cover-67 report-law and justice-13-14

Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New DelhiJanuary, 2014/Pausa, 1935 (Saka)

PARLIAMENT OF INDIA

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE

RAJYA SABHA

ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE

SIXTY SEVENTH REPORT

(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 6th February, 2014)(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 6th February, 2014)

Infrastructure Development and Strengthening ofSubordinate Courts

REPORT NO.

67

Website: http://rajyasabha.nic.inE-mail: [email protected]

PARLIAMENT OF INDIARAJYA SABHA

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEEON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE

SIXTY SEVENTH REPORT

Infrastructure Development and Strengthening ofSubordinate Courts

(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 6th February, 2014)(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 6th February, 2014)

Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New DelhiJanuary, 2014/Pausa, 1935 (Saka)

Hindi version of this publication is also available

CS (P & L)-133

CONTENTS

PAGES

1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ......................................................................................... (i)-(ii)

2. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ (iii)

3. ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ (iv)

4. REPORT .................................................................................................................................. 1—11

5. RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS — AT A GLANCE ........................................................... 12—15

6. RELEVANT MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE .............................................. 17—22

7. ANNEXURES ............................................................................................................................. 23—34

(I) Details of Court buildings completed between 12th July, 2010 to16th September, 2012 ............................................................................................ 25—26

(II) Details of residential quarters completed between 12th July, 2010 to16th September, 2012 ............................................................................................... 27—28

(III) Status of Gram Nyayalayas as on 31st March, 2013 ............................................ 29

(IV) Statement indicating number of Family Courts functional in the States ............ 30

(V) Sanctioned strength and vacancies in subordinate Courts as on 31.03.2012 .... 31—32

(VI) Statement of cases pending in subordinate judiciary as on 31.03.2012 ............. 33—34

8. APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................. 35—43

List of previous Reports of the Committee ..................................................................... 37—43

(i)

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE(Constituted on 31st August, 2013)

1. Shri Shantaram Naik — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Ms. Anu Aga

3. Shri Ram Jethmalani

4. Shri Sanjiv Kumar

5. Shri Parimal Nathwani

6. Shri Ram Vilas Paswan

7. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy

8. Shri Ramchandra Prasad Singh

9. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi

10. Shri Bhupender Yadav

LOK SABHA

11. Maulana Badruddin Ajmal

12. Shri T. R. Baalu

13. Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer

14. Shri N.S.V. Chitthan

15. Shri P.C. Gaddigoudar

16. Shri D.B. Chandre Gowda

17. Shri Shailendra Kumar

18. Shri Jitender Singh Malik

19. Shri Arjun Meghwal

20. Shri Pinaki Misra

21. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee

22. Shri S.S. Ramasubbu

23. Shri S. Semmalai

24. Shri S.D. “Shariq”

25. Shrimati Meena Singh

26. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh

27. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad

28. Shri Suresh Kashinath Taware

29. Shri Madhusudan Yadav

30. Vacant

31. Vacant

(ii)

SECRETARIAT

Shri Alok Kumar Chaterjee, Joint Secretary

Shri K.P. Singh, Director

Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director

Shrimati Niangkhannem Guite, Assistant Director

(iii)

INTRODUCTION

I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel,Public Grievances, Law and Justice, having been authorised by the Committee on its behalf, do herebypresent the Sixty-seventh Report on the subject “Infrastructure Development and Strengthening ofSubordinate Courts” as part of Judicial Reforms.

2. The Committee, during its study visits to Mumbai, Bangaluru and Chennai; Kolkata, Shillong,Guwahati and Imphal; Goa and Kochi; and Bhubaneswar and Port Blair from 12th to 19th June, 2010;3rd to 9th June, 2012; and 2nd to 5th January, 2013 and 15th to 19th February, 2013 respectively, helddiscussions with State Governments on the subject. The Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministryof Law and Justice made a presentation on the subject before the Committee on 3rd March 2010.

3. While considering the subject, the Committee also took note of the following documents/information which was placed before it:–

(i) Background note on the subject submitted by Department of Justice, Ministry of Lawand Justice;

(ii) Presentation made by the Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justiceon the subject before the Committee on 3rd March 2010.

(iii) Written replies furnished by the State Governments to the questionnaire on the subject;and

(iv) Other research material/documents related to the subject.

4. The Committee adopted the Report in its meeting held on the January 3rd, 2014.

5. For the facility of reference and convenience, the observations and recommendation of theCommittee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report.

SHANTARAM NAIKNEW DELHI; Chairman,January 3rd, 2014 Department-related Parliamentary Standing CommitteePausa 13, 1935 (Saka) on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice

(iv)

ACRONYMS

ACA Additional Central Assistance

AIJS All India Judicial Service

A2J Access to Justice

CSS Centrally Sponsored Scheme

FTC Fast Track Court

ICT Information and communications technology

ILI Indian Law Institute

NIC National Informatics Centre

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

US Utilisation Certificates

UT Utilization Certificates

1

REPORT

Constitution of India has provided for a single integrated system of Courts to administer andinterpret both Union and State laws. The Supreme Court being the highest court of appeal is at thetop of hierarchy as per Article 124 of the Constitution followed by High Courts at State levels asper Article 214 which caters to one or more than one States. Below High Courts exist subordinateCourts comprising District Courts at district level and other lower Courts at taluk levels.Chapter IV of Part V and Chapter VI of Part VI of Indian Constitution talk about the UnionJudiciary and Subordinate Courts, respectively. Currently there are 24 High Courts for 28 States and7 Union Territories and around 16000 District and Subordinate Courts spread over 3066 CourtComplexes in our country.

2. Development of infrastructure of High Courts and Subordinate Courts is the responsibility ofState Governments whereas administration of justice is the common responsibility of both Union andState Governments in view of Entry No. 11 A of List No. III (Concurrent List) under VI Scheduleto Constitution.

Outlay and Funding Pattern:

3. Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for infrastructure development of subordinate judiciary isin operation since 1993-94 to provide financial resources in the form of grant to States on the basisof 50:50 (Centre: State) other than North Eastern States and 75:25 (Centre: State) for North EasternStates. However, the said Scheme was modified in 2011 whereby Union Government has enhancedthe central share by revising the funding pattern from 50:50 to 75:25 for States other than NorthEastern States. The funding pattern for North Eastern States has been augmented from 75:25 to 90:10.

4. Since its inception in 1993-94 till its modification in 2010-11, R1245 crores were released byCentre to different States under the CSS. After its revision in 2011 till 2013, R1303 crores have beenreleased (R595 crores for 2011-12 and R708 crores for 2012-13). The modified CSS does not coverHigh Court buildings for which central assistance to States is provided directly by Planning Commissionas one time Additional Central Assistance (ACA) in the ratio of 30:70 (Centre: State). PlanningCommission has approved one time ACA of R41.50 crores for construction of buildings of HighCourts at Jodhpur during 2010-11 and ACA of R231.31 crores for construction of buildings ofLucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court during 2011-12. The projection of requirement of R5510crores under the said CSS has been approved for the Plan Period 2011-16.

5. Eleventh Plan outlay for the scheme was R701.08 crore. In the first four years of the EleventhPlan Five Year Plan i.e. 2007-08, 2008-09, and 2009-10 and 2010-11, R103.80 crore, R132.47,R175.70 crore, R142.74 crore, respectively, were disbursed to the States/UTs. During 2011-12 a grantof R595.74 crore has been released to States/UTs.

6. For Twelfth Five Year Plan period, a total plan support of R5802 crore has been approved bythe Planning Commission for various plan schemes of the Department of Justice and out of which,an amount of R4867 crore has been earmarked for the purpose of augmenting infrastructurerequirement of the States and UTs under this Scheme. During the first year of the Twelfth Five yearPlan (2012-13), an amount of R723.66 crore was provided at RE Stage out of which an amount ofR693.207 crore has been released to the States/UTs as on 28th February, 2013.

7. The matter of development of infrastructure of the subordinate courts is also being regularlyreviewed in the Supreme Court in the Interlocutory Application No. 279/2010 in Writ Petition (C) No.1022/1989 in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. A strong monitoring

2

mechanism has been set up by formation of Monitoring Committees at Central, State and District level.The State Governments have been sensitised to the need for the development of judicial infrastructure,and thus an adequate provision in the budget for the purpose would provide a much needed impetusto the growth of judicial infrastructure at the subordinate level. As per the information compiled bythe Supreme Court in the above case, an amount of R2109.08 crore has been sanctioned to Statesand UTs for construction, repairs and maintenance of court buildings between 12th July, 2010 till the16th September, 2012. Similarly an amount of R742.22 crores has been sanctioned by the States/UTsfor construction, repair and maintenance of residential quarters of judicial officers for the above period.It has, further been indicated that construction of 234 court buildings and 254 residential quarters havebeen completed during the above period (Annexture II & III).

