Judicial Pendency and Arbitration - A Critical Analysis

Judiciary is the third organ of the government that works for the people. It is not just an organ or an institution which overlooks the fair and just functioning of laws, but also a body that holds people’s trust and faith within it. People feel a sense of protection in the country where there is an independence of judiciary; they are assured that no injustice can be done till the time judiciary is faithful to its hard and core principles. But what hinders the faith of people in the judicial system is the delay in providing the justice to the people. India has a hierarchical judiciary system consisting of various levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of India, High Courts, and subordinate courts. Each level has its own jurisdiction and deals with several types of cases. But still there are number of cases pending before the courts and it takes many years for those cases to be resolved, thus leading to judicial pendency. The reason for Judicial pendency includes the large volume of cases, limited judicial infrastructure, vacancies in judicial positions, procedural delays, adjournments and the complexity of some cases. The pendency of cases is the burden on Judiciary that needs to be sorted out as soon as possible so that no injustice can happen to any of the people. 

The Indian Judiciary and the government have been actively working on reducing judicial pendency. Various measures have been implemented, including the appointment of additional judges, setting up fast track courts, computerization of courts, promotion of e-filling systems, and the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

AN OVERVIEW OF JUDICIAL PENDENCY IN INDIA

Prima facie ‘Justice’ is only a word which basically means, “the fair treatment of people”. But if we look at it in a deeper sense then the word ‘justice’ cannot be defined, as, it is subjective with people’s understanding. It is something which carries a huge meaning to each living being in the world thus cannot be confined in mere group of words. In context of Judiciary, Justice can be done to people if their case is decided on the principles of natural justice within a reasonable time. Here, the word ‘reasonable time’ matters a lot, though the case can still be decided even after the passing of several years, but fair justice can only be done when it is required to be done. For e.g. If a person has spent his whole life being an accused of the crime and the court found him non-guilty on the day after his death, then the justice to the person has not been done.

Thus, ‘Delayed justice’ is not equal to justice but, it means to deprive the victims of living a better life which they could’ve lived if their case would’ve decided without any pendency. This is not a normal thing but something which has a gross impact not just on the people but the overall development of the country itself. 

The time taken to resolve cases can vary significantly depending on various factors, such as the nature of the case, the court’s workload, and other procedural aspects. Some cases may be resolved quickly, while others may take several years or even decades. According to the recent statistical data of National Judicial Data Grid, there are total of 44,145,249 all India pending Court cases. Out of which 11,022,076 are civil cases while the rest 33,123,173 are criminal cases. 

“There have been a number of Law Commission Reports (77th, 79th, 80th, 124th, 245th) established by the Government to review the functioning of the subordinate courts and High Courts and to give recommendations to improve the situation.”

To look into the situation, we have to analyse the factors that are responsible for the huge pendency of cases in the court:

Registration of huge number of Cases: The socio-economic advancement and the resulting increase in awareness of legal rights among the citizens led to the filing of huge number of cases. The filing of number of cases is increasing day by day but their disposal rate is very poor due to the various fallacies in the judicial system.

Lack of Judicial Vacancies: In India, there are only 21 judges per million population. The lack of judges led to the cases pending for years, they continue to be heard but no definitive decision is reached. Supreme Court Judge Abhay S Oka has said India requires 50 judges for every 10-lakh population to reduce case pendency in India.

Postponement by giving dates after dates: In India, the postponement by dates after dates stretches even smallest cases till more than one year. There is a dire need to avoid this kind of lazy culture. 

Misuse of Public Interest Litigation: The number of cases brought before the High Court and Supreme Court also increases as the number of PILs does. And now a days, people are misusing PIL for monetary gain. By creating PIL filing criteria, it is vital to prevent the filing of PILs that are unnecessary.

As we already know, delaying justice is equal to denying the justice and hence it creates a psychological impact on the minds of people who are victims of this negligence in the judicial system. Delaying justice can cost a person’s standard of living. It can lose their faith in the judicial system of the country as well as their trust in their own government. A person and his family suffer humiliation from their society for wrongly being accused of the crime till the time their case is pending in the court of law.

