The Need for More High Courts in Larger States: A Case for Justice Accessibility
By Dr Sunil S Rana
(Managing Director, The Lexà, a Law Firm.)
India, with its vast population and complex legal system, has long struggled with the issue of access to timely and affordable justice. While significant strides have been made in education and healthcare infrastructure, such as the establishment of multiple All India Institutes of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the judiciary, a critical pillar of democracy, still faces severe infrastructural deficits. The proposal to establish more High Courts, especially in larger states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, is not just a matter of convenience but a necessity for ensuring justice for all.
The Appalling State of Litigants Due to Limited High Courts
The existing judicial system, with its limited number of High Courts in larger states, places a significant burden on litigants, particularly those from economically weaker sections. Many individuals who approach our law firm, The Lexà, share heartbreaking stories of the extreme measures they take to save on travel expenses; walking or cycling long distances to attend legal proceedings.
However, the challenges amplify when they must travel from cities like Delhi or Ghaziabad to Allahabad for their cases. The logistical and financial hurdles are staggering:
- Travel and Accommodation Costs: Litigants often need to arrive a day before the scheduled hearing to ensure they reach the court on time. This necessitates expenses for transportation, lodging, and meals, which are unaffordable for many.
- Additional Legal Representation: Engaging a local lawyer in the High Court's vicinity becomes inevitable as their current advocate may charge substantial fees for travel and stay, further escalating costs.
This double burden drains their financial resources and leaves them mentally and emotionally devastated. Justice, which should be accessible and equitable, becomes a distant dream for those who cannot afford these exorbitant expenses.
Current High Court Distribution: A Stark Disparity
As of now, India has 25 High Courts catering to 28 states and 8 Union Territories. This distribution often fails to account for the vastness of some states, both in terms of population and geography. For instance, Uttar Pradesh, with a population exceeding 200 million, has just one High Court in Allahabad with a bench in Lucknow. Rajasthan, the largest state geographically, has its High Court in Jodhpur and a bench in Jaipur. Madhya Pradesh, a state of considerable size, has its High Court in Jabalpur with benches in Indore and Gwalior. These setups are grossly insufficient to handle the burgeoning number of cases and ensure justice accessibility for all.
Burdened High Courts and Aggrieved Litigants
The Indian judiciary, especially the High Courts, is overburdened with an alarming number of pending cases. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, over 59 lakh cases are pending in High Courts across the country. States with high populations, like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, witness an overwhelming influx of cases, exacerbating delays and adjournments. Litigants often suffer due to:
1. Monetary Losses: Traveling long distances to reach the High Court is a financial burden for many, especially for economically weaker sections. A litigant from Gorakhpur in eastern Uttar Pradesh, for example, must travel over 700 kilometers to reach Allahabad, incurring travel, accommodation, and food expenses.
2. Time Consumption: Legal proceedings in High Courts are time-intensive. Litigants may need to stay in the city where the High Court is located for multiple days, further increasing their expenses and affecting their livelihoods.
3. Adjournments: Frequent adjournments due to the inability of overburdened judges to hear cases on time further demoralize litigants. Delayed justice often translates into denied justice.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Judicial Infrastructure
The Supreme Court has repeatedly highlighted the need for better judicial infrastructure. In the All India Judges Association v. Union of India case (2002), the Supreme Court emphasized that judicial infrastructure and the number of judges must be proportionate to the population and caseload. Similarly, in Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012), the apex court observed that states must ensure the establishment of adequate judicial infrastructure to tackle the pendency of cases.
The former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, in various speeches, had stressed the importance of decentralizing judicial systems to bring justice closer to the people. The Supreme Court has also lamented the lack of adequate funding for the judiciary and the slow pace of infrastructural development.
Learning from AIIMS and IITs: A Replicable Model
The Indian government’s initiatives to expand the network of AIIMS and IITs offer a replicable model for the judiciary. Initially, AIIMS was limited to one institution in Delhi. Recognizing the need for more institutions to cater to the growing population, the government established additional AIIMS across the country. Similarly, IITs, once restricted to a few cities, have been established in almost every major state. These expansions have:
1. Reduced Regional Disparities: Students and patients no longer have to travel to far-off cities for education or healthcare.
2. Improved Access: By bringing institutions closer to the people, these initiatives have enhanced accessibility for underprivileged sections.
This model can be applied to the judiciary by establishing more High Courts or at least additional benches in underserved regions.
Benefits of More High Courts
1. Reduced Caseloads: Additional High Courts or benches will distribute the caseload more evenly, reducing pendency. For example, creating High Courts in western and eastern Uttar Pradesh can alleviate the pressure on the Allahabad High Court.
2. Accessibility: Proximity to justice will ensure that litigants do not face undue hardships in traveling and staying in unfamiliar cities.
3. Economic Relief: Reducing travel and accommodation expenses will make justice affordable for economically weaker sections.
4. Quicker Resolutions: With reduced caseloads, judges can dedicate more time to each case, ensuring quicker resolutions and fewer adjournments.
Examples of Successful Decentralization
1. Karnataka High Court: The Karnataka High Court, with benches in Dharwad and Kalaburagi, has effectively addressed the needs of litigants in northern Karnataka.
2. Madhya Pradesh High Court: The establishment of benches in Indore and Gwalior has reduced the burden on the principal seat in Jabalpur and improved access to justice.
3. Maharashtra High Court: With benches in Nagpur, Aurangabad, and Goa, the Bombay High Court has successfully managed its extensive jurisdiction.
Challenges in Establishing More High Courts
While the idea of more High Courts is appealing, it comes with its set of challenges:
1. Infrastructure Development: Setting up a High Court requires substantial investment in infrastructure, including courtrooms, libraries, and residential facilities for judges.
2. Human Resources: Recruiting and training judges, court staff, and administrative personnel is a time-consuming process.
3. Legislative Approval: Establishing a new High Court requires an amendment to the Constitution under Article 214, which involves legislative and bureaucratic hurdles.
Recommendations for Implementation
1. Immediate Creation of Additional Benches: Until new High Courts are established, states should focus on creating additional benches in strategic locations.
2. Digitization of Judiciary: Expanding e-courts and online filing systems can reduce the need for physical travel to High Courts, thereby improving accessibility.
3. Increased Budgetary Allocation: The judiciary’s budget must be increased to fund infrastructural development and technological upgrades.
4. Awareness Campaigns: Educating the public about legal rights and processes can empower citizens to seek justice more effectively.
5. Stakeholder Involvement: Engaging with legal professionals, civil society, and policymakers can help identify the best locations for new High Courts and address logistical challenges.
Conclusion
The establishment of more High Courts in larger states is an urgent need to ensure that justice is accessible, affordable, and timely. Drawing inspiration from the expansion of AIIMS and IITs, India can create a judicial infrastructure that caters to its vast and diverse population. As the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized, the judiciary is the guardian of rights and the interpreter of the Constitution. It is imperative to empower this institution with the necessary resources and infrastructure to fulfill its mandate effectively.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and without proactive measures to decentralize the judiciary, the gap between the ideal and the real will only widen. Establishing more High Courts is not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative in the pursuit of a just and equitable society.
Comments
Post a Comment