Issues raised by State Governments

8. The Committee during its study visit to various States noted that according to States, thesystem of fund sharing mechanism of 50:50 and 75:25 ratio was not sufficient and sustainable. Almostall the States Committee interacted with were of the view that the funds allocated are just notsufficient and they themselves didn’t have adequate funds to contribute their share to the ongoingscheme. Despite the fact that Department of Justice revised the fund sharing mechanism during thefinancial year 2011-12 from 50:50 to 75:25 and for North Eastern States from 75:25 to 90:10, theStates/UT Govt. continued to be suffered by financial crunch. During its study-visit, the Committeewas apprised of the following issues by the States Governments;

(a) Except the UT of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, all the States said that the existingpattern of funding is not sufficient. States like Manipur said that the Central contributionshould be made 100 per cent.

(b) States like Tamil Nadu complained that, the funds by Central Government is generallyreleased in the last quarter of the financial year. It makes difficult for the StateGovernment to spend those funds in time. Delayed utilization or non utilization of fundsvery often results in delayed/non submission of utilization certificates. It then leads todelay in further release of funds from Central Govt. Finally the projects get delayed.

(c) In all the States where Committee visited, except Union Territory of Andaman andNicobar Islands, the Committee was apprised of the problem of acquisition of suitableland for the construction of residential quarters and court buildings.

(d) Maharashtra government said that they require 107 more court buildings and 900residential quarters to meet the existing demands. Similarly all the States have their ownprojections, where there is a mismatch between existing infrastructure and demand. InKarnataka, due to inadequate physical infrastructure, the courts are being run from rentedpremises. Similarly, in Odisha, both male and female officials are being forced to sharecommon toilet facilities due to space crunch.

9. The State Government of Odisha, in its written replies to the questionnaires of the Committeesaid that;

“The selection of sites for construction of Court buildings and residential quarters is beingmade by a Site Selection Committee consisting of the District judge, Collector, ExecutiveEngineer of the Works Deptt., and other concerned Officers of the Revenue Deptt. Health andFire services of the Concerned District. After selection of the site, the process of alienationtakes place by the Revenue authorities and thereafter the possession of site is handed over. Theselection of the site is usually made keeping in view the convenience of the members of theBar as well as the litigant public. The major problem that is being faced most of the timesis that due to non-availability of suitable sites, near or adjacent to the existing court premises,

3

if any other suitable site is selected outside the busy locality or at a little distance, resentmentarises from the side of the members of the Bar against the proposed shifting”.

10. The Committee gathers from the views expressed by the State Governments that themain problem States are facing on account of non-availability of suitable site for constructionof court buildings and residential quarters for the judicial officers. The Committee believesthat identifying and providing suitable land is the sole responsibility of the State Government.The Centre has no role to play in this regard. The Committee also appreciates the constraintsexplained by the State Governments making the identification of suitable site, a difficult job.The Committee suggests that the time has now come for the State Government to undertakethe vertical construction instead of the horizontal one at least to lessen the problem ofshortage of land.

11. The Committee observes that the Centre-State share has now been enhanced from50:50 to 75:25 in respect of all the states except the North-Eastern States, where it has beenraised to 90:10. The Committee also notes that States have to bear the burden of maintainingthe infrastructure so provided. The State Governments have the grievance that the funds arenot just enough and Centre’s contribution need to be further enhanced. The Committee feelsthat there is hardly any possibility of increasing the centre’s contribution and, therefore,advises the State Governments to pool/generate their own resources to meet the requirement.The Committee believes that the infrastructure of subordinate judiciary has to be strengthenedand efforts have to be made by the concerned agencies in all sincerity. The Committee furthersuggests to the Central Government to explore the possibility, if any, to enhance theircontribution.

12. One major issue which came up frequently during Committee’s study visit was the pendencyof Utilisation Certificates (US). The Department of Justice informed the Committee during theexamination of Demands for Grants (2013-14), Ministry of Law and Justice, that since the inceptionof the Scheme, the States/UTs have been provided R2534.30 crore as central assistance till28th February, 2013. As per the utilisation certificates reported by the States against the releases madeto them upto 2010-11, utilisation of funds to the tune of R31.84 crore is pending with the States.Utilisation Certificate against the release of R2011-12 and 2012-13 have not become due yet.

13. The Secretary, Department of Justice while deposing before the Committee informed that;

...there are many States which are not coming forward with the Utilisation Certificates. So,ultimately, they do not get the money even if they demand it because our procedures didn’tallow them to get it. They have been told that if they want it to be steady flow, they haveto ensure that they also comply with the financial requirements. So, this is where some of theStates have lost out...

14. The Committee is constrained to note that there has been a general complaint of theState Governments that the funds were not released on time and are very often released inthe last quarter of the financial year. This leads not only to the delay in the project but alsomakes it extremely difficult for the State Governments to utilize the money in that financialyear. There have been some experiences where States failed to utilize the money and resultantlythe funds lapsed. The Committee directs the Central Government to be very particular intimely release of the funds to the State Governments. It is advisable that the release of fundsmay be uniform throughout the year. The Committee wants that the Department of Justiceshould specifically address to this issue and inform the Committee in its Action Taken Reportto what extend this issue was resolved.

15. The Committee also notes the explanation given by Department of Justice that releaseof funds was mainly delayed due to delayed/non submission of Utilization Certificates of the

4

State Governments. The Committee advises the Department of Justice to take it up with theconcerned State Governments at the highest level to resolve this issue.

16. The Committee takes note of the fact that infrastructure development for subordinatejudiciary is a major component of the plan outlay of the Department of Justice. However, theCommittee during its deliberations with different stakeholders realised that the benefits of theCSS on infrastructure development of Subordinate Judiciary has not percolated down sufficientlyin different States and there are certain States which were unable to receive funds for one ormore years despite the operation of this Scheme since 1993-94. The Committee reiterates itsview while examining the Demands for Grants (2013-14) of the Ministry of Law and Justicethat it is high time for the Department of Justice to go for a review/audit of the said Schemeso as to ascertain on both these aspects, namely, (i) the uneven and irregular drawl/utilizationof funds by certain States and (ii) the actual development in infrastructure that have takenplace in the States and the extent to which this has helped in speeding up the trial of casesin courts.

E-Court Mission Mode Project

17. E-Court Mission Mode Project is one of the 27 Mission Mode Projects covered under Nationale-Governance Project approved by Government of India in May, 2006. The main objection of theprojection is to assist judicial administration in reducing the pendency of cases to provide transparencyof information to the litigants or to provide legal and judicial data base to the judge, litigant public andothers under the project. Around 15,000 judicial officers would be provided with Laptop, Digital interconnectivity between all courts from taluk level to the apex court, broad band connectivity to judges,video conferences in police stations and jails, biometrics for courts, audio video conferencing of courtproceedings, etc. The project intends to make key functions of the judiciary linked to informationcommunication technology which includes case filing, case work flow, orders and judgement of thecourt, cause list, case status. Those would be available on the web and accessible to litigants,advocates and public at large. The project also implements upgradation of information, technologyinfrastructure at Supreme Court and High Courts. It aims to build a national grid of key judicialinformation which would be available in reliable way. Department of Justice is a nodal departmentwhich provide support for project monitoring and evolution.

18. NIC is the implementing agency of the project. Out of 14249 subordinate courts, 11810 courtshave been computerised as on 31st December, 2013. It is proposed to complete computerisation ofremaining courts by 31st March, 2014. Total estimated cost for the project would be R935 crores. Ane-Committee of Supreme Court chaired by Chief Justice of India is in place to give overall policydirection for fulfilment of e-court programme.


19. During its visit, the Committee was apprised about the status of the e-Court Scheme beingundertaken in different States. Under the Scheme laptop and printers are being provided to officersand provisions of broadband facility are provided to office and residence of the officials. Technicalmanpower is being recruited, trained and deployed in Subordinate Courts.

20. The Committee during its study-visit noted that the e-Courts scheme is being successfullyimplemented in Meghalaya, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and UT of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. InKarnataka and Maharashtra, the e-Courts scheme is under progress. However, the scheme is yet tobe operational in Manipur and Assam.

21. The Committee notes the initiatives undertaken by the Ministry to computerize thesubordinate Courts in the Country and is optimistic that it would help in more efficient

5

management of subordinate courts, reduction in pending cases and increasing the speed ofjustice delivery processes. The Committee is also happy and takes note of the new componentsadded under Phase-II and hopes that the employment of ICT in the various fields associatedwith the functioning of the Courts, the advocates as well as the litigants would go a long wayin cutting on wasteful time and energy in the handling of litigation work which is mostlyhandled manually at present.

22. The Committee notes that in some States the scheme has been successfully implemented,whereas in others the scheme has failed to take up or is still in the preliminary stage only.The Committee also takes note of the shortage of technical and legal manpower at thesubordinate judiciary, which is leading to the piling-up of cases year after year and recommendsthe Ministry to look into the matter urgently so that the scheme can be implemented smoothlywithin the required time-frame.

