Latest news with #NationalJudicialDataGrid
Indian Express
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
In defence of court holidays
Written by Shubham Shukla and Kartikey Singh On May 26, as the Supreme Court (SC) began its seven-week 'summer recess', now officially termed 'Partial Court Working Days' (PCWD), critics resort to familiar complaints about 'judicial holidays' amid rising case pendency. However, this prevailing narrative misses the point. These breaks are not indulgences; they are structural safeguards, providing a critical breathing space that sustains 'judicial reasoning' in a system strained by relentless caseloads. Though rooted in colonial-era judges' discomfort with Indian summers and a craving for Christmas breaks, judicial vacations today serve a far more vital purpose. They enable intellectual rejuvenation, meticulous 'judgment writing', and deep legal research. Case pendency and blame game India's judicial backlog — over 4.5 crore cases, as per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) — is undeniably serious. But to attribute this crisis to judges' vacations is both analytically lazy and empirically indefensible, as also acknowledged in 2023 by the then Union Law Minister. A data-driven study based on Bombay High Court (HC) records found that court vacations have no significant impact on either 'disposal rates' or the time taken to resolve cases. This finding is not surprising when one considers institutional realities. India's SC functions almost year-round, hearing 'oral arguments' every weekday except during the mid-year and winter breaks, unlike many of its global counterparts. With 190 sitting days annually, India's apex court stands among the hardest-working top courts across the world. By comparison, according to the Supreme Court Observer, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sits for just 68 days, the High Court of Australia for 97, South Africa's Constitutional Court for 128, the UK SC for 149, Israel's apex court for 159, and Bangladesh's for 183. Importantly, India's top court doesn't just sit more often, it hears far more cases. In the first half of 2025 alone, nearly 21,000 cases were placed before the SC, dwarfing SCOTUS's annual intake of 5,000-7,000 and leaving courts in the UK, Australia, and South Africa far behind. Even when it comes to non-sitting days, India fares better than most: The SC has 175 non-working days, compared to the US (297), Australia (268), South Africa (237), the UK (216), Israel (206), and Bangladesh (182). Yet, despite having more holidays and fewer sitting days, these other courts do not grapple with the scale of pendency that afflicts India. The reason is structural. The judicial systems of other countries limit access to the apex court through strict docket control, selective case admission, and robust lower court infrastructure. India's SC, by contrast, embodies a more expansive judicial philosophy, functioning both as a constitutional court and as the court of last resort for a vast and diverse population. This broad access — extending even to service, bail, and land disputes — reflects a democratic commitment to judicial access, though it inevitably contributes to a much heavier caseload. The relentless grind of a judge The popular perception of judges enjoying excessive leisure during vacations is a profound misconception. It fails to account for the intense, often invisible workload they undertake daily —work that extends far beyond courtroom hours. Unlike most professionals, judges rarely take personal leave while courts are in session, reserving it only for dire emergencies or serious illness. The real labour of adjudication begins after the court rises. A recent example comes from Bombay High Court's Justice Madhav Jamdar, who dictated an 85-page Transfer of Property Act judgment in open court on December 19, 2024. But it was uploaded on the HC website on 30 May 2025 — almost six months later. In his own order, he recorded that, even while conducting daily hearings for more than two hours after court hours, he still corrects and signs orders until 11:30 pm, reads case papers until 2:00 am, and works on weekends and holidays to clear his docket. This intense schedule lays bare the sheer volume of judicial labours beyond courtroom hours, demonstrating that judges every day need to balance exhaustive hearings, voluminous drafting, and meticulous editing against the limits of time. Notably, the length of a judgment often reflects the complexity of the legal questions involved. The most significant cases — those concerning privacy, reservation, or federalism — frequently run into hundreds of pages and shape jurisprudence for decades. These are not merely legal puzzles; they involve relentless public scrutiny, have zero margin for error, and impact millions of lives. Crafting such judgments demands immense intellectual labour: Exhaustive research, deep contemplation, parsing voluminous records, engaging with precedents, and rigorous deliberation within the Bench. Intellectual depth is paramount, and rushing such tasks