The Supreme Court and the High Courts often become the subject matter of books on the judiciary, as they deal with overarching constitutional questions, while the lower judiciary—commonly known as district courts in India—receives little attention in legal analysis and writings. Although the narratives around the higher judiciary are important, as many landmark cases decided at this level not only shape the legal contours of the judicial system but also chart the social, political, and economic course of the country, the role of the lower judiciary should not be overlooked.
When it comes to justice, the process begins at the lower court, which is the first resort for victims of injustice seeking redress. Therefore, it is imperative to analyse and understand the challenges that the judicial system faces at this level.
Prashant Reddy T. and Chitrakshi Jain’s Tareekh Pe Justice: Reforms for India’s District Courts is a serious attempt in this direction. In the very first few pages of the book, the authors clearly highlight the sense of hopelessness prevalent among common people due to the long delays in obtaining justice, caused by the infamous “tareekh pe tareekh” culture. What is shocking is the fact that the Indian government, as early as 1986, acknowledged that the judiciary was marred by serious issues of delay, pendency, and lack of manpower and infrastructure.
It was during the Bhopal gas tragedy case that the Indian government “brazenly denounced the Indian judiciary before an American court”.
The authors write: At the time, in an attempt to get the case thrown out of the American legal system, UCC invoked the doctrine of forum non conveniens. UCC’s simple argument was that it would be more convenient for an Indian court to hear the case, since the tragedy had occurred in India and all the evidence and witnesses were located there. In rebuttal, the Government of India made the stunning argument that the Indian judiciary, burdened by its colonial legacy, was not up to the task of delivering justice in a complicated case like the Bhopal gas tragedy.
Debates around judicial delays usually centre on the “resource crunch”—a lack of judges and inadequate infrastructure. As the authors point out, this book goes beyond the conventional “resource crunch” argument and explores what they rightly term the “rarely discussed” issue of how states and High Courts appoint, transfer, evaluate, discipline, and remove judges of the district judiciary—factors that substantially affect justice delivery.
The authors argue that “these practices date back to colonial times, when the district judiciary was modelled on the lines of the civil bureaucracy. Our working hypothesis is that the district judiciary basically lacks the ‘decisional independence’ to deliver fearless and decisive justice. This is because they are constantly worrying about reprisals in the form of disciplinary inquiries by High Courts. Add to this fear, bizarre transfer policies and a rickety performance assessment system, and it quickly becomes clear that the system incentivises judges to avoid hearing risky and complex cases. In our opinion, these are the issues at the core of the astonishing judicial delays at the level of the district judiciary.”
The authors highlight some disturbing facts, such as how, in many instances, judges of the district judiciary have been subject to disciplinary inquiries despite no allegation of misconduct, such as corruption.
They point out that these inquiries have been instituted against individual judges on grounds such as being too liberal in granting bail, too lenient in sentencing the guilty, acquitting persons accused of serious crimes, being generous in awarding compensation in land acquisition cases, and granting temporary injunctions against the government without prior notice.
They write, “These inquiries were initiated solely because someone within a High Court, quite often a judge or a registrar, was of the opinion that a particular judgment was flawed.”
As district court judges do not enjoy the same protection as judges of the higher judiciary, they are often subjected to unreasonable and harsh scrutiny, creating what the authors call “fearful judges”—a factor that seriously impacts justice delivery.
The book also delves into the important aspect of elevation within the district judiciary, where the High Court plays a critical role. In many cases, to ensure a favourable ACR (Annual Confidential Report) and to stay in the good books of High Court judges, district court judges become trapped in a “numbers game” that hampers the cause and course of justice.
The book makes a significant argument for fixing the “accountability of the Supreme Court and High Courts for their acts of omission, opacity, and activism that have contributed in substantial part to the poor administration of the district judiciary.”
The authors write: From discontinuing the publication of judicial statistics to adopting faulty methodologies for calculating the adequate number of judges, to operating in extreme opacity and negotiating budgetary demands with governments under the threat of contempt notices, the higher judiciary has contributed significantly to the woeful state of the district judiciary.
Apart from this, the book also discusses much-needed structural reforms in the judiciary to make it more “efficient, powerful, and accessible”. It also argues for the need for a union judiciary, in addition to the state judiciary, as is the case in the United States. In this context, the authors state, “After all, the Indian Constitution expressly allows for such a scheme, and there are considerable advantages to imitating the American system. Inherent in this discussion is the question of improving access to justice by devolving key judicial powers from the High Courts to the district judiciary. It is important to discuss these issues because the present structure of the Indian judiciary was devised by the British more than 170 years ago and has remained unchanged since.”
Most studies focusing on the challenges faced by the lower judiciary are in the form of research papers and reports. This is perhaps the first attempt to consolidate all aspects of the lower judiciary—the challenges it faces, the reforms it needs, and the way forward—in a single volume. The book has the potential not only to start important debates around the justice delivery system but also to serve as a valuable resource for researchers, who can pick one of the many strands and themes discussed in the book and carry the debate and research forward.