23. The Committee, accordingly, impresses upon the Government both at Centre and Statesto adhere to the timeline set out for computerisation of all the Courts. There is a need toaddress the constraints in the States those are lagging behind. The Committee calls for aperiodic report from Department of Justice in this regard.

24. The Committee would like to bring into notice that the computerization of Courts ande-Courts are related but not the same, and computerization of Courts necessarily is a steptowards establishments of e-Courts. The Committee notes that still there are no facilities likeelectronic filing, electronic evidence submission system etc. in the computerized courts. TheCommittee however, feels that the real objective of e-Courts can only be fulfilled when theservices like e-filing and tracking of cases will be made operational in all the computerizedcourts of the country. The Committee suggests that the requisite modifications in the Courtprocedures, if necessary, may also be taken up.

25. The Committee strongly feels that the establishment of e-Courts can go a long way inachieving efficiency, transparency, reducing corruption and particularly backlog of cases andsaving time and cost of the litigants. The Committee also feels that uninterrupted supply ofelectricity is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of the e-Court Scheme andrecommends the Ministry to look into the provisions of providing generator sets, especially inthe States which are facing power supply crisis.

Gram Nyayalayas

26. The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 was enacted to provide for establishment of Gram Nyayalayasat the inter-mediatory panchayat level by the State Governments in consultation with the respectiveHigh Courts to provide speedy and affordable justice to common man at their door steps. TillDecember, 2012 a total of 168 Gram Nyayalayas had been notified in seven States (Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan, Odisha, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Goa) out of which 150 Gram Nyayalayashave been made operational by the respective State Governments. The operational status of gramNyayalayas as on 31st March, 2013 is given at Annexture III.

27. Under the said Act around 5000 Gram Nyayalayas would be added to the existing structure ofjudiciary which would reduce pendency and arrears in subordinate Courts as well as judge populationratio in our country. In order to provide access to justice, Thirteen Finance Commission hasearmarked R5000 crores for 5 years during 2010-15 for the State Governments. The said act has beenmade operational w.e.f. 2nd October, 2009.The central assistance for setting up of Gram Nyayalayasfor every panchayat or for a group of contiguous Gram Panchayats at intermediate level R18 lakhsper courts and R3.2 lakhs for Courts per annum for first three years towards recurring expenditure.The Planning Commission has approved R1398.50 crores for 5000 Gram Nyayalayas in the country.

6

28. The Department of Justice informed the Committee that the slow pace of utilisation of fundsunder the Scheme is mainly due to the lack of proposals from the States for setting up of GramNyayalayas. Besides, inadequate infrastructure, non-availability of judicial officers to function as GramNyayadhikaries and problem of concurrent jurisdiction of regular courts are other issues indicated bythe States which are coming in the way of speedy operationalisation of the scheme of GramNyayalayas. Some States have got courts at Taluka level which are co-terminus with the block andhave shown reluctance to establish Gram Nyayalayas.

29. The Central Government carried out a study on effectiveness of functioning of the GramNyayalayas in the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh through the Indian Law Institute (ILI),New Delhi. Besides, inadequacy of infrastructure and manpower, the ILI Report highlighted the issueof concurrent jurisdiction of regular courts and reluctance on the part of State functionaries to invokethe jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalayas.

30. The Secretary, Department of Justice during his presentation informed the Committee thatsome Gram Nyayalayas courts are functioning in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. Around 70 percentfunds are released to States once they show intention of establishing a Gram Nyayalayas; however hefurther said that;

“...for the recurring side, I do agree it is not enough because it is only R3.2 lakh per courtand the balance is to be made by the State...”


31. The Committee during its deliberations with the State Governments of Maharashtra, TamilNadu, West Bengal and Karnataka was informed that the setting up of Gram Nyayalayas will add morework load to District and Session Courts. Some of the major problems faced by the States were theinadequate amount of Central funds allocation and the acquisition of land for the establishment ofGram Nyayalayas.

32. The varied responses of the State Governments during Committee’s visit, State like Tamil Nadusaid that establishing Gram Nyayalayas will increase workload burden of Session and District courts.Others like Assam, Manipur, Karnataka, West Bengal and Odisha said that the central contributions areinadequate.

33. The Committee is dismayed to note that, the Gram Nyayalayas which were supposed tousher a revolution in the lowest level of the judicial system is being held back because of fundsharing problem between the Central and the State Governments. Despite more than threeyears of the implementation of the scheme, very few States have shown eagerness to establishthe Gram Nyayalayas and not a single Gram Nyayalayas have become operational in North-Eastern States. The Committee strongly feels that the setting-up of Gram Nyayalayas is theanswer to providing access to justice to citizens at their door steps and the success of thesecourts should not only be measured from number of courts established in different states, butalso in terms of reaching out to deprived sections of the society and its role in the overallreduction in the pendency of cases.

34. The Committee, however, fails to understand the apprehension of State Governmentsthat setting up of Gram Nyayalayas, would add to the load of session in District Courts. TheCommittee believes that it would enhance the speed of disposal of cases which would in turndiscourage the people to resort to the normal courts. The Committee urges the Departmentof Justice to take appropriate measure so as to rule out such apprehensions.

35. The Committee reiterates its earlier recommendations of its Fifty-eighth report onDemands for Grants (2013-14), Ministry of Law and Justice that the issues involved due to

7

which there has been a reluctance on the part of the States to have Gram Nyayalayas shouldbe considered seriously by the Ministry and all out efforts should be made to resolve them atthe earliest. The Committee also recommends the Ministry to consider the feasibility ofenhancing the Central assistance in order to motivate the States to go in for the GramNyayalayas. As far the issue of acquiring land is concerned, the State Governments may beencouraged to undertake vertical constructions instead of horizontal to weed out the problemof shortage of land.

National Mission for Justice Delivery System and Legal Reforms:

36. National Mission for Justice Delivery System and Legal Reforms got approval in principle in2009 by Union government and got operationalised in 2011 for five years spanning from 2011 to 2016.The main objective of the said National Mission is to increase access by reducing delays and arrearsin the system and enhancing accountability through structural changes and by setting performancestandards and capabilities. Infrastructural development for the subordinate judiciary is identified as amajor thrust area of the said National Mission. The mission period coincides with Twelfth Plan period.Five strategic initiatives proposed under the Mission are:–

● Policy and legislative changes

● Re-engineering procedures and Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution.

● Human Resource Development

● Leveraging ITC for better justice delivery.

● Improved infrastructure for District and Subordinate Courts.

37. Thirteenth Finance Commission award for judiciary to the States is to the tune of R5000crores for five years spanning from 2010-15 in order to reduce pendency of cases in following ways:–

● Increasing working hours of Courts by holding morning/evening/shift Courts;

● Lok Adalat, Legal aid to marginalised and under trials prisoners

● Construction of Alternative Dispute Resolution Centres;

● Training programme for judicial officers and Public Prosecutors;

● Infrastructural support to judicial academies;

● Restoration of heritage Court and buildings;

● Appointment of manager to assist the judiciary in their administrative function.

Access to Justice (A2J) Project

38. The Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice has been implementing a project on‘Access to Justice for Marginalized People’ with UNDP support. The interventions under the Projectare focused on strengthening access to justice for the poor, particularly women, Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes, and minorities. The Project seeks, on the one hand, to improve the institutionalcapacities of key justice service providers to enable them to effectively serve the poor and disadvantaged.On the other hand, it directly aims to empower the poor and disadvantaged men and women toseek and demand justice services. The A2J project is being implemented in two phases, Phase I:May, 2009– December, 2012 and Phase II: 2013 –2017.

39. The new phase A2J is from January, 2013 with R22.5 crores wherein R1.26 crores by Unionof India. As per United Nations Development Assistance frame-work the project will be implemented

8

in seven States of Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Rajasthanwill be built upon the previous phase experience i.e., Phase I. Based on the success of A2J project,Department of Justice, Government of India has launched a similar project in the North-Eastern Statesand Jammu and Kashmir and the North East of India with a budget allocation R30 crores.

40. The Committee appreciates the initiative of the Department of Justice in this regard.

Family Courts

41. The Parliamentary Committee on Empowerment of Women has recommended that FamilyCourts may be set up in each district exclusively to deal with family matters so that such a courtmay have the necessary expertise to deal with these cases expeditiously. Accordingly, the StateGovernments/UT Administrations have been requested to set up Family Courts in each district.

42. The Family Court Act, 1984 empowers the State governments after consultation with HighCourts, to establish Family Courts in areas whose population exceeds one million. The States are beingreminded from time to time to set up more Family Courts. However, the Department of Justice in theirresponse to the Committee has pointed out that the responses received from States are not veryencouraging. As per the information received from various High Courts/State Governments and madeavailable to the Committee, 212 Family Courts are functional and 18 more Family Courts have beennotified (Annexure IV).

