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
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
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
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
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
MINISTER OF LAW & JUSTICE AND COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL)
(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
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
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
MINISTER OF LAW & JUSTICE AND COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(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
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
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
MINISTER OF LAW & JUSTICE AND COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION
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
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
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
MINISTER OF LAW & JUSTICE AND COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(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
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
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
MINISTER OF LAW & JUSTICE AND COMMUNICATIONS & INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY (SHRI KAPIL SIBAL)
(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.
*****************************
Top Related