in a state of 'cognitive exhaustion' risks shallow reasoning, conflicting precedent, and long-term jurisprudential damage — a far greater injustice than a well-considered pause. This is not a matter of personal preference; it is a clinical imperative. The stakes in many SC and HC cases are existential — the legality of a student's arrest, the future of a minor in a custody battle, or the constitutional validity of a statute. Importantly, judges hear arguments in court for an average of 7–8 hours a day. Without structured time to decompress and reflect, impaired cognitive function becomes inevitable, increasing the risk of judicial error and subsequent reversals on appeal. Judicial vacations thus serve as a necessary prophylactic. They provide an opportunity to recalibrate, catch up on judgment writing, and engage with wider reading, including interdisciplinary scholarship in economics, sociology, or political theory that increasingly informs welfare jurisprudence. Several judges have publicly acknowledged the necessity of these breaks. Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, speaking at a public event last year, noted that judges remain deeply committed even on weekends — visiting HCs, attending Bar events, or engaging in legal aid work. More importantly, without adequate, structured breaks, judges face serious risks of burnout, loneliness, and compassion fatigue. Empirical studies on 'judicial stress' show elevated levels of secondary trauma and emotional exhaustion. This is not just a personal or institutional burden. If left unaddressed, it may reduce judicial capacity, delay adjudication, and — perhaps most dangerously — erode public confidence in the judiciary's ability to deliver reasoned, impartial, and humane justice. Moreover, these breaks also serve as a crucial respite for advocates, who routinely operate under intense pressure due to rigid procedural deadlines and demanding court schedules. During vacations, far from 'shut down', the judicial functioning continues through Partial Court Working Days Benches, during which the Registry — the court's administrative backbone — also remains active. Urgent cases, especially those involving life and liberty, are routinely heard, ensuring that fundamental rights are not suspended during breaks. Blaming vacations for judicial delays ignores the real issues: Imperfect case scheduling, routine adjournments, chronic vacancies, and outdated infrastructure. As President Droupadi Murmu aptly noted last year, the deeper malaise lies in the 'black coat syndrome'— that vacations neither cause nor solve. Instead of targeting judicial breaks, policy focus should shift to genuine reforms: Appointing more judges, overhauling infrastructure, modernising procedures, and promoting alternative dispute resolution. The writers are lawyers based in New Delhi
Hindustan Times
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
AI must be subordinate to fairness, equity, human dignity: Justice Surya Kant
Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant has said justice cannot be reduced to a digital product, warning that artificial intelligence (AI) must always remain subordinate to fairness, equity, and human dignity. 'Justice, unlike software, is not a product to be optimised, but a principle to be honoured. Technology must remain subordinate to our higher commitments to fairness, equity, and human dignity,' said Justice Kant, who is set to become the Chief Justice of India in November. Speaking at Microsoft's Fireside Chat on 'AI and Law' on June 6, Justice Kant cautioned that while AI promises to enhance access, efficiency, and transparency in the legal system, unchecked deployment could mirror and even magnify existing societal inequities. 'Technology, if left unchecked, can reflect and reinforce societal inequities. AI is not a perfect technology, and it can perhaps never replace the human element that the entire Rawlsian theory of justice hinges on,' he said. Rawlsian theory refers to the philosophy of justice developed by John Rawls, an American political philosopher. The core of the theory is the concept of 'justice as fairness', which aims to reconcile the seemingly competing values of freedom and equality. Justice Kant acknowledged the global nature of the challenges AI presents, particularly issues like algorithmic bias, hallucinated legal citations, and data protection. 'Take, for instance, the fictitious legal precedents that chatbots routinely come up with when faced with complex legal propositions,' said Justice Kant, warning of the risks of relying blindly on AI in sensitive domains like law. He spoke about growing cyber threats to courts and the judiciary, including ransomware attacks and doxing of judges, and said such digital risks were now 'a matter of constitutional resilience.' He said India has responded proactively, with secure e-filing platforms, the National Judicial Data Grid, and virtual hearings backed by multi-layered authentication. 