Fast Track Courts as on 31.03.2011

1 Andhra Pradesh 199953

2 Arunachal Pradesh 1660

3 Assam 55811

4 Bihar 159105

5 Chhattisgarh 76575

6 Goa 4017

7 Gujarat * 434296

8 Haryana ** 33590

9 Himachal Pradesh 33427

10 Jharkhand 87789

11 Karnataka # 184067

12 Kerala 95367

13 Madhya Pradesh ** 317363

14 Maharashtra * 381619

15 Manipur 2861

16 Meghalaya 843

17 Mizoram 1635

18 Nagaland 716

19 Odisha 60441

20 Punjab ** 46347

21 Rajasthan 123024

22 Tamil Nadu $ 371336

23 Tripura 5591

24 Uttar Pradesh 411658

14

* as on February,2011 ** as on December, 2010 # as on August, 2010 $ as on December, 2008.

**********************

25 Uttarakhand 89791

26 West Bengal 113903

Total 32,92,785

15



LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3469

TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY, 2014

Road Accident Cases

†3469.SHRIMATI RAJKUMARI RATNA SINGH: Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

(a) whether the disposal of cases pertaining to road accidents takes five to ten years;

(b) if so, the reasons for taking so much time; (c) the total number road accident cases pending, State-wise as on date; and (d) the adverse impact of the above delay on road safety and traffic management in

the country?

ANSWER


(SHRI KAPIL SIBAL) (a) to (d): As per the information furnished by the High Courts, 3,17,991 accident related

cases are pending in different High Courts. Details are given in Annexure.

Disposal of cases in courts, including cases pertaining to road accidents, is within

the domain of the judiciary and data on the time taken for disposal of cases is not

maintained by the Government. There are however various reasons for the pendency

of cases, including, for example, less number of Judges vis-à-vis increasing number of

cases, inadequate infrastructure, lengthy and time-consuming legal processes,

adjournments, timely availability of lower court records, time taken by advocates for

removal of defects, and non-cooperation / delaying tactics by litigants / advocates etc.

16

There is no data or information available which indicates such delays have

adverse impact on road safety and traffic management in the country.

17



LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 4035

TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, 19TH FEBRUARY, 2014

Withdrawal of Court Cases 4035. SHRI G M SIDDESHWARA: Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

(a) whether any guidelines have been framed by the Government or Supreme Court for withdrawal of cases by the Central and State Governments from various courts;

(b) if so, the details thereof; (c) if not, whether the Government proposes to frame guidelines for withdrawal of

cases from courts by the Government; and (d) if so, the details thereof and if not, the reasons therefor?

ANSWER


TECHNOLOGY

(SHRI KAPIL SIBAL)

(a) to (d): The 10th Law Commission headed by Hon’ble Justice K. K. Mathew in its

100th Report entitled “Litigation by and against the Government: Some

Recommendations for Reform” (May 1984) observed that “a pretty bulk of litigation in

the courts, including, in particular, writ petitions in the Supreme Court and the High

Courts, consists of cases to which the Government is a party.” Government of India

has, therefore, introduced “National Litigation Policy 2010” based on the recognition that

Government and its various agencies are the pre-dominant litigants in courts and

Tribunals in the country. Accordingly, the Policy declared “Government must cease to

be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for

18

ultimate decision has to be discarded”. The National Litigation Policy (NLP) aims to

streamline the conduct of Government litigation before various courts. All the Twenty

Eight (28) State Governments have framed their State Litigation Policies. Most of the

States have committed in the State Litigation Policy that a review will be undertaken of

the existing cases and wherever necessary frivolous and vexatious cases would be

withdrawn. Empowered Committees have been constituted at National, State and

District levels. These Committees will identify such cases which have become

ineffective and infructuous with passage of time and withdraw from courts.

*****************************

19



LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.4127

TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY,19THFEBRUARY, 2014

Gram Nyayalayas in UTs 4127.SHRI HAMDULLAH SAYEED: Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

(a) whether any Gram Nyayalayas have been set up in any of the Union Territories including Lakshadweep and if not, the reasons therefor;

(b) whether any demands have been made by the Union Territories for greater financial assistance to implement these courts;

(c) if so, the steps being taken by the Government to meet these demands and if not, the reasons therefor;

(d) whether any States / UTs have conveyed their disinclination to set up such Gram Nyayalayas; and

(e) if so, the details thereof?