43. The Secretary while deposing before the Committee on 3rd March, 2010 said that;

“...with regard to family courts, we have made a very small allocation because there are notakers for that...”

44. During its study-visit, the Committee was apprised of the various reasons ailing the establishmentand functioning of the Family Courts in States. Except, Union Territory of Andaman and NicobarIslands, all the States have established Family Courts. However, the existing mismatch in the numberof Family Courts within the States and between the States was vividly highlighted by the StateGovernments.

45. States have generally been demanding higher financial assistance for Family Courts. Except UTof Andaman and Nicobar where there is no Family Court at present, the other states complained ofthe insufficient financial assistance to the extent of 50% of the cost of construction subject to a ceilingof 10 lakh per court provided by the Central Government. The Tamil Nadu governments said thatestablishment of Family Courts is creating financial burden on the State exchequer. Similarly, Stateslike Maharashtra, Karnataka and West Bengal wanted the cost-sharing formula between centre andState to be enhanced.

46. Family Courts Act, 1984 makes it mandatory for the State Governments to set up aFamily Court for every area in the State comprising of a city or a town whose populationexceeds one million. However, the Committee is disappointed to note that even after almostthirty years very little progress has been made in the establishment of Family Courts indifferent parts of the country. The meagre amount of financial allocation, as appraised by theStates is one of the major causes for the slow pace of establishment of Family Courts. ExceptUnion Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the States sought higher assistance both forestablishing and meeting the cost for continuing them. The Committee believes that setting-up of more Family Courts will help in delivery of justice to maximum number of people withminimum financial burden and will also help in reducing pendency of cases. Thus, theCommittee recommends the Ministry to revisit and revise the financial assistance aspect, sothat the maximum number of Family Courts can be set-up.

9

Fast Track Courts

47. The Eleventh Finance Commission recommended a scheme for creation of 1734 Fast TrackCourts (FTCs) in the country for disposal of long pending cases in Sessions courts and other courts.The FTCs were established to expeditiously dispose of long pending cases in the Sessions Courts andlong pending cases of under trial prisoners. The term of scheme on the Fast Track Courts which wererecommended by the Eleventh Finance Commission ended on 31st March, 2005. Based on thedirectives of the Supreme Court of India, the Government accorded its approval for the continuationof 1562 Fast Track Courts that were operational as on 31st March, 2005 for a further period of5 years i.e. up to 31st March, 2010 with a provision of R509 crores. The scheme of central assistancefor Fast Track Courts was further extended for a period of one year i.e. upto 31st March, 2011 andit was decided that there will be no central funding for Fast Track Courts beyond 31st March, 2011.

48. The Central assistance under the above said scheme is limited to an approved norm i.e. R4.80lakh per court per annum (recurring) and R8.60 lakh (non-recurring). Any expenditure incurred by theState in excess as recurring and /or non-recurring expenditure was to be borne by the StateGovernment. According to the Information available on the Website of the Department of Justice, outof 38.90 lakh cases transferred, these courts have disposed of 32.34 lakh cases.

Issues of State Governments

49. The Central assistance for the Fast Track Courts was discontinued after 31st March, 2011.Several States have continued these courts from their own resources. Except Union Territory ofAndaman and Nicobar Islands, all the States where Committee visited are continuing Fast TrackCourts. The State Governments maintained that the continuation of these Courts is necessary to reducethe pendency of cases; however, the continuation of these Courts by States is leading to financialburden on the State exchequer. The State Governments wanted the Fast Track Courts to be continuedwith 100 per cent Central assistance.

50. The FTCs were established to expeditiously dispose of long pending cases in the SessionsCourts and long pending cases of under trial prisoners and had become synonymous with thespeedy delivery of justice. The States expressed their willingness to continue and establish moreFast Track Courts to try cases related to murder, rape and issues related to children and theelderly, however, the limited financial resources are hindrances. In the wake of gang rape inDelhi, the Ponzi scheme scam in several States and the languishing of innocent youths accusedof terrorism, the establishment of Fast Track Courts become more important. Accordingly, theCommittee reiterates its recommendations contained in Fifty-seventh Action Taken Note ofGovernment, that all possible steps to be taken to ensure that the Fast Track Courts are setup in appropriate situations in the States and the States do not face impediments in this regard.

Pendency of Cases and Shortage of Judicial Personnel

51. The shortage of judicial personnel at Subordinate Courts is a matter of concern. As on31st March, 2012, the Department of Justice informed that 3,272 posts of judicial personnel are vacantin different States (Annexure V). During its study visit, the Committee was apprised of the largenumber of vacancies of judicial personnel at Subordinate Courts.

52. The high rate of pending cases in the Subordinate Courts in various parts of the country isa serious matter. The Department of Justice informed that as on 31st March, 2012, 26851766 casesare pending in Subordinate Court (Annexure VI). Some of the major reasons leading to highpendency of cases in Subordinate Courts are poor Judge population ratio, prolonged and costlylitigation caused by procedures and lawyers interests, poor infrastructure, shortage of judicial personnel,weak alternate dispute resolution mechanisms and so on.

10

53. With regard to areas of pendency of cases, the Secretary, Department of Justice in the meetingon the Demands for Grants (2013-14) made oral submission as under:–

...the pendency of cases which is a very chronic problem in the country like how do we addressthose issues of pendency of cases and speed up the delivery of justice...

Issues of State Governments

54. In the States the high pendency of cases in Subordinate Courts is a matter of concern. ExceptManipur and UT of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the pendency of cases is high in all the States,except Odisha where the pendency of criminal cases is high and all other States have higher numberof civil cases pending.

55. The State Governments apprised the Committee about the various measures like evening/morning courts, holiday courts, Lok Adalats and Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms beingundertaken to overcome the problem of pendency of cases.

56. The Committee expresses its serious concern over the large number of vacanciesexisting in the Subordinate Courts. Similarly, the large number of pending cases is inSubordinate Courts are major challenges before the Government. The Committee is of theview, that both these issues are closely related to each other. The Committee feels thatrecruitment and training of judicial personnel and supporting staffs at Subordinate Courts mayhelp in reducing the pendency of cases and the judge-population ratio may be corrected byappointing more judges in the Subordinate Courts to reduce pendency. The Committee is ofthe view that an efficient judicial system which delivers quality justice in minimum time canreinforce the confidence of people in the rule of law.

57. The Thirteenth Finance Commission has recommended a grant of R5000 crore for the period2010-15 to the States for improving delivery of justice which is to be utilized for setting up ofmorning/evening/shift/Special Magistrate Courts for reducing the backlog of cases, holding of LokAdalats and Mega Lok Adalats, strengthening legal aid institutions, training of judicial officers andPublic Prosecutors, creating and upgrading the Judicial Academies, providing Court Managers to assistcourts/cases management.

58. The Committee feels that regular conducting of morning/evening, holiday courts, lokadalats, alternative dispute redressal mechanisms etc. wherever feasible can help in reducingthe problem of pendency of cases in Subordinate Judiciary. Sincere efforts are also requiredon the part of State governments to fill the existing vacancies at the Subordinate Courts, sothat the disposal rate of cases may be enhanced. The National Mission for Justice Delivery andLegal Reforms which is formed to deal with the dual need of addressing the issues of delaysand arrears in the Indian judicial system as well enforcing better accountability, includingsetting and monitoring of performance and enhancement of capacity through training atvarious levels can go a long way in reducing the problem of high pendency of cases, which isa major problem faced by the Subordinate judiciary.

59. The Committee considers that existing court procedures which are age old needs athorough review. Many of such procedures are avoidable; consume inordinate time; andunnecessary complications; very often leads to the harassment of litigants; often misused/abused by the interested parties and; ultimately creates the hassles which result in pendency.The Committee, therefore, strongly believes that unless procedures are cut short and streamlined,howsoever best be our judge- population ratio, issue of pendency cannot be resolved. TheCommittee understands that it is a huge task but it has to be undertaken if we are reallyserious to tackle the issue of pendency. The Committee impress upon both the Central andState Governments to focus in this direction with a sense of urgency.

11

60. The cost of litigation in the Courts has been exorbitant which is not affordable for thelitigation of the weaker sections of the society. The recommends that the fees paid to advocate/counsel engaged under various legal aid schemes should be enhanced suitably.

All India Judicial Service

61. Article 312 of the Constitution deals with the All-India Judicial services. However, no such allIndia service has been constituted though this matter has been receiving the attention of variousCommissions and Committees which have recommended its institution, but for the past three decadesit has been lying in abeyance. The Law Commission in its reports has recommended the creation ofan AIJS. It opined that such a course is necessary in the interest of efficiency of the subordinatejudiciary.