ARBITRATION- A MEANS TO RESOLVE PENDENCY

Under these circumstances, Arbitration is an effective means to reduce the burden of the Indian Judicial system. 

• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanism: Arbitration is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution that offers an alternative to traditional court litigation for resolving disputes. By diverting cases from the overcrowded judicial system, arbitration helps alleviate the burden on courts and reduce pendency.

  
  

• Speed and Efficiency: One of the primary advantages of arbitration is its potential for faster and more efficient dispute resolution compared to traditional court proceedings. Arbitration allows parties to bypass lengthy court processes, such as filing pleadings, waiting for hearing dates, and facing procedural delays. Instead, arbitration offers a streamlined process where parties can set their own timelines and resolve disputes more expeditiously.

  
  

• Expertise and Specialization: In arbitration, parties have the freedom to select arbitrators with expertise in the relevant subject matter. This enables the resolution of disputes by professionals who possess specialized knowledge and experience in the field, potentially resulting in more informed decisions and quicker resolution of complex issues. By having arbitrators who are well-versed in the subject matter, the process can be more efficient and lead to reduced pendency.

  
  

• Flexibility and Party Autonomy: Arbitration provides parties with greater flexibility and control over the dispute resolution process. Parties have the autonomy to design the arbitration procedure according to their specific needs and preferences. This flexibility allows for tailored processes that can be more efficient, reducing the time required to resolve disputes and contributing to lower pendency.

  
  

• Confidentiality: Unlike court proceedings, arbitration offers the advantage of confidentiality. Parties can maintain the privacy of their disputes, which can be particularly important in commercial and sensitive matters. Confidentiality can encourage parties to choose arbitration over the courts, as they can protect their business interests and avoid potential damage to their reputation, leading to a higher likelihood of settlement and reduced pendency.

  
  

• Finality and Enforceability: Arbitral awards are generally final and binding, with limited avenues for appeal compared to court judgments. This finality promotes a quicker resolution of disputes, as parties are less likely to engage in protracted appeals and post-award litigation. Moreover, the enforceability of arbitral awards under national and international frameworks ensures that the resolution reached through arbitration can be effectively implemented, further contributing to reduced pendency.

  
  

• Reduced Court Backlog: By diverting cases to arbitration, the judicial system's backlog can be reduced, allowing courts to focus on cases that require adjudication. This can lead to faster resolution of cases that are inherently within the court's jurisdiction, ultimately decreasing pendency and improving access to justice for litigants.

  
  

• Encouragement of Settlement: The availability of arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism can also encourage parties to engage in settlement discussions. The prospect of a faster and more efficient resolution through arbitration may incentivize parties to explore settlement options, leading to earlier resolution and reducing the number of cases requiring adjudication in court.

  
  

• Clearing the Path for Complex Cases: By resolving simpler or less complex disputes through arbitration, the judicial system can allocate its limited resources and capacity to handle more complex cases that may require specialized attention, thereby reducing the pendency of intricate matters.

ARBITRATION CAN BE A CHALLENGE TOO

When discussing how arbitration reduces judicial pendency, it's important to acknowledge that arbitration also has its limitations and may not be suitable for all types of disputes. 

Limitations of Arbitration:

• Limited Applicability: Certain types of disputes, such as those involving public interest or complex legal questions, may be unsuitable for arbitration. This restricts the scope of cases that can be resolved through arbitration, potentially limiting its impact on reducing pendency.

  
  

• Cost Implications: Arbitration can be expensive, with fees for arbitrators and administrative costs. This may deter parties with limited resources from opting for arbitration, leading to an imbalance in access to justice.

  
  

• Lack of Transparency: Unlike court proceedings, arbitration is a private process with limited transparency. This raises concerns about accountability and public scrutiny, especially in cases involving public interest or significant societal impact.