'Cybersecurity is not a matter of IT hygiene, but of constitutional resilience…courts must invest not just in secure infrastructure, but in public confidence,' Justice Kant said. Justice Kant said the adoption of AI must not be driven by novelty or efficiency alone. 'We do so not as passive observers, but as stewards of a future we must shape with wisdom and purpose… Shaping the future demands more than innovation—it calls for an unwavering adherence to foundational values.' Justice Kant said India's judicial digital transformation, while ambitious, is being shaped through collaboration between technologists, judges, civil society, and academics via a dedicated Centre for Research and Planning within the Supreme Court. He referred to India's evolving legal-tech landscape and initiatives reshaping the courts including SUVAS, the Supreme Court's translation software that has enabled over 100,000 judgments in 18 regional languages, Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) systems in Constitution Bench hearings for real-time transparency, and LegRAA, a legal research tool that aids without replacing judicial reasoning. 'These technologies are designed explicitly to support, not supplant, human judgment. It preserves the essential human element of jurisprudence, ensuring that final legal Page 6 of 13 interpretations remain firmly rooted in wisdom, compassion, and ethical discernment,' he said. Justice Kant called for building AI systems that reflect functional competence and moral clarity. 'I remain firmly convinced that any contemplation of AI must be guided by a deep moral compass. Shaping the future demands more than for an unwavering adherence to foundational values. Transparency, equity, responsibility, and respect for human dignity must not be afterthoughts, but the pillars upon which all technological advancement rests…Let this dialogue between technologists and jurists be not the end, but the beginning of a sustained collaboration, one where justice and technology walk hand in hand, with the citizen always at the centre.'
Time of India
07-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Local Court Lawyers Up In Arms Over Shifting Of 34 Digital Courts
New Delhi: Lawyers from the district courts decided on Saturday to roll back their decision to abstain from work in protest against the shifting of the judges of the 34 digital Negotiable Instruments Act courts to the Rouse Avenue courts. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now A statement released by the All District Courts Bar Association of Delhi on Saturday said that the lawyers' coordination committee met the chief justice of and was assured that all digital courts would function strictly as digital platforms only. The remaining proceedings and judicial work only would be conducted in the regular local courts, the statement said. "Necessary directions are being issued to all presiding officers instructing them not to insist on the physical appearance of any stakeholders, including parties, counsel, police officers, etc, in c+ourt," the statement added. On May 30, high court chief justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya inaugurated the 34 digital courts at the Rouse Avenue Courts complex to hear cases under the NI Act. Only judges of these courts will operate from Rouse Avenue, while the staff —readers, ahlmads and stenographers — will operate from their respective districts. The association on Friday, June 6 decided to abstain from work opposing the decision of shiftingthecourts. The digital courts deal with cases related to cheque bounces across six court complexes. The Lok Sabha was informed by the Union law minister in Dec 2024 that Delhi ranked fourth among top five Indian states with regard to NI Act cases and has 4.5 lakh pending cases. A judge in a NI Act court, on average, holds 80 hearings every day. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, until June 7, there were 15.1 lakh cases, of which 31% were cheque bounce cases. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Last year, advocate Jagriti Jain filed a public interest litigation, highlighting administrative lapses in the digital NI Act court in North district. The petition pointed out the huge pendency of cases as well as connectivity problems of the portal used for digital hearings. In April 2024, a division bench comprising then acting chief justice Manmohan and justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed steps to be taken to address the issue of digital connectivity and network problems. On May 22 this year, the bench disposed of the Jain's PIL, noting that connectivity issues had been resolved after the registrar general of the high court submitted a report on May 9 outlining the remedial measures taken. A second digital NI Act court was established in the North district and all pending matters were evenly distributed between the two courts. Advocate Parthesh Bhardwaj, who appeared for Jain, told TOI, "As of June, with multiple functioning courts, better cause list management and strengthened technical infrastructure, the average time between hearings at digital NI Act courts in all districts has significantly reduced."