62. The Attorney General of India while deposing before the Committee on 22nd October, 2013,inter alia stated that matter relating to AIJS was referred to him for an opinion. The Attorney Generalin his written reply to the Department of Justice stated that that there was no bar under theConstitution and it could be done.

63. The Committee impress upon the Department of Justice to seriously pursue creation ofAIJS. The Committee feels it is the need of hour and should be created without further delay.

64. The Committee strongly feels that through All India Judicial Service, the subordinatejudiciary would be benefitted by the best talent in the country. It will benefit both thesubordinate as well as higher judiciary as 33 percent of the judicial officers are elevated to theBench of High Courts. The creation of AIJS will also help in reducing pendency of cases insubordinate and higher courts.

12

12

RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS — AT A GLANCE

OUTLAY AND FUNDING PATTERN

1. The Committee gathers from the views expressed by the State Governments that themain problem States are facing on account of non-availability of suitable site for constructionof court buildings and residential quarters for the judicial officers. The Committee believesthat identifying and providing suitable land is the sole responsibility of the State Government.The Centre has no role to play in this regard. The Committee also appreciates the constraintsexplained by the State Governments making the identification of suitable site, a difficult job.The Committee suggests that the time has now come for the State Government to undertakethe vertical construction instead of the horizontal one at least to lessen the problem ofshortage of land. (Para 12)

2. Committee observes that the Centre-State share has now been enhanced from 50:50 to75:25 in respect of all the states except the North-Eastern States, where it has been raised to90:10. The Committee also notes that States have to bear the burden of maintaining theinfrastructure so provided. The State Governments have the grievance that the funds are notjust enough and Centre’s contribution need to be further enhanced. The Committee feels thatthere is hardly any possibility of increasing the centre’s contribution and, therefore, advisesthe State Governments to pool/generate their own resources to meet the requirement. TheCommittee believes that the infrastructure of subordinate judiciary has to be strengthened andefforts have to be made by the concerned agencies in all sincerity. The Committee furthersuggests to the Central Government to explore the possibility, if any, to enhance theircontribution. (Para 13)

3. The Committee is constrained to note that there has been a general complaint of theState Governments that the funds were not released on time and are very often released inthe last quarter of the financial year. This leads not only to the delay in the project but alsomakes it extremely difficult for the State Governments to utilize the money in that financialyear. There have been some experiences where States failed to utilize the money and resultantlythe funds lapsed. The Committee directs the Central Government to be very particular intimely release of the funds to the State Governments. It is advisable that the release of fundsmay be uniform throughout the year. The Committee wants that the Department of Justiceshould specifically address to this issue and inform the Committee in its Action Taken Reportto what extend this issue was resolved. (Para 12)

E-COURT MISSION MODE PROJECT

4. The Committee also notes the explanation given by Department of Justice that releaseof funds was mainly delayed due to delayed/non submission of utilization certificates of theState Governments. The Committee advises the Department of Justice to take it up with theconcerned State Governments at the highest level to resolve this issue. (Para 17)

5. The Committee takes note of the fact that infrastructure development for subordinatejudiciary is a major component of the plan outlay of the Department of Justice. However, theCommittee during its deliberations with different stakeholders realised that the benefits of theCSS on infrastructure development of Subordinate Judiciary has not percolated down sufficientlyin different States and there are certain States which were unable to receive funds for one or

13

more years despite the operation of this Scheme since 1993-94, as the Committee. TheCommittee reiterates its view while examining the Demands for Grants (2013-14) of theMinistry of Law and Justice that it is high time for the Department of Justice to go for areview/audit of the said Scheme so as to ascertain on both these aspects, namely, (i) theuneven and irregular drawl/utilization of funds by certain States and (ii) the actual developmentin infrastructure that have taken place in the States and the extent to which this has helpedin speeding up the trial of cases in courts. (Para 18)

6. The Committee notes the initiatives undertaken by the Ministry to computerize thesubordinate Courts in the Country and is optimistic that it would help in more efficientmanagement of subordinate courts, reduction in pending cases and increasing the speed ofjustice delivery processes. The Committee is also happy and takes note of the new componentsadded under Phase-II and hopes that the employment of ICT in the various fields associatedwith the functioning of the Courts, the advocates as well as the litigants would go a long wayin cutting on wasteful time and energy in the handling of litigation work which is mostlyhandled manually at present. (Para 23)

7. The Committee notes that in some States the scheme has been successfully implemented,whereas in others the scheme has failed to take up or is still in the preliminary stage only.The Committee also takes note of the shortage of technical and legal manpower at thesubordinate judiciary, which is leading to the piling-up of cases year after year and recommendsthe Ministry to look into the matter urgently so that the scheme can be implemented smoothlywithin the required timeframe. (Para 24)

8. The Committee, accordingly, impresses upon the Government both at Centre and Statesto adhere to the timeline set out for computerisation of all the Courts. There is a need toaddress the constraints in the States those are lagging behind. The Committee calls for aperiodic report from Department of Justice in this regard. (Para 25)

9. The Committee would like to bring into notice that the computerization of Courts ande-Courts are related but not the same, and computerization of Courts necessarily is a steptowards establishments of e-Courts. The Committee notes that, in the computerized courts stillthere are no facilities like electronic filing, electronic evidence submission system etc. in thecomputerized courts. The Committee however, feels that the real objective of e Courts canonly be fulfilled when the services like e-filing and tracking of cases will be made operationalin all the computerized courts of the country. The Committee suggests that the requisitemodifications in the Court procedures, if necessary, may also be taken up. (Para 26)

10. The Committee strongly feels that the establishment of e-Courts can go a long way inachieving efficiency and transparency, reducing corruption and particularly backlog of casesand saving time and cost of the litigants. The Committee also feels that uninterrupted supplyof electricity is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of the e-Court Scheme andrecommends the Ministry to look into the provisions of providing generator sets, especially inthe States which are facing power supply crisis. (Para 27)

GRAM NYAYALAYAS

11. The Committee is dismayed to note that, the Gram Nyayalayas which were supposed tousher a revolution in the lowest level of the judicial system is being held back because of fundsharing problem between the Central and the State Governments. Despite more than threeyears of the implementation of the scheme, very few States have shown eagerness to establishthe Gram Nyayalayas and not a single Gram Nyayalayas have become operational in North-Eastern States. The Committee strongly feels that the setting-up of Gram Nyayalayas is the

14

answer to providing access to justice to citizens at their door steps and the success of thesecourts should not only be measured from number of courts established in different states, butalso in terms of reaching out to deprived sections of the society and its role in the overallreduction in the pendency of cases. (Para 35)

12. The Committee, however, fails to understand the apprehension of State Govts. thatsetting up of Gram Nyayalayas, would add to the load of session in District courts. TheCommittee believes that it would enhance the speed of disposal of cases which would in turndiscourage the people to resort to the normal courts. The Committee urges the Departmentof Justice to take appropriate measure so as to rule out such apprehensions. (Para 36)

13. The Committee reiterates its earlier recommendations of its Fifty-eighth report onDemands for Grants (2013-14), Ministry of Law and Justice that the issues involved due towhich there has been a reluctance on the part of the States to have Gram Nyayalayas shouldbe considered seriously by the Ministry and all out efforts should be made to resolve them atthe earliest. The Committee also recommends the Ministry to consider the feasibility ofenhancing the Central assistance in order to motivate the States to go in for the GramNyayalayas. As far the issue of acquiring land is concerned, the State Governments may beencouraged to undertake vertical constructions instead of horizontal to weed out the problemof shortage of land. (Para 37)

ACCESS TO JUSTICE (A2J) PROJECT

14. The Committee appreciates the initiative of the Department of Justice in this regard.(Para 40)

FAMILY COURTS

15. Family Courts Act, 1984 makes it mandatory for the State Governments to set up aFamily Court for every area in the State comprising of a city or a town whose populationexceeds one million. However, the Committee is disappointed to note that even after almostthirty years very little progress has been made in the establishment of Family Courts indifferent parts of the country. The meagre amount of financial allocation, as appraised by theStates is one of the major causes for the slow pace of establishment of Family Courts. ExceptUnion Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the States sought higher assistance both forestablishing and meeting the cost for continuing them. The Committee believes that setting-up of more Family Courts will help in delivery of justice to maximum number of people withminimum financial burden and will also help in reducing pendency of cases. Thus, theCommittee recommends the Ministry to revisit and revise the financial assistance aspect, sothat the maximum number of Family Courts can be set-up. (Para 45)

FAST TRACK COURTS

16. The FTCs were established to expeditiously dispose of long pending cases in theSessions Courts and long pending cases of under trial prisoners and had become synonymouswith the speedy delivery of justice. The States expressed their willingness to continue andestablish more Fast Track Courts to try cases related to murder, rape and issues related tochildren and the elderly, however, the limited financial resources are hindrances. In the wakeof gang rape in Delhi, the Ponzi scheme scam in several States and the languishing of innocentyouths accused of terrorism, the establishment of Fast Track Courts become more important.Accordingly, the Committee reiterates its recommendations contained in Fifty-seventh ActionTaken Note of Government, that all possible steps to be taken to ensure that the Fast Track

