Vaibhav Pratap Singh and Kanishk Bhardwaj
INTRODUCTION
The theory of separation of powers distributes powers among the government’s three branches to prevent government despotism and autocracy, with an independent judiciary being a key aspect.
Article 50 of the Constitution recognizes the importance of an independent judiciary, which has been declared as a basic feature of the Constitution in the case of SP Gupta v Union of India. An independent judiciary safeguards democracy and upholds the rule of law.
The Supreme Court in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan recognized that access to justice is an inherent part of Article 21 and to ensure access to justice, the adjudicating mechanism needs functional, financial, and decisional independence.
The independence of the judiciary is not just applicable to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, but also to the district judiciary, which is the backbone of the judicial system and the most accessible institution for most litigants. The district judiciary occupies the lowest tier of the judicial hierarchy and handles nearly 11.3 lakh cases every day and is thus more exposed to interference and pressure from various actors, such as political parties, influential persons, media, etc.
Hardly any attention was paid to the district judiciary by the constitution drafters till it was highlighted by the Conference of the Judges of the Federal Court and Chief Justices of the High Courts.
Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India declared that the independence of the district judiciary is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The court also observed that the term ‘subordinate judiciary’ should not be used to denote the District Judiciary as it was not only erroneous but was also disparaging to the constitutional stature of a District Judge. This judgment has sparked discussions on reforms aimed at strengthening the district judiciary, which is crucial for ensuring access to justice for all. This article explores such possible reforms in different areas to ensure the autonomy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the district judiciary.
REFORMS FOR FINANCIAL INDEPENDENCE
Financial security and economic independence are crucial for judicial officers serving in the District Judiciary in order to ensure impartiality. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized the importance of adequate emoluments, pensions, and proper working conditions for district judiciary members in its recent judgment.
In 1996, The First National Judicial Pay Commission (FNJPC) was constituted that recommended uniformity in designations and service conditions for judicial officers across states and union territories to ensure financial security and economic independence. The Second National Judicial Pay Commission (SNJPC) was constituted in 2017 to review the pay structure of judicial officers serving in the district judiciary.
Unfortunately, the absence of a permanent commission dealing with emolument revisions for judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary has resulted in a lack of consideration for their needs, unlike the central payment scheme for officers in the executive branch.
The Supreme Court observed that executive or legislative interference in determining the pay emoluments of the judiciary can undermine judicial independence and the basic structure of the judiciary. While differentiating between officers of the executive wing and the judiciary, the SC emphasized that parity exists between the political executive, legislators, and judges, and not between judges and administrative executives as administrative executives only assist in implementing judicial decisions and do not possess decision-making powers like judges. Multiplier can be defined as a constant that is multiplied by the basic pay income to reach the desired increment stage. This multiplier for the executive stands at 2.57 multiplier, while the judiciary gets a higher multiplier of 2.81.
Considering the aforementioned discussion, the question arises as to whether it is necessary to reduce the multiplier to the pay of judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary. This adjustment aims to slightly narrow the gap between entry-level IAS officers and Judicial Officers at the first two levels. However, there are several reasons why such an adjustment is unwarranted. Firstly, offering an attractive initial starting pay is essential to attract talented young individuals to join the judicial service. Competitive compensation is crucial to ensure a capable judiciary. Secondly, deviating from the multiplier/factor of 2.81 would contradict the principle adopted by the SNJPC which states that the increase in the pay of judicial officers should be proportionate to the increase in the pay of the High Court judges. The Court has endorsed this principle and approved the recommendations of the SNJPC.
REFORMS FOR FUNCTIONAL INDEPENDENCE
One of the challenges that hamper the functional independence of the district judiciary is the lack of enforcement powers for its orders. The High Court and the Supreme Court have powers to issue contempt of court, but the district judiciary has no such provision. This makes it difficult to ensure compliance with its orders and respect for its authority.
Another challenge is the poor infrastructure and resources in district courts. The district courts lack adequate courtrooms, furniture, computers, internet, electricity, etc. They also face a shortage of staff, such as stenographers, clerks, peons, etc. These factors affect the quality and speed of justice delivery. According to a report, there is a shortfall of 24.41% in the infrastructure. Adequate judicial infrastructure is a prerequisite for reducing delays in cases.
The district judiciary is also overburdened with cases and has a huge backlog of pending cases. According to the Ministry of Law and Justice, 4,09,85,490 cases were pending in District and Subordinate Courts as of 28th March 2022.
To ensure the smooth administration of justice, certain reforms are required to strengthen the functional independence of the district judiciary. The central and state governments should allocate adequate funds for improving the infrastructure and resources of the district judiciary. There should be provision for modern technology, such as video conferencing, e-filing, e-courts, etc., to enhance efficiency and transparency. The Supreme Court has taken a step in this direction by ordering High Courts to ensure the digitization of District Court records.
REFORMS CONCERNING APPOINTMENT
The Indian judicial system is currently grappling with a pressing challenge: ensuring the efficient and timely delivery of justice. A significant contributing factor to this issue is the shortage of judges in both district and subordinate courts. According to a Department of Justice report, between 2010 and 2020, the vacancy rate in district courts rose from 18% to 20%. Furthermore, the subordinate judiciary faces a staggering 21% vacancy, resulting in over 3.4 crore pending cases.
The persistent vacancies in the district and subordinate courts place an immense burden on the available judges, leading to an overwhelming increase in their workload.
The delays in declaring admit card results and appointment letters disrupt the timely selection and appointment of candidates. State public commissions responsible for conducting these examinations often lack the necessary expertise required for judicial exams. Consequently, candidates face uncertainty, and the absence of a specific body responsible for overseeing the examination process further exacerbates the issue.
Another significant hurdle is the relatively low number of candidates appearing for judicial exams. The recruitment process can take a grueling 12-14 months to complete, including the interview phase. This lengthy timeline not only wastes candidates’ prime years but also has a detrimental effect on their physical and mental well-being. As a result, the judiciary faces challenges in attracting a diverse pool of competent and motivated individuals.
Therefore, addressing the challenges faced by the subordinate judiciary necessitates a comprehensive approach. Firstly, streamlining the examination process is vital by ensuring transparency in conducting judicial exams. Establishing a specialized body responsible for overseeing the entire examination process would help address grievances and ensure a fair selection process.
Moreover, efforts should be made to raise awareness and attract more candidates to pursue careers in the judiciary. Additionally, it is vital to reassess the lengthy recruitment process, reducing its duration without compromising the integrity of the selection procedure.
THE BOTTOM LINE
It is a lamentable truth that the independence of the Indian judiciary is in a distressing state, a fact reinforced by the Rule of Law Index. Within this index, where judicial independence is a crucial sub-factor, India languishes below the global average with a disheartening score of 0.58. The efficacy of the Indian civil justice system is also questionable as the world’s largest democracy ranks 111 with a minuscule score of 0.43. This paints a vivid picture of the erosion of judicial independence and highlights the need for introspection and reform.
After being neglected for years, the district judiciary stands at a critical juncture demanding our immediate attention. It is imperative that we raise vexing but essential questions. We must probe the doctrine of separation of powers and its lackluster application to the district judiciary. We must seek clarity on matters of budgeting and financing within the district and subordinate courts, shedding light on the opaque processes that govern these vital institutions. It is our hope that the recent judgment will serve as a wake-up call, a jolt to the stagnant machinery of justice of which the district judiciary forms an indispensable cog.
The authors are second year students at National Law University, Jodhpur
Image Credits: Shutterstock
Constitutional Law Society 
Excellent one. Hats off to the young authors.
LikeLike