The gruelling course of litigation in India

Court scheduling and case management continue to be a hurdle that litigants face

Updated - October 11, 2024 01:29 am IST

‘Lawyers significantly impact court scheduling and case management’

‘Lawyers significantly impact court scheduling and case management’ | Photo Credit: Getty Images

Last month, the President of India, Droupadi Murmu, highlighted the issue of court delays. In her speech at the National Conference of the District Judiciary, she noted that these delays are what are making people hesitate approaching courts, as they fear that the pursuit of justice will complicate their lives further. She referred to this as the ‘black coat syndrome’, likening it to white coat hypertension — a condition where patients exhibit elevated blood pressure in clinical settings. While the term is symbolic, it underscores a real issue — that many people are reluctant to engage in litigation due to the gruelling process, which includes endless adjournments, numerous appeals, and escalating legal costs. A significant factor contributing to these delays is the Indian judiciary’s scheduling and case management practices. Effective case management, involving clear timelines for filing documents, conducting witness examinations, scheduling hearings, and limiting adjournments, are crucial. Without these, the court system struggles to move cases forward efficiently, exacerbating delays and frustrations faced by litigants.

Court scheduling and case management have long been challenges within the Indian judiciary, significantly contributing to delays. Mechanisms such as Case Flow Management Rules were introduced for district and High Courts to streamline processes, set timelines, and create more predictable court schedules. However, despite their introduction in the late 2000s, these rules and other initiatives, that were aimed at improving scheduling and timely case disposal, have been inconsistently implemented, and with limited impact.

At the level of the district judiciary

While stricter rules and rigid timelines are often suggested as solutions, the reality is more complex. It is crucial to recognise that all participants in the judicial system — judges, lawyers, litigants and witnesses — act with rationality and good intentions, though their actions are often influenced by various constraints and incentives. Court scheduling issues are deeply rooted in the complex interplay of these motivations. A holistic approach that considers the psychological and behavioural aspects of all stakeholders is essential for meaningful progress. Let us look at the challenges in the district judiciary.

Judges have a crucial role in enforcing case management timelines. But systemic pressures often compromise their ability to do so. Judges in the district judiciary have to prioritise cases, with directions from higher courts to dispose of these cases within a specific time or where target disposal numbers have been provided for case types. While such oversight aims to ensure timely justice, higher courts often impose deadlines without fully considering their impact on the overall scheduling in district courts. This forces district courts to allocate disproportionate resources to expedite certain cases, disrupting scheduling and creating delays. The Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have criticised this trend, noting that such directives often disrupt case management in district courts. A more balanced approach is needed, wherein higher courts’ deadlines align with district court operational realities to avoid exacerbating delays.

Various statutes and rules impose timelines for the disposing of cases or filing documents, but judges are often not incentivised to adhere to these deadlines. When extensions are permissible, judges frequently grant them beyond statutory deadlines, knowing that higher courts are likely to condone such delays if appealed. Judges who enforce these deadlines may face pressure from the bar, potentially affecting their career progression as they risk being labelled ‘difficult’ and subjected to constant complaints.

The performance evaluation system for judges of the district judiciary, known as the units system, exacerbates these challenges. Judges are awarded “units” or points based on the type and number of cases they dispose of, with different weights assigned to different case types. To maximise their units, judges might prioritise and dispose of the simpler cases quickly, allowing them to accumulate points more quickly. This can lead to a situation where judges focus on less complex cases to boost their unit count, potentially neglecting the more challenging cases that require substantial judicial intervention. By favouring cases that are easier to resolve and quicker to process, judges may inadvertently contribute to delays in more complex cases, which are sidelined or postponed.

The impact down the line

Lawyers significantly impact court scheduling and case management. Often handling multiple cases scheduled across different courts on the same day, they strategically decide about which cases to attend to based on factors such as the likelihood of adjournment, the importance of the case, or the perceived mood and predispositions of a particular judge. This often leads to adjournments in some matters.

The lack of predictability in case hearings exacerbates this issue. Lawyers often do not have a clear understanding of when a particular case will be heard or the likelihood of adjournment, making it difficult to plan their schedules. Moreover, lawyers may request adjournments or deliberately delay proceedings if they perceive that the judge is likely to grant an adjournment, especially if their client has expressly asked for it. This lack of predictability and the strategic behaviour it encourages only adds to the congestion in court schedules.

The tendency to extend stays and interim orders further diminishes the interest of lawyers in actively pursuing a case. For litigants, obtaining a stay on a case can often be seen as a victory, especially in civil matters where a stay order may prevent any immediate adverse action. Consequently, once a stay is obtained, there may be little incentive in pushing for a speedy resolution, contributing to the backlog of cases.

Before a trial begins, the judge sets a schedule with specific dates for each witness’s testimony, and, accordingly, summons are issued. However, the timing of testimonies often becomes unpredictable due to changes in the court schedule, adjournments, and procedural delays. This disrupts daily life for witnesses, forcing them to leave their jobs, make travel arrangements and put personal responsibilities on hold, often without knowing when they would have to testify. The lack of a predictable schedule frustrates witnesses, is a financial strain, discourages their court appearances and contributes to trial delays.

Need for holistic reform

To address court scheduling issues, a holistic approach is needed that goes beyond rules and timelines, and which focuses on incentivising all actors. Judges should be evaluated not just by the number of cases they dispose of but also by their ability to manage and resolve more complex cases within the prescribed timelines. The unit system needs reform so as to prioritise complex cases that require substantial judicial intervention, encouraging a broader range of case management. Lawyers need better scheduling information to reduce uncertainty and avoid unnecessary adjournments. Courts should implement predictable scheduling systems, introduce penalties for delays, and reward lawyers who adhere to schedules. Litigants should be discouraged from using stay orders and interim reliefs as delay tactics by making such orders temporary and subject to regular review. Witnesses require more predictability in court appearances, with advance notice and sufficient compensation beyond travel expenses to encourage their participation.

Technological solutions could enhance case management, providing real-time updates and the monitoring of timelines. Courts can adopt a data-driven approach to identify and address scheduling bottlenecks, improving overall judicial efficiency. Without reform that accounts for the human side of the system, any procedural changes will remain just that — paper reforms.

Gokul Krishnan R. is Project Associate at DAKSH, an organisation working on judicial reforms. Ninni Susan Thomas is a lawyer based in New Delhi and a consultant with DAKSH

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.