15

Courts are set up in appropriate situations in the States and the States do not face impedimentsin this regard. (Para 49)

PENDENCY OF CASES AND SHORTAGE OF JUDICIAL PERSONNEL

17. The Committee expresses its serious concern over the large number of vacanciesexisting in the Subordinate Courts. Similarly, the large number of pending cases is inSubordinate Courts are major challenges before the Government. The Committee is of theview, that both these issues are closely related to each other. The Committee feels thatrecruitment and training of judicial personnel and supporting staffs at Subordinate Courts mayhelp in reducing the pendency of cases and the judge-population ratio may be corrected byappointing more judges in the Subordinate Courts to reduce pendency. The Committee is ofthe view that an efficient judicial system which delivers quality justice in minimum time canreinforce the confidence of people in the rule of law. (Para 55)

18. The Committee feels that regular conducting of morning/evening, holiday courts, lokadalats, alternative dispute redressal mechanisms etc. wherever feasible can help in reducingthe problem of pendency of cases in Subordinate Judiciary. Sincere efforts are also requiredon the part of State governments to fill the existing vacancies at the Subordinate Courts, sothat the disposal rate of cases may be enhanced. The National Mission for Justice Delivery andLegal Reforms which is formed to deal with the dual need of addressing the issues of delaysand arrears in the Indian judicial system as well enforcing better accountability, includingsetting and monitoring of performance and enhancement of capacity through training atvarious levels can go a long way in reducing the problem of high pendency of cases, which isa major problem faced by the Subordinate judiciary. (Para 56)

19. The Committee considers that existing court procedures which are age old needs athorough review. Many of such procedures are avoidable; consume inordinate time; andunnecessary complications; very often leads to the harassment of litigants; often misused/abused by the interested parties and; ultimately creates the hassles which result in pendency.The Committee, therefore, strongly believes that unless procedures are cut short and streamlined,howsoever best be our judge- population ratio, issue of pendency cannot be resolved. TheCommittee understands that it is a huge task but it has to be undertaken if we are reallyserious to tackle the issue of pendency. The Committee impress upon both the Central andState Governments to focus in this direction with a sense of urgency. (Para 58)

20. The cost of litigation in the Courts has been exorbitant which is not affordable for thelitigation of the weaker sections of the society. The recommends that the fees paid to advocate/counsel engaged under various legal aid schemes should be enhanced suitably. (Para 59)

ALL INDIA JUDICIAL SERVICE

21. The Committee impress upon the Department of Justice to seriously pursue creation ofAIJS. The Committee feels it is the need of hour and should be created without further delay.

(Para 62)

22. The Committee strongly feels that through All India Judicial Service, the subordinatejudiciary would be benefitted by the best talent in the country. It will benefit both thesubordinate as well as higher judiciary as 33 percent of the judicial officers are elevated to theBench of High Courts. The creation of AIJS will also help in reducing pendency of cases insubordinate and higher courts. (Para 63)

MINUTES

19

XIELEVENTH MEETING

The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,Law and Justice met at 3.00 P.M. on Wednesday, the 3rd March, 2010 in Room No. ‘62’, First Floor,Parliament House, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT1. Shrimati Jayanthi Natarajan — Chairperson

RAJYA SABHA

2. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi

3. Shri Shantaram Laxman Naik

4. Sardar Tarlochan Singh

5. Shri Parimal Nathwani

LOK SABHA6. Shrimati Jyoti Dhurve

7. Dr. Kirodi Lal Meena

8. Shri Devji M. Patel

9. Shri S. Semmalai


11. Dr. (Shrimati) Prabha Kishor Taviad

12. Shri Manish Tewari

13. Adv. P.T. thomas (Idukki)

SECRETARIATShri Shamsher Singh, Joint Secretary


Shri K.N. Earendra Kumar, Joint Director


Shrimati Catherine John L., Assistant Director

WITNESSESMinistry of Law and JusticeDepartment of Justice

Shrimati Bhupinder Prasad, Secretary

Shri Ramesh Abhishek, Joint Secretary

Shri S.C. Srivastava, Joint Secretary

Shri C.L.M. Reddy, Deputy Director General, NIC

Shri J.P. Kukrety, Senior Technical Director, NIC

20

Infrastructure Development and Strengthening of the Subordinate Courts in the Country

2. The Chairperson welcomed the Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justiceand senior officers of the Department to the meeting and requested the Secretary to make apresentation on the subject “Infrastructure Development and Strengthening of the Subordinate Courtsin the Country”.

3. The Secretary, while making a power point presentation on the subject, elaborated upon thehierarchy of the judicial system existing in the country. She apprised the Committee that thesubordinate judiciary is the responsibility of the State Government and that the infrastructure and thestaffing of these Courts, including appointment of Judicial Officers, is done by the State Governmentsin consultation with the respective High Courts having jurisdiction. She further stated that theadministrative expenses of the High Courts including the salaries etc. are charged upon the ConsolidatedFund of the State.

4. She informed the Committee that the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Development ofInfrastructure Facilities for the Subordinate Judiciary is under implementation since 1993-94 and thatthe Scheme covers construction of Court buildings and residential quarters for Judges/Judicial Officers.She clarified that the Central assistance is confined to expenditure on Capital works and that theScheme envisages a 50:50 pattern of sharing between the Centre and the States. She also stated thatmaintenance costs are to be met by the State Governments from their own funds.

5. She deposed that though the Gram Nayalayas Act came into force w.e.f. 2nd October, 2009 theresponse from the State Governments to set up Gram Nayalayas has been far from satisfactory.Speaking on the matter of Fast Track Courts, she stated that the Central assistance for the Fast TrackCourts will continue upto 31st March, 2010 and that the system of Fast Track Courts is under review.As regards Family Courts, she informed the Committee that many of the State Governments have notagreed to setting up Family Courts in their respective States.

6. She apprised the Committee that the computerization of subordinate Courts is in progress andthat training is being imparted on a regular basis to the Judges and Court staff in the subordinateJudiciary. She stated that non-furnishing of Utilisation Certificates by State Governments is one of thehurdles in releasing further grants for development of infrastructure in the subordinate Courts. Sheresponded to the queries raised by the Chairperson and Members of the Committee.

7. The Chairperson and Members of the Committee stressed upon the need to enhance theexisting infrastructure in the subordinate Courts and opined that State Governments should bepersuaded to ensure optimum utilization of funds and effective implementation of Central policies/schemes. The Committee desired to be apprised of the action taken by the Department of Justice onthe recommendations made by the Committee in its previous reports on the “Judges (Inquiry)Bill, 2006”, “The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2008” and “The High Courtand Supreme Court Judges (Salaries and Conditions of Service) Amendment Bill, 2008”. The Secretaryassured the Committee that the Status Note will be furnished in due course.

(The witnesses then withdrew).

8. * * *

9. * * *

10. A verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting was kept.

11. The meeting adjourned at 4.23 P.M.

*** Relate to some other matters.

21

XIITWELFTH MEETING

The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances,Law and Justice met at 3.00 P.M. on Friday, the 3rd January, 2014 in Committee Room No. ‘D’,Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

MEMBERS PRESENT

1. Shri Shantaram Naik — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA2. Shrimati Anu Aga

3. Shri Bhupender Yadav

LOK SABHA4. Shri T.R. Baalu

5. Shir E.T. Mohammed Basheer

6. Shri N.V.S. Chitthan


8. Shri Arjun Meghwal

9. Shri Abhijit Mukherjee

10. Shri S. Semmalai

11. Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh

12. Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad

SECRETARIATShri Alok Kumar Chatterjee, Joint Secretary


Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Joint Director


WITNESSES

I. * * *

II. * * *

III. * * *

IV. * * *

2. * * *

3. * * *

4. * * *

21


22

4. * * *

5. * * *

6. * * *

7. * * *

8. * * *

9. * * *

10. * * *

11. * * *

12. The Committee then considered the draft Sixty-seventh and Sixty-eighth Reports on the“Infrastructure Development and Strengthening of Subordinate Courts” and “Action Taken Replies ofthe Government on the recommendations/observations contained in the 60th Report on Demands forGrants (2013-14) of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions” and adopted thesame.