ANSWER


(SHRI KAPIL SIBAL) (a) to (c): As per the information available, 172 Gram Nyayalayas have been notified so

far by nine State Governments. However, no Gram Nyayalayas has been notified by

any Union Territory including Lakshadweep. Some of the reasons for this include

urbanization, availability of regular courts and low pendency.

Though some of the States, like, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and West Bengal

have asked for greater financial assistance for setting up Gram Nyayalayas, no Union

Territory has asked for greater financial assistance for the purpose. The Central

20

Government has decided, in principle, to merge the Gram Nyayalayas Scheme with

Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for the

Judiciary. This may result in enhanced financial assistance for setting up of Gram

Nyayalayas.

(d) & (e): The details of States / Union Territories, which have conveyed their

disinclination to set up Gram Nyayalayas, are Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar,

Chhattisgarh & Tamil Nadu and Union Territories of Delhi & Chandigarh.

*****************************

21



LOK SABHA

UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.4171

TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, 19THFEBRUARY, 2014

Criminal Justice System 4171.SHRIA. T. NANA PATIL:

SHRI HANSRAJ G. AHIR: Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

(e) whether the Government has asked the Law Commission to prepare a detailed report in order to improve the criminal justice system;

(f) if so, whether the Government proposes to incorporate the recommendations of Malimath Committee and MadhavMenon Committee in the criminal justice system;

(g) if so, the details thereof; (h) whether the Government also proposes to amend the Acts concerned to bring

about improvement in the criminal justice system; and (i) if so, the details thereof and the steps taken by the Government in this regard?

ANSWER



(a) to (e): Based on the recommendations contained in reports of Law Commission and

other Committees, Government has inter-aliacarried out following amendments in Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

(i) Section 309: In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day

to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court

finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for

reasons to be recorded. Further, when the witnesses are in attendance, no

22

adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except

for special reasons to be recorded in writing.A new proviso has been inserted in

Section 309 allowing for inquiries or trials relating to the offences of rape,

including child rape, to be completed in two months from the date of filing of the

charge sheet.

(ii) Section 313: A new proviso has been inserted in Section 313 relating to the

examination of accused, where the court may take the help of the prosecutor and

defence counsel in preparing relevant questions that are to be put to the accused

and the court may permit filing of written statement by the accused as sufficient

compliance of this section.

(iii) Section 206 and Section 260: Section 206 has been amended to widen the

scope of summary procedure by issue of special summons to allow a magistrate

of second class to exercise such powers. The maximum fine has been increased

to Rs. 1,000. The scope of summary trials in Section 260 has been widened to

include offences involving properties of up to Rs. 2,000.

(iv) Section 320: More offences have been added in the list of compoundable

offences. Offences that were earlier compoundable with the permission of the

court are now compoundable without the court’s permission. In the case of

offences which are compoundable only with the permission of the court, two

petitions must be filed – one for permitting the offence to be compounded, and

the second regarding the fact that the offence has been compounded.

(v) Section 436A: A new Section 436A has been inserted, providing that under trials

prisoners who had spent half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified

for that offence in jail (except for those punishable by death) shall be released by

the court on their personal bond with or without sureties.

23

(vi) Chapter XXIA: In 2006, a new Chapter XXIA on plea bargaining was added.

Plea bargaining is now applicable to those offences for which punishment is up to

the period of seven years. It does not apply to cases involving socio-economic

offences or those that are committed against a woman or child below 14 years of

age. Once a court passes an order in the case of a plea bargaining, no appeals

are permitted.

(vii) Section 275: A proviso has been added in Section 275 allowing evidence of a

witness to be recorded by electronic means through audio-video recording, in the

presence of the accused’s advocate.

(viii) Section 164: A clause has been added amending Section 164 providing that any

confession or statement made to a magistrate may be recorded by electronic

means such as audio-video in the presence of the advocate of the accused.

(ix) Section 377: The State Government can only appeal to the High Court on the

ground of inadequacy, and only in cases where the Sessions Court has already

passed a conviction.

(x) Section 242: A proviso has been inserted in Section 242 directing the magistrate

to supply witness statements recorded during the police investigation to the

accused in advance.

Government has further requested the Law Commission of India to examine and

give comprehensive report on various laws pertaining to Criminal Justice System

covering all aspects so that necessary amendments can be made in various laws, viz.

Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Evidence Act etc.

*****************************

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE …doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/Lok Sabha...

Documents

Transcript of GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE …doj.gov.in/sites/default/files/Lok Sabha...