  
  

• Limited Remedies: Arbitration may not provide certain remedies available in the judicial system, such as injunctive relief or constitutional remedies, which can restrict the effectiveness of arbitration in certain cases.

Challenges in Implementation:

• Awareness and Perception: Limited awareness and understanding of arbitration among the general public and legal professionals can hinder its widespread adoption and utilization.

  
  

• Judicial Intervention: Despite the intent to reduce interference from courts, arbitration in India often faces challenges due to court interventions in matters such as the appointment of arbitrators or enforcement of awards, leading to potential delays and increased pendency.

  
  

• Infrastructural Support: Adequate infrastructure and resources, such as trained arbitrators, well-equipped hearing facilities, and efficient administration, are necessary to support the growth and effectiveness of arbitration.

Need for Reforms and Promotion:

• Legislative Reforms: Ongoing reforms, such as amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, aim to address some of the limitations and challenges faced by arbitration in India. Evaluating the effectiveness of these reforms and identifying areas for further improvement is essential.

  
  

• Promoting Institutional Arbitration: Encouraging the use of established arbitral institutions, promoting their credibility, and ensuring efficient administration can enhance the quality and efficiency of arbitration proceedings.

  
  

• Skill Development and Training: Enhancing the training and skill development of arbitrators and legal professionals in arbitration can improve the overall quality and effectiveness of the process.

Overall, while arbitration offers advantages in reducing pendency, it is important to critically analyze its limitations and challenges. To maximize the potential of arbitration in reducing pendency and improving access to justice, addressing these limitations and implementing reforms are crucial. A comprehensive evaluation of the role of arbitration in the Indian judicial system should consider these critical aspects to foster an effective and balanced dispute resolution ecosystem.

CONCLUSION

Justice is the right of every person that should be granted to them without any delay. “Denial of ‘timely justice’ amounts to denial of ‘justice’ itself.” In India, there is a huge pendency of cases which is costing the lives of people who are the victims of it. Such pendency needs to be reduced, and the cases should be decided on time. The pendency issue has been looked at by the government which implemented some measures including the appointment of additional judges, setting up fast track courts, computerization of courts, promotion of e-filling systems, and the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

One such measure is the concept of Arbitration which is a mechanism under Alternative dispute resolution. Arbitration provides an alternative to the traditional court system and helps in reducing the burden of cases on the Indian judicial system. Arbitration is governed under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Though Arbitration is an effective tool, it also has some negative aspects like its award is not appealable unlike the hierarchical judiciary system that India possesses. However, when effectively utilized, arbitration can significantly contribute to alleviating the burden on the judicial system and expedite the resolution of disputes.

REFERENCES-

1 National Judicial Data Grid, E-Committee, Supreme Court of India, https://ecommitteesci.gov.in/service/national- judicial-data-grid/ (last visited July 13, 2023).

2 Shubham Pandey & Uday Shankar, Issue of Rising Arrears and Pendency in Indian Judiciary: A Consequence of Non-Adherence to Policy Recommendation and Uninformed Policymaking, SCC Online Blog (Feb. 7, 2023), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/02/07/issue-of-rising-arrears-and-pendency-in-indian judiciary-a- consequence-of-non-adherence-to-policy-recommendation-and-uninformed-policymaking/ (last visited July 14, 2023).

3 India Has 21 Judges Per Million Population: Govt, Econ. Times (New Delhi, Feb. 2, 2023).

4 50 Judges Per 10 Lakh Needed to Reduce Case Pendency in India: Supreme Court Judge, NDTV India News (Jan.3, 2023), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/50-judges-per-10-lakh-needed-to-reduce-case pendency-in-india-supreme-court-judge-3660831 (last visited July 16, 2023).

Anshumali Yadav, Backlog of Justice in India, 1 Int'l J. Legal Med. & Health Sci. 365 (2021),https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs12&div=365&id=&page= (last visited July 18, 2023).

This article is authored by Tanuja Rajpoot. She was among the Top 40 performers in the ADR Quiz Competition organized by Lets Learn Law.