13. * * *

14. The verbatim record of the proceedings of the meeting of the Committee was kept.

15. The meeting adjourned at 4.10 P.M.


23

ANNEXURES

25

ANNEXURE-I

Details of New Court Buildings Completed between 12th July, 2010 and 16th September, 2012

Sl. Name of State/ Total Total Total Total Total RemarksNo. Union Territory number of number of number of amounts number of (detailing

proposals proposals proposals sanctioned court problem, incleared by cleared by cleared by (in lakhs) buildings of any, beingCollectors the High the State for which faced forand land Court for Governments/ infrastructure construction earlyacquired construction Administrators (including has been progress in

of new for construction new got proceedingcourt of new court construction, completed with

buidlings buildings repairs and projects)granting maintenance)

administrativeand financial

sanction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Andaman and Nicobar 1 1 0 500.000 0

2. Andhra Pradesh 4 48 23 9675.670 1

3. Arunachal Pradesh 2 0 0 0.000 0

4. Assam 5 0 0 1202.280 5

5. Bihar 2 50 17 16594.560 3

6. Chandigarh 7 6 1879.420 1

7. Chhattisgarh 4 8 6 2938.680 2

8. Dadra and Nagar Haveli 0 0 0 65.820 0

9. Daman and Diu 0 0 0 0.000 0

@10. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 0 0 0 0.000 1

11. Goa 0 0

@ 12. Gujarat 6 1 0 4

13. Haryana 0 19 11 4070.000 12

14. Himachal Pradesh 0 1 1 360.250 1

15. Jammu and Kashmir 3 2 2 4345.740 3

16. Jharkhand 73 37 37 1801.639 25

17. Karnataka 42 44 43 25790.250

18. Kerala 12 11 5

19. Lakshadweep NA NA NA 20.000 NA

20. Madhya Pradesh 5 1 22 15333.660 7

26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

21. Maharashtra 50 102 95 50863.000 46

22. Manipur 0 4 3 51.030 2

23. Meghalaya 4 1 1 0.000 0

24. Mizoram 178.000 0

@25. Nagaland 0 0 0 0.000

26. Odisha 10 30 30 3751.670 6

27. Puducherry 0 0 1 1250.000 0

28. Punjab 9 10 10 20955.000 10

29. Rajasthan 37 3 5 5014.300 48

30. Sikkim 2 2 2 1555.000

31. Tamil Nadu* 4 32 32 21148.520 19

32. Tripura 0 1 3 48.850 6

33. Uttarakhand 4 5 21 885.870 19

34. Uttar Pradesh 2 81 23 17280.100 8

35. West Bengal 0 8 8 3352.420 0

TOTAL: 269 510 413 210908.729 234

@ Data has not yet been received, hence the data of previous year has been included.* Column No. 6 contains the amount for the Financial year 2010-11 to 2012-13.

27

27

ANNEXURE-II

Details of Residential Quarters Completed between 12th July, 2010 and 16th September, 2012

Sl. Name of State/ Total Total Total Total Total RemarksNo. Union Territory number of number of number of amounts number of (detailing

proposals proposals proposals sanctioned residential problem, incleared by cleared by cleared by (in lakhs) quarters of any, beingCollectors the High the State for which faced forand land Court for Governments/ infrastructure construction earlyacquired construction Administrators (including has been progress in

of new for construction new got proceedingresidential of new residential construction, completed withquarters quarters repairs and projects)

granting maintenance)administrativeand financial

sanction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Andaman and Nicobar 0 500.000 0

2. Andhra Pradesh 4 28 16 1272.100 0

3. Arunachal Pradesh 3 0 0 0.000 1

4. Assam 4 3 3 1048.400 7

5. Bihar 1 63 8 1940.940 0

6. Chandigarh 1 1 204.500 8

7. Chhattisgarh 0 4 5 235.300 1

8. Dadra and Nagar Haveli

9. Daman and Diu 1

@10. Govt. of NCT of Delhi 0 0 0 0.000 0

11. Goa 2 2 30.000 0

@ 12. Gujarat 2 0 0 0.000 2

13. Haryana 21 18 4000.000 48

14. Himachal Pradesh 2 94.730 7

15. Jammu and Kashmir 2 2 2 60.000 0

16. Jharkhand 109 31 37 2062.774 10

17. Karnataka 185 205 205 19942.500 0

18. Kerala 0 2 3 0.000 1

19. Lakshadweep NA NA NA 2.960 NA

20. Madhya Pradesh 9 181 124 4571.530 51

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

21. Maharashtra 46 82 96 5168.390 23

22. Manipur 0 0 0 0.000 0

23. Meghalaya 4 0 0 0.000 0

24. Mizoram 3 1 65.360 0

@25. Nagaland 0 0 0 0.000 0

26. Odisha 18 7 7 118.900

27. Puducherry 0 0 1 300.000 0

28. Punjab 9 9 9 20955.000 9

29. Rajasthan 33 1 0 575.800 18

30. Sikkim 2 2 2 899.000 0

31. Tamil Nadu* 12 33 24 4426.750 47

32. Tripura 0 0 1 60.370 2

33. Uttarakhand 3 3 26 972.700 10

34. Uttar Pradesh 2 49 17 3836.420 9

35. West Bengal 0 13 13 878.440 0

TOTAL: 452 742 617 74222.864 254

@ Data has not yet been received, hence the data of previous year has been updated.* Column No. 6 contains the amount for the Financial year 2010-11 to 2012-13.

29

29

ANNEXURE-III

Status of Gram Nyayalayas as on 31st March, 2013

(R in lakh)

Sl. State Gram Gram Amount ReleasedNo. Nyayalayas Nyayalayas (in Lakhs) between

notified operationalised 2009-10 to 2012-13

1. Madhya Pradesh 89 89 1534.20

2. Rajasthan 45 45 954.00

3. Odisha 14 8 126.40

4. Karnataka 2 – 158.00

5. Maharashtra* 10 10 25.20

6. Jharkhand 6 – 75.60

7. Goa 2 – 25.20

8. Punjab 2 – 25.20

9. Haryana 2 – 25.20

TOTAL: 172 152 2949.00

30

ANNEXURE-IV

Statement indicating number of Family Courts functional in the States

Sl. Name of the State Number of Family CourtsNo. functional in the State

1. Andhra Pradesh 27

2. Assam 2

3. Bihar 30

4. Chhattisgarh 19

5. Delhi 5

6. Gujarat 9

7. Jharkhand 8

8. Karnataka 10

9. Kerala 16

10. Madhya Pradesh 15

11. Maharashtra 22

12. Manipur 1

13. Mizoram* –

14. Nagaland 2

15. Odisha$ 5

16. Puducherry 1

17. Rajasthan# 6

18. Sikkim 1

19. Tamil Nadu 6

20. Tripura 3

21. Uttar Pradesh 15

22. Uttarakhand 7

23. West Bengal 2

TOTAL: 212

* Four Family Courts notified.# Seven more Family Courts notified$ Seven more Family Courts notified.

31

ANNEXURE-V

Sanctioned Strength and Vacancies in Subordinate Courts as on 31.03.2012

Sl. State/Union Sanctioned Vacancies inNo. Territory concerned Strength Subordinate Courts

1 2 3 4

1. Uttar Pradesh 2102 268

2. Andhra Pradesh 834 117

3.a Maharashtra 2016 185

3.b Goa 49 7

3.c Daman, Diu and Silvasa 7 0

4. West Bengal 933 156

5. Chhattisgarh 276 38

6. Delhi 623 158

7. Gujarat 1727 852

8.a Assam 356 108

8.b Meghalaya 36 22

8.c Tripura 92 27

8.d Manipur 31 5

8.e Nagaland 29 6

8.f Mizoram 65 32

8.g Arunachal Pradesh 2 0

9. Himachal Pradesh 132 17

10. Jammu and Kashmir 206 17

11. Jharkhand 499 89

12. Karnataka 945 174

13.a Kerala 411 36

13.b Lakshadweep 3 1

14.a Tamil Nadu 866 123

14.b Puducherry 20 7

15. Madhya Pradesh 1321 151

32

1 2 3 4

16. Odisha 625 79

17. Bihar 1458 507

18.a Punjab 493 116

18.b Haryana 476 125

18.c Chandigarh 20 0

19. Rajasthan 922 180

20. Sikkim 13 4

21. Uttarakhand 278 126

TOTAL: 17866 3732

33

33

ANNEXURE-VI

Statement of cases pending in Subordinate judiciary as on 31.03.2012

Sl. Name of State Total Cases pendingNo. as on 31.03.2012

1 2 3

1. Uttar Pradesh 5798272

2. Andhra Pradesh 917620

3. Maharashtra 3144426

4. Goa 30052

5. Daman and Diu Silvasa 4997

6. West Bengal 2638937

7. Andaman and Nicobar 13384

8. Chhattisgarh 266220

9. Delhi 689766

10. Gujarat 2197565

11. Assam 264204

12. Nagaland 4130

13. Meghalaya 3357

14. Manipur 14238

15. Tripura 43954

16. Mizoram 4426

17. Arunachal Pradesh 6148

18. Himachal Pradesh 195018

19. Jammu and Kashmir 207588

20. Jharkhand 298240

21. Karnataka 1115280

22. Kerala 1071305

23. Lakshadweep 240

24. Madhya Pradesh 1129432

25. Tamil Nadu 1193541

34

1 2 3

26. Puducherry 27141

27. Odisha 1159482

28. Bihar 1628291

29. Punjab 544972

30. Haryana 594733

31. Chandigarh 57890

32. Rajasthan 1432967

33. Sikkim 1310

34. Uttarakhand 152640

TOTAL: 26851766

35

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL,PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE

LIST OF REPORTS PRESENTED BY THE COMMITTEE

37

ReportNo.

