The liberalization of the Indian economy has profound implications for the legal system. The efficient judicial enforcement of contractual obligations as well as property rights is a pre-condition for generating confidence among domestic as well as foreign entrepreneurs and investors1. In this regard, the Indian judiciary – especially at the subordinate level, has been the target of persistent criticism for mounting arrears as well as inefficiency in disposing of litigation involving business interests.Following are the areas of focus where the judicial reforms should be done.Ø      the methods for selection and appointment of judges at different levels,Ø      the urgent need for improvements in the physical infrastructure available to the judiciary, the state of legal education as well as Continuing Legal Education (CLE) in India; and Ø      the continuing debate about judicial accountability.            Each of these issues has been intensely debated.  Recently specific initiatives were taken in order to improve judicial efficiency through better ‘case-management’ techniques. Without doubt, a perpetual hurdle faced by our judicial system is that of mounting arrears. Numerous empirical studies have indicated a time lag between the stages of filing and disposal of cases by courts all over the country. It must be borne in mind that the actual rate of disposal of cases per judge has been consistently improving in recent years, but the rate of institution of proceedings has been growing at an even faster pace. It is this growing gap between the rate of disposal and the rate of institution that is a cause for worry. It is in response to these problems, that it is important to implement effective strategies for proper case management. Importance of the use of information technology (IT) in case management:             ‘Case management’ pertains to the objective of speeding up the litigation process by way of innovation and adaptation. The role of the judge is therefore no longer confined to merely deciding the case, but also requires him/her to play an active part in the manner of its resolution.

***Research Scholar, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar College of Law, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam. Email ID: srisudha.k@rediffmail.com

            The concept of applying managerial principles to improve the efficiency of the judicial process is not a recent phenomenon. Faced with the problems of arrears, numerous judicial systems have reformed to adopt more effective case management strategies. Starting with the United States2 in the last half of the century and the 1996 Woolf Committee3 recommendations in the United Kingdom3, the measures evolved include emphasis on pre-trial procedures, time-bound hearings, the demarcation between fast and multi-track courts as well as a host of other mechanisms4. The previously documented principles and procedures followed in the aforementioned countries cannot be picked verbatim and applied in the Indian scenario; these must be adapted and calibrated to suit the ground realities of our country.              In order to do effective case management planning should be done at a national level. It is important in this context to set targets with regard to disposal rates. It has been proposed that the target for the disposal level at the national level should be raised from 60% of the total case-load (at present) to 95% of the total case-load in five years. This will require co-operative efforts at all levels of the judiciary, so that this target is pursued at the district and state levels as well. Furthermore, Courts should ensure that not more than 5% of the cases pending before them should be more than 5 years old (5x5 rule) within the next three years. The subsequent objective should be to ensure that in 5 years not more than 1% of the cases should be more than 1 years old (1x1 rule).             However, setting targets is only the first step. Priority should be given to creating timetables for every contested case and monitoring its progression by means of a computerized Signaling System. The National Judicial Academy (Bhopal)5 has developed and piloted a model for the same. Another measure proposed is that case numbers should indicate “litigation start dates” prominently in addition to filing dates. Recent studies have pointed to four key bottlenecks that cause delays in civil and criminal proceedings, namely:Ø      Service of process; Ø      Adjournments; Ø      Interlocutory Orders; andØ      Appearance of witnesses and accused.             The progression of a case through these problematic stages should be monitored through a computerized system and special cells can be created at the High Court and District Court levels to resolve issues in coordination with law-enforcement and other governmental authorities.             Better ‘Case management’ also involves the use of strategies to keep matters out of courts. Apart from the expansion and modernization of the judiciary in our country, it is important to promote the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods. In recent years, some legislative changes have already pointed in this direction. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 replaced an earlier legislation dealing with arbitration, with the clear intent of promoting the use of ad hoc as well as institutional arbitration mechanisms6. While private businesses have been increasingly relying on domestic as well as international commercial arbitration in the course of their dealings, the use of methods such as conciliation and mediation for resolving other categories of civil disputes still needs governmental support7. A crucial legislative intervention in this regard was the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) 8 which recognized Court-annexed ADR methods in India. Section 89 of the CPC mandates that judges can direct parties in civil proceedings to resort to methods such as arbitration, conciliation, mediation and negotiation under circumstances where it is perceived that the dispute can be resolved in a cooperative and non-adversarial manner. This provision is important since a significant portion of pending litigation at the trial level such as rent disputes, property disputes and those pertaining to family matters are best resolved through these methods. Civil litigation has an inherently adversarial character and is widely perceived in society as a tool of confrontation and unnecessary harassment. Especially in instances where parties are otherwise well-known to each other, their involvement in lengthy and acrimonious civil suits can do irreparable damage to their mutual relationships. Under such conditions, judges can use their discretion to direct the use of ADR methods under their supervision. If this approach is internalized in our system, it can greatly reduce the case-load before the Courts of Law. A related development in respect of criminal proceedings is the provision for ‘plea-bargaining’ which was inserted by way of an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 2005. This provision allows persons accused of certain offences to avoid the stigmatization associated with lengthy criminal trial proceedings. In respect of minor offences, it gives the parties a chance to avoid adversarial litigation altogether.             The understanding of ‘case management’ does not stop here. The increasing pressure on the docket of the court will require us to make more fundamental and innovative changes to our judicial processes9. The continuously evolving nature of the judge and the judicial system in respect of improving ‘case management’ techniques raise some important issues which need due consideration.             The modern approach to case management envisions the emergence of a pro-active judge, whose function is to set out the issues involved, limit the time taken for each step of the litigation in order to ensure a speedy procedure as well as to decide the outcome. This change in the function of the judge would seem to imply a basic shift in our judicial system, away from adversarial litigation and towards a slightly more pro-active approach that borders on the inquisitorial style. A possible concern is that the adversarial nature of litigation will be undermined given the new role of the judge. The traditional notion of litigation in common law has been structured around the agency of the parties. Hence, there are questions about the extent and limits of the control that the judge should exercise over the procedural aspects in the courtroom. In addressing such concerns we must keep in mind that the objective is not to divest the parties of their agency but simply to permit them to handle their legal proceedings in a controlled environment10. Under the supervision of the court the core issues relating to the case can be identified and addressed with greater speed, while frivolous aspects can be ignored. Pro-active judicial involvement in case-management thus serves to improve the effectiveness of the adversarial process rather than to supplant it.             It is also of great importance to ensure that the justice that we are trying to secure is “just and ready” as opposed to “rough and ready”11. Though expediting judicial proceedings is of great importance, there must be mechanisms in place to ensure that this does not compromise the rights of the parties involved. Especially in the field of criminal law, the rights of the accused cannot be undermined, and any mechanisms adopted to expedite management of the cases must conform to standards that secure for the accused the right to a fair trial. Ultimately, both parties benefit from an expeditious trial so long as it is ensured that no great detriment is caused to either party.             All of what we have accomplished, and a large part of what we hope to achieve can only been made possible by the use of information technology. Computerized signaling system is very much useful for monitoring the progression of pending cases, the computerized tracking of ‘bottleneck’ areas and the promotion of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods as well as ‘plea-bargaining’. The Judgment Information System (JUDIS) has made the decisions of the Supreme Court of India, all the High Courts as well as some District Courts freely available online. Plans are afoot to ensure that within a few years, the decisions of all courts and tribunals in the country will be made freely accessible             The use of information technology (IT) in our justice-system crossed an important threshold with the introduction of the electronic-filing of cases before the Supreme Court of India. Similar e-filing systems are being planned for the various High Courts in the near future and eventually in the District Courts as well. In this regard, a clear roadmap has been prepared in the form of the ‘National Policy and Action Plan for Implementation of Information and Communication Technology in the Indian Judiciary.’ The efficiency of judicial functions is also being enhanced with the use of information technology (IT) for case management. Until a few years ago, the allocation of matters before different judges and the preparation of cause-lists was a time-consuming process. However, computerization in the higher judiciary since 1990 has led to tremendous improvements. The detailed particulars of the cases are entered into the computer which permit grouping and tagging of cases with similar subject-matter. They are categorized and classified, so that similar matters are heard by the same benches in order to avoid conflicting and overlapping decisions. The progressive introduction of these measures in the Supreme Court has helped in increasing the disposal rate by avoiding undue repetition of similar cases.             The National Judicial Academy (Bhopal) is presently studying advanced methods strategies for case-management that can be implemented in the Indian setting. These methods will be far more sophisticated and factor in parameters such as the duration of the pendency of a case in order to accord priority as well as background information on the expertise and past decisions of a judge. With the ever-increasing rate of institution of proceedings, judges can benefit immensely from these advanced case-management techniques.             Implementation of information technology (IT) solutions should be done right from the Supreme Court to the subordinate courts at the district level. Information technology will enable judges to assume far greater responsibility in tracking and managing cases. A national level tracking mechanism can therefore enable the monitoring of the progress of cases, the scheduling of judges' workloads and the listing of cases among other parameters. The progress of a case right from the stage of first instance to its conclusion can be recorded and information about costs and delays can be made available. Indeed the availability of this information increases the accountability of the judiciary and would thereby increase its efficiency12. It is also perceived that the wide circulation of such statistics will increase the public scrutiny of the performance of individual judges.              This kind of planning and management of cases is not a ‘magic potion’, through this we can identify and cure the maladies in the judicial system. Further this system is useful for improving judicial infrastructure, and it also the increases the strength of judiciary by promoting alternative dispute resolution. Conclusion:            Case management and planning is therefore vital to the functioning of a modern judiciary. Its implementation will however at some stage require serious reflection on the changes required in our system. Technology thus opens up myriad possibilities to improving case flow, co-ordination between courts, maintaining statistics and is an important component of the roadmap for reforms in the administration of justice in India.  In this method Judgments are authenticated by digital signatures available online. The writer of this article is confident and optimistic that if implemented appropriately it will go a long way in addressing the problems of arrears and delay.    End Notes:1.      See generally: Judith Resnik, ‘Managerial Judges’, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 96(2), (December 1982) at p. 374-448; For a discussion in the Indian setting, Refer: Justice Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, The ‘Business’ Of Court Management, Government Law College Law Review  2.      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1938, Rule 1 sets out the goal of the Judicial System “To secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action” 3.      Lord Harry Woolf, Access to Justice - Final Report (Department of Constitutional Affairs: United Kingdom, July 1996) 4.      Cited from: Lord Harry Woolf, Access to Justice-Final Report (Department of Constitutional Affairs: United Kingdom, July 1996), at Section II, (Introduction) Para. 2 of the case. Indeed the underlying message is, to quote Lord Woolf, “that ultimate responsibility for the control of litigation must move from the litigants and their legal advisers to the court”.5.      This policy was drafted by an E-Committee headed by Justice G.C. Bharuka (Retd.), which also consisted of three specialist members. The E-Committee submitted a report to the then Chief Justice of India on 11.5.2005, which after the requisite consultations was developed into the policy that was approved on 4.8.2005. 6.      T. K. Viswanathan, Tackling judicial arrears, The Hindu (Friday, April 19, 2002) Assessed from the web site: www.hinduonnet.com/2002/04/19/stories, Last visited 12th March 2009 7.      V.Venkatesan, “The law and delays”, Frontline, Vol.19-issue05, Mar.2-15, 2002, Assessed online at www.frontlineonnet.com, Last visited 12th Feb 20098.      For details see amendment to C.P.C. 2002, also see Section 89 of C.P.C.9.      T.K.Vishwanathan, “Tackling Judicial Arrears”, the Hindu, Apl 19,2002, Assessed online at www.hinduonnet.com/2002/04/19/stories Last visited 12th Feb 200910.  N. Vittal, “Delays in Indian Judicial System and Remedies”, Assessed from the web site: www.cvc.nic.in/vscvc/cvcspeeches/march2k6.html, Last visited 10th March 200911.  Chairman, Justice V.S. Malimath, Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Report, Vol. 1, 200312.  A.G.Noorani on “Above the Law”, Front Line, Volume 25, Issue.22, Oct25, Accessed from the Web Site: http://www.flonnet.com/fl2522/stories/20081107252208100.htm, Last visited 13th Feb2009   ******

All form fields are required.

Name Write a Review