JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
A concept under which the judges power is limited to strike down a law as the proponents of judicial restraint have mostly stated that the Supreme Court has taken the position of the Legislature through its activism. It has also been argued that the Supreme Court has obviously overstepped its bounds of the other parts of government. In Judicial restraint, Judges should look to the original intent of the writers of the Constitution.
Issues with the Indian legal system
One of the most crucial challenges with the Indian judicial system is the delay of cases. The major source of pendency is the increasing number of new cases and the slow rate at which they are resolved. Over 4.7 crore lawsuits are pending in courts at all levels of the judiciary as of May 2022. Nearly 1,82,000 cases have been outstanding for more than 30 years, with 87.4 per cent in subordinate courts and 12.4 per cent in High Courts. According to data from the Department of Justice’s National Judicial Data Grid database, courts recorded a 27 per cent increase in pendency between December 2019 and April 2022.
Presently, there is an inadequate number of judges available to resolve disputes. Statistics of the Department of Justice show that there are 400 vacancies with a working force of 708 as of June 2022 for the Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts which is not sufficient to clear the backlog of pending cases in India.
Reforms needed in the Indian legal system
With the country’s fast development, there is an urgent need to reform the judicial system as well. There is a legal maxim that says justice delayed is justice denied. It is the basis for the right to a quick trial and equality of treatment intended to improve the legal system because of the aggrieved party who experienced the injury hopes for fast and efficient redressal of the dispute. The legal issues are resolved too slowly either because the cases are too complex, the existing system is too complex, or due to the overburden of multiple cases.
Reforms should strive to improve the administrative functions of the judiciary in a robust manner. To increase judicial productivity, the Centre recommended measures such as an increase in the number of working days for courts, establishing fast-track courts, and establishing Indian Courts and Tribunal Services (ICTs).
The executive branch, local government, various economic improvements, and administrative reforms must all be considered as part of a well-coordinated and integrated ancillary reform initiative that ensures the judicial system’s improvement. Most significantly, judicial changes in the country will be impossible to accomplish without institutional balance, unity, and the state’s ability to execute regulatory, supervisory, economic, civil society, and public democratic control functions.
0 Comments