1

Subject of the Report

2

Date ofPresentation

4

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

Report on Demands for Grants(2004-05) of the Ministry ofPersonnel, Public Grievances andPensions.

Report on Demands for Grants(2004-05) of the Ministry ofLaw and Justice.

Report on the Right toInformation Bill, 2004.

Report on the Andhra PradeshLegislative Council Bill, 2004.



Report on the Hindu Succession(Amendment) Bill, 2004.

Report on the Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes and otherBackward Classes (Reservationin Posts and Services) Bill, 2004.

Presented to Rajya Sabha on26.08.2004 and Laid on the Table ofLok Sabha on 26.08.2004.

-do-




-do-


Presented to Hon’ble Chairman, RajyaSabha on 29th June, 2005 andforwarded to Hon’ble Speaker, LokSabha on 29th June, 2005.Presented to Rajya Sabha on26.07.2005 and Laid on the Table ofLok Sabha on 26.07.2005.

Date ofAdoption

3

23.08.2004

-do-

16.03.2005

22.03.2005

11.04.2005

-do-

10.05.2005

07.06.2005

SessionNo.

5

203

203

204

204

204

204

204

204

38

1 2 43 5

9th

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

17th

18th

19th

28.07.2005

02.08.2005

02.08.2005

23.08.2005

27.10.2005

17.05.2006

-do-

02.08.2006

09.11.2006

27.02.2007

08.05.2007

Report on the Arbitration andConciliation (Amendment) Bill,2003.

Report on the High Court andSupreme Court Judges (Salariesand Conditions of Service)Amendment Bill, 2005.

Report on the National TaxTribunal Bill, 2004.

Report on the Contempt ofCourts (Amendment) Bill, 2004

Report on the Prevention ofChild Marriage Bill, 2004.



Report on the Representation ofthe People (Amendment) Bill,2006.

Report on the AdministrativeTribunals (Amendment) Bill,2006.

Report on the Electoral Reforms(Disqualification of persons fromcontesting elections on framingof charges against them forcertain offences)




-do-




-do-





205

205

205

205

206

207

207

208

208

208

209

39

1 2 43 5

20th

21st

22nd

23rd

24th

25th

26th

27th

28th

29th


Report on the Judges (Inquiry)Bill, 2006, Ministry of Law andJustice (Department of Justice).

Report on the Gram NyayalayasBill, 2007, Ministry of Law andJustice, Legislative Department.

Report on the Government’sPolicy of Appointment onCompassionate Ground Ministryof Personnel, Public Grievancesand Pensions (Department ofPersonnel and Training)

Report on Working of CentralBureau of Investigation (CBI)Ministry of Personnel, PublicGrievances and Pensions(Department of Personnel andTraining)



Report on Action Taken Replieson Law’s Delays : Arrears inCourts (85th Report of HomeAffairs)

Report on The Supreme Court(Number of Judges) AmendmentBill, 2008

Report on Public GrievancesRedressal Mechanism

-do-

01.08.2007

29.08.2007

06.09.2007

04.03.2008

24.04.2008

-do-

-do-

01.08.2008

21.10.2008

-do-






-do-

-do-

Presented to the Hon’ble Chairman,Rajya Sabha on 04.08.2008. Laid onthe Tables of the Rajya Sabha andLok Sabha on 22nd October, 2008


209

210

210

210

213

213

213

213

214

214

40

1 2 43 5

30th

31st

32nd

33rd

34th

35th

36th

37th

Report on Constraints BeingFaced by Kendriya Bhandar.

Action Taken Replies of theGovernment on theRecommendations/Observationscontained in the 25th Report onDemands for Grants (2008-09)of the Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances and Pensions.

Action Taken Replies of theGovernment on theRecommendations/Observationscontained in the 26th Report onDemands for Grants (2008-09)of the Ministry of Law andJustice.

Report on the Representation ofthe People (Second Amendment)Bill, 2008.

Report on the High Court andSupreme Court Judges (Salariesand Conditions of Service)Amendment Bill, 2008.

Report on the “Action TakenReplies of the Governmenton the Recommendations/Observations contained in the29th Report of the Committee on“Public Grievances RedressalMechanism”.

Report on “The Constitution(One Hundred and EighthAmendment) Bill, 2008”.

Action Taken Replies of theGovernment on theRecommendations/Observationscontained in the 24th Report on“Working of Central Bureau ofInvestigation (CBI)”.

21.10.2008

16.12.2008

16.12.2008

16.02.2009

16.02.2009

14.12.2009

14.12.2009

03.03.2010

-do-








214

214

214

215

215

218

218

219

41

1 2 43 5



Report on The Personal Laws(Amendment) Bill, 2010.

Report on Action Taken Repliesof the Government on theRecommendations/Observationscontained in the 23rd Report ofthe Committee on “Government’sPolicy of Appointment onCompassionate Ground”.

Report on Action Taken Replies ofthe Government on theRecommendations/Observationscontained in the 30th Report ofthe Committee on “ConstraintsBeing Faced by Kendriya Bhandar”.

Report on Action Taken Repliesof the Government on theRecommendations/Observationscontained in the 38th Report onDemands for Grants (2010-11)of the Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances and Pensions.

Report on The Constitution (OneHundred and FourteenthAmendment) Bill, 2010.

Report on The Marriage Laws(Amendment) Bill, 2010.

Report on The Public InterestDisclosure and Protection toPersons Making the DisclosuresBill, 2010.


-do-


-do-


-do-



Presented to the Hon’ble Chairman,Rajya Sabha on 09.06.2011. Laid onthe Tables of the Rajya Sabha on11.08.2011 and Lok Sabha on 10.08.11.

38th

39th

40th

41st

42nd

43rd

44th

45th

46th

27.04.2010

-do-

29.07.2010

-do-

16.11.2010

-do-

07.12.2010

02.02.2011

11.05.2011

219

219

220

220

221

221

221

222

223

42

1 2 43 5

Report on the Judicial Standardsand Accountability Bill, 2010.

Report on the Lokpal Bill, 2011.

The Administrators-General(Amendment) Bill, 2011.

The Prevention of Bribery ofForeign Public Officials andOfficials of Public InternationalOrganisations Bill, 2011.



Report on The Right of Citizensfor Time Bound Delivery of Goodsand Services and Redressal of theirGrievances Bill, 2011.

Report on The AdministrativeTribunals (Amendment) Bill,2012.

Report on The Registration ofBirths and Deaths (Amendment)Bill, 2012.

Action Taken Replies of theGovernment on theRecommendations/Observationscontained in the 51st Report onDemands for Grants (2012-13)of the Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances and Pensions.

47th

48th

49th

50th

51st

52nd

53rd

54th

55th

56th

25.08.2011

07.12.2011

24.01.2012

26.03.2012

15.05.2012

-do-

23.08.2012

11.12.2012

22.02.2013

13.03.2013



Presented to the Hon’ble Chairman,Rajya Sabha on 02.02.2012. Laid toRajya Sabha and Lok Sabha on20.03.2012.



-do-





223

224

224

225

225

225

226

227

228

228

43

1 2 43 5

Action Taken Replies of theGovernment on theRecommendations/Observationscontained in the 52nd Report onDemands for Grants (2012-13)of the Ministry of Law andJustice.


The Readjustment ofRepresentation of ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes inParliamentary and AssemblyConstituencies Bill, 2013.

Report on the Demands forGrants (2013-14) of the Ministryof Personnel, Public Grievancesand Pensions.

Report on the “ElectoralReforms-Code of Conduct forPolitical Parties & Anti DefectionLaw”.

Report on the “Status of WomenGovernment Employees, ServiceConditions, Protection againstexploitation, Incentives and otherrelated Issues”.

Report on the RajasthanLegislative Council Bill, 2013.

Report on the JudicialAppointments Commission Bill,2013.

Report on the Representation ofthe People (Second Amendmentand Validation) Bill, 2013.

Report on the Right toInformation (Amendment) Bill,2013.

-do-










57th

58th

59th

60th

61st

62nd

63rd

64th

65th

66th

13.03.2013

23.04.2013

29.04.2013

02.04.2013

19.08.2013

29.08.2013

27.11.2013

27.11.2013

06.12.2013

13.12.2013

228

228

228

228

229

229

230

230

230

230

Printed at : Bengal Offset Works, 335, Khajoor Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.

cover-67 report-law and justice-13-14

Documents