The gruelling course of litigation in India

• President Droupadi Murmu raised concerns about the growing issue of court delays in India. Speaking at the National Conference of the District Judiciary, she coined the term ‘black coat syndrome’ — a symbolic representation of the public’s hesitation to engage with the judicial system due to the long and arduous litigation process.
• Her analogy likened it to white coat hypertension, where patients experience elevated blood pressure in clinical settings, reflecting the anxiety that the legal process evokes in litigants.
• This symbolic term underscores a real issue: delays, endless adjournments, and the rising cost of litigation are making people wary of seeking justice.

The Role of Court Scheduling and Case Management:

• Court scheduling and case management are central to the backlog and delays plaguing the Indian judiciary. The lack of effective timelines for filing documents, hearing witnesses, and resolving disputes often leads to cases dragging on for years.
• While mechanisms like Case Flow Management Rules were introduced in district and High Courts to streamline processes and set predictable timelines, their implementation has been inconsistent and has yielded limited results.

Challenges at the District Judiciary Level:

• At the district judiciary level, the situation is compounded by several systemic and behavioral challenges:
• Systemic Pressures on Judges: Judges are under immense pressure to meet case disposal targets set by higher courts. These targets often force district judges to prioritize certain cases at the expense of others.
• Inconsistent Enforcement of Deadlines: Despite the existence of statutory deadlines for case disposal, judges frequently extend these deadlines due to external pressures. This is often influenced by the fact that higher courts tend to condone such delays if appealed.
• The Units System: The performance of district judges is evaluated through a “units system” where they accumulate points based on the number and type of cases they dispose of. This system incentivizes judges to focus on simpler cases that can be resolved quickly, potentially sidelining more complex cases that require judicial intervention.

The Role of Lawyers and Litigants:

• Lawyers and litigants also play a significant role in court scheduling delays:
• Strategic Behavior by Lawyers: Lawyers often handle multiple cases across different courts on the same day. They strategically choose which cases to attend based on various factors like the likelihood of adjournment, the judge’s disposition, or the importance of the case. This leads to frequent adjournments, further exacerbating delays.
• Lack of Predictability: Lawyers often lack clear information about when a case will be heard, leading to scheduling conflicts. Additionally, the possibility of easy adjournments discourages lawyers from adhering to strict schedules, contributing to court congestion.
• Stay Orders as Delay Tactics: Litigants often view obtaining a stay order in civil cases as a victory, as it temporarily halts any adverse action. Once a stay is secured, there is little incentive to push for a quick resolution, further contributing to delays.
• Challenges Faced by Witnesses: Witnesses are crucial to the judicial process, but their participation is often hampered by unpredictable court schedules. Frequent adjournments force witnesses to repeatedly alter their personal schedules, travel arrangements, and work responsibilities, discouraging their cooperation and contributing to delays.

The Need for Holistic Reform:

• Addressing the issue of court delays requires a holistic approach that goes beyond mere rule-setting. Reforms should focus on the incentives and behavioral motivations of all actors in the system — judges, lawyers, litigants, and witnesses:
• Reforming the Units System: The units system for judges needs reform. Rather than focusing on the quantity of cases disposed of, judges should be incentivized to manage and resolve complex cases within prescribed timelines.
• Better Scheduling for Lawyers: Providing lawyers with more predictable and transparent scheduling information can reduce the likelihood of adjournments. Courts should implement systems that penalize delays and reward adherence to schedules.
• Discouraging Stay Orders as Tactics: Stay orders and interim reliefs should not be used as delay tactics. Introducing temporary stays, subject to regular review, could discourage litigants from using them to stall proceedings.
• Incentivizing Witness Participation: Witnesses should be given more predictable schedules and adequate compensation for their time and effort, beyond just covering travel expenses.
• Leveraging Technology for Case Management: Technological solutions can significantly improve case management. Courts can adopt data-driven systems that provide real-time updates, monitor case timelines, and identify scheduling bottlenecks. These tools could enhance judicial efficiency and transparency, ensuring cases move forward more predictably.

Conclusion

• India's judicial system is in dire need of reforms that address the root causes of court delays. By adopting a holistic approach that takes into account the human and systemic aspects of the judiciary, India can move towards a more efficient, fair, and accessible legal system.