The Hindu
05-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Have publicly pledged to refuse post-retirement jobs: CJI BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai has said that he and his colleagues in the Supreme Court have publicly pledged to not undermine the public's trust in judicial integrity by accepting post-retirement roles or positions from the government. Speaking at a round table in the U.K. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Gavai said a judge contesting elections for political office immediately after retirement or resignation could lead to doubts about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, 'as it may be seen as a conflict of interest or as an attempt to gain favour with the government'. 'If a judge takes up another appointment with the government immediately after retirement, or resigns from the Bench to contest elections, it raises significant ethical concerns and invites public scrutiny… The timing and nature of such post-retirement engagements could undermine the public's trust in the judiciary's integrity, as it could create a perception that judicial decisions were influenced by the prospect of future government appointments or political involvement,' Chief Justice Gavai said during a discussion on 'Maintaining Judicial Legitimacy and Public Confidence'. The Chief Justice referred to the striking down of the National Judicial Appointments Commission in 2015 as a counter-action to government's efforts to dilute judicial independence, saying 'there may be criticisms of the Collegium system, but any solution must not come at the cost of judicial independence. Judges must be free from external control'. 'Judiciary acts as a counterbalance against the arbitrary exercise of power… Certain fundamental principles, such as democracy, rule of law, and the separation of powers, are inviolable and cannot be altered,' the CJI said. Chief Justice Gavai acknowledged the recent incidents of corruption in judiciary but said the path to handling judicial misdemeanour and re-build the path to public trust was 'swift, decisive, and transparent action'. 'In India, when such instances have come to light, the Supreme Court has consistently taken immediate and appropriate measures to address the misconduct,' the CJI said even as the Parliament is expected to bring a removal motion against High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma. The Chief Justice also referred to the voluntary disclosure of assets by the judges of the Supreme Court to promote greater accountability and ethical leadership, live streaming of court proceedings, real-time information on case pendency offered on the National Judicial Data Grid, translation of apex court judgments to regional languages and broader access to justice for vulnerable communities through the public interest litigation system. 'Article 32, which guarantees all citizens the fundamental right to approach the Supreme Court, has been referred to as the 'soul' and 'heart' of the Constitution,' the CJI noted. Chief Justice Gavai highlighted the importance of courts having an independent power of judicial review while examining the constitutionality of laws. The court is currently seized of a challenge to the amendments to the waqf law. 'Courts must have the power of independent judicial review, allowing judges to assess the constitutionality of laws and government actions that conflict with the provisions of the Constitution or established constitutional principles,' the CJI said.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
25-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
CII urges govt to establish centralised oversight mechanism for tribunals
The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has urged the government to establish a centralised oversight mechanism for tribunals, emphasising the need for uniformity, policy coherence, and enhanced performance across these crucial adjudicatory bodies. Calling for amendments to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the CII said there was a need to provide a robust statutory foundation for such a mechanism. Despite handling a significant caseload in critical domains such as taxation, environment, and labour, tribunals currently operate under fragmented administrative controls across various ministries, resulting in functional inconsistencies and a lack of standardisation, the CII pointed out. 'A key concern for tribunals is the absence of real-time performance statistics, which limits the scope for undertaking evidence-based reforms. In contrast, such statistics are readily available for the entire court system of the country on the 'National Judicial Data Grid', maintained by the e-Committee of the Supreme Court,' the policy advocacy body said. A central oversight body could be tasked with key responsibilities such as performance monitoring, data tracking, coordination with search-cum-selection committees, capacity building, and independent grievance redressal, the CII said, adding that this institution should be backed by appropriate legal amendments defining its structure, scope, and mandate. Currently, over 16 central tribunals operate under different ministries, adjudicating disputes across sectors integral to economic governance and the rule of law. For instance, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) plays a central role in implementing the Companies Act, 2013, and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016—both crucial to corporate debt resolution and investor confidence, the release said. Citing a staggering ₹6.7 trillion in tax disputes pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as of 31 December 2024—amounting to nearly 57 per cent of all litigated direct tax claims—the CII stressed that improving tribunal efficiency could unlock substantial fiscal resources and boost the ease of doing business. While acknowledging that the government has taken steps through the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, CII noted that challenges such as persistent vacancies, delayed appointments, inadequate infrastructure, and the absence of systematic performance tracking continue to plague the system. To reinforce its proposal, CII referred to multiple Supreme Court judgments and expert recommendations, including the 272nd Report of the Law Commission of India (2017). The idea of a centralised tribunal oversight body was first endorsed by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), and reiterated in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2020), where the Court directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunals Commission, the body said. 'A centralised oversight institution would be a transformational step in making India's justice delivery system more efficient, responsive, and future-ready,' CII concluded, noting that such a move would significantly enhance regulatory credibility, investor confidence, and economic governance.
