The government has done well to set up two special courts to hear cases relating to malpractices in examinations, including the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG). This follows the widespread protests by students under the banner of the Cockroach Janta Party over the leakage of medical entrance examination papers and the cancellation of examinations. These events led to considerable stress, anguish and anger over the continuing irregularities in the conduct of NEET during the past decade since its introduction.
The two special courts designated at Nagpur and Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (formerly Aurangabad) have been tasked with ensuring accountability and resolving these cases within a time-bound period of 90 days.
While this initiative is indeed laudable, the government should also consider establishing special courts to help reduce the enormous backlog of unresolved cases before courts across the country. According to the latest figures, around 61 lakh cases are pending before various High Courts. Allahabad has the largest backlog, with an estimated 12.5 lakh pending cases, including over 50,000 that have remained unresolved for more than three decades. After Allahabad, the Bombay and Rajasthan High Courts each have nearly six lakh pending cases, while Calcutta has the fewest. The situation is even more serious at the district level, where more than 550 lakh cases are pending.
Part of the problem lies in the failure to fill vacancies among High Court judges. Against a sanctioned strength of about 1,122 judges, more than 300 posts remain vacant. With judicial strength reduced by nearly one-third, it is imperative that the Collegium, the Union government, the Chief Justice of India, and the respective state governments expedite appointments to these vacant positions.
Secondly, courts need to make greater use of technology to classify pending cases according to their nature: for example, monetary disputes, family matters, land and property disputes, petty criminal cases and serious criminal cases. Cases can also be categorised according to their monetary value. It is reasonable to assume that the largest number of pending matters consists of civil and commercial disputes. The government is one of the major litigants, with numerous cases arising from differing interpretations of the law.
The manner in which laws are often passed in haste contributes significantly to the problem. Many statutes are loosely drafted, leaving scope for multiple interpretations. Legislators must devote greater attention to drafting laws clearly and precisely so that they reflect only the intent of Parliament and leave minimal room for ambiguity. Few countries have as many unresolved court cases as India.
It would therefore be worthwhile for the government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Collegium, to seriously consider establishing more specialised commercial courts under the country’s 25 High Courts serving the 28 states and Union Territories. The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as amended in 2018, already provides the necessary legal framework. High Courts with original jurisdiction – Mumbai, Delhi, Madras
and Himachal Pradesh – have established commercial divisions within their jurisdictions. Commercial courts have also been constituted at the district level. Today, there are more than 500 commercial courts across the country, with Punjab, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh accounting for over 60 per cent of the total.
What is now required is better segregation of cases to ensure their speedy disposal. One possibility would be to increase the pecuniary jurisdiction of commercial courts in metropolitan cities from disputes involving Rs3 lakh and above to those involving at least Rs3 crore and above, while allowing district-level commercial courts to hear cases up to Rs3 crore. Artificial intelligence could also be used to classify cases according to their subject matter and the length of time they have remained pending, thereby facilitating faster disposal.
Besides hearing only higher-value commercial disputes, there should also be mandatory time limits for adjudication. In lower-value cases, no more than three or four hearings should ordinarily be permitted, with adjournments granted only in the rarest of circumstances. Cases involving amounts below Rs1 crore should ideally be decided within 90 to 120 days. Commercial disputes cannot be allowed to take 3 years to resolve. Unless more cases are disposed of each year than are instituted, the backlog will continue to grow.