Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open soon. Sign up here to be notified when the dates are announced.
Yesterday, Parliament passed a Bill to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court from 30 to 33 (excluding the Chief Justice of India). The Bill was introduced in view of increasing pendency of cases in the Supreme Court. In 2012, the Supreme Court approved the Scheme of National Court Management System to provide a framework for case management. The scheme estimated that with an increase in literacy, per capita income, and population, the number of new cases filed each year may go up to 15 crore over the next three decades, which will require at least 75,000 judges. In this blog, we analyse the pendency of cases at all three levels of courts, i.e. the Supreme Court, the Highs Courts, and the subordinate courts, and discuss the capacity of these courts to dispose of cases.
Pendency in courts has increased over the years; 87% of all pending cases are in subordinate courts
Sources: Court News, 2006, Supreme Court of India; National Data Judicial Grid accessed on August 7, 2019; PRS.
Overall, the pendency of cases has increased significantly at every level of the judicial hierarchy in the last decade. Between 2006 and now, there has been an overall increase of 22% (64 lakh cases) in the pendency of cases across all courts. As of August 2019, there are over 3.5 crore cases pending across the Supreme Court, the High Courts, and the subordinate courts. Of these, subordinate courts account for over 87.3% pendency of cases, followed by 12.5% pendency before the 24 High Courts. The remaining 0.2% of cases are pending with the Supreme Court. The primary reason for growing pendency of cases is that the number of new cases filed every year has outpaced the number of disposed of cases. This has resulted in a growing backlog of cases.
In High Courts and subordinate courts, over 32 lakh cases pending for over 10 years
Sources: National Data Judicial Grid accessed on August 7, 2019; Court News, 2006-17, Supreme Court of India; PRS.
In the High Courts, over 8.3 lakh cases have been pending for over 10 years. This constitutes 19% of all pending High Court cases. Similarly, in the subordinate courts, over 24 lakh cases (8%) have been pending for over 10 years. Overall, Allahabad High Court had the highest pendency, with over seven lakh cases pending as of 2017.
Despite high pendency, some High Courts have managed to reduce their backlog. Between 2006 and 2017, pendency of cases reduced the most in Madras High Court at a rate of 26%, followed by Bombay High Court at 24%. Conversely, during the same period, the pendency of cases doubled in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and increased by 2.5 times in Karnataka High Court.
As a result of pendency, number of under-trials in prison is more than double that of convicts
Sources: Prison Statistics in India, 2015, National Crime Record Bureau; PRS.
Over the years, as a result of growing pendency of cases for long periods, the number of undertrials (accused awaiting trial) in prisons has increased. Prisons are running at an over-capacity of 114%. As of 2015, there were over four lakh prisoners in jails. Of these, two-thirds were undertrials (2.8 lakh) and the remaining one-third were convicts.
The highest proportion of undertrials (where the number of inmates was at least over 1,000) were in J&K (85%), followed by Bihar (82%). A total of 3,599 undertrials were detained in jails for more than five years. Uttar Pradesh had the highest number of such undertrials (1,364) followed by West Bengal (294).
One interesting factor to note is that more criminal cases are filed in subordinate courts than in High Courts and Supreme Court. Of the cases pending in the subordinate courts (which constitute 87% of all pending cases), 70% of cases were related to criminal matters. This increase in the pendency of cases for long periods over the years may have directly resulted in an increase in the number of undertrials in prisons. In a statement last year, the Chief Justice of India commented that the accused in criminal cases are getting heard after serving out their sentence.
Vacancies in High Courts and Subordinate Courts affect the disposal of cases
Sources: Court News, 2006-17, Supreme Court of India; PRS.
Vacancy of judges across courts in India has affected the functioning of the judiciary, particularly in relation to the disposal of cases. Between 2006 and 2017, the number of vacancies in the High Courts has increased from 16% to 37%, and in the subordinate courts from 19% to 25%. As of 2017, High Courts have 403 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 1,079 judges, and subordinate courts have 5,676 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 22,704 judges. As of 2017, among the major High Courts (with sanctioned strength over 10 judges), the highest proportion of vacancies was in Karnataka High Court at 60% (37 vacancies), followed by Calcutta High Court at 54% (39 vacancies). Similarly, in major subordinate courts (with sanctioned strength over 100 judges), the highest proportion of vacancies was in Bihar High Court at 46% (835 vacancies), followed by Uttar Pradesh High Court at 42% (1,348 vacancies).
The core group of secretaries on disinvestment has recently approved the disinvestment of five public sector undertakings (PSUs). This includes the entire shareholding of the government in four PSUs: Bharat Petroleum Corporation (BPCL), Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO) and THDC (operates and maintains the Tehri Hydro Power Complex), and 30% of the shareholding in Container Corporation of India Limited (Concor). The government currently holds 54.8% of Concor, so the sale will reduce its stake below 25%.
Over the last few years, the government has removed legislative barriers towards privatisation of several other PSUs. This raises the question whether the government plans to privatise them.
What was the Supreme Court’s order on privatisation of PSUs?
In 2003, a similar proposal had been raised by the government for the sale of its shareholding in HPCL and BPCL. This proposal was challenged in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it would violate the provisions of the laws that transferred ownership of certain assets to the government (which later formed these PSUs). For example, BPCL was formed by nationalising Burmah Shell in India through an Act of Parliament, and merging their refinery and marketing companies. The Court ruled that the central government cannot proceed with the privatisation of HPCL and BPCL (i.e., reduce its direct or indirect ownership below 51%) without amending the concerned laws. So the government continues to hold majority stake directly in BPCL, and indirectly in HPCL ( through ONGC, another PSU).
The five Companies approved for privatisation include BPCL and SCI (into which two nationalised companies, the Jayanti Shipping Company, and the Mogul Line Limited were merged). The relevant nationalisation Acts have been repealed over the last five years.
How did the government remove the legislative barriers for privatisation?
Between 2014 and 2019, Parliament passed six Repealing and Amending Acts which repealed around 722 laws. These included laws that had transferred the ownership of companies to the central government which later formed BPCL, HPCL, and OIL. These also repealed the laws that had transferred ownership of the companies to the central government which were later merged with the SCI. This implies that now the government can go ahead with the privatisation of these government companies as the conditions imposed by the Supreme Court’s order have been fulfilled. These Repealing and Amending Acts also repealed several other nationalisation laws that were later formed into PSUs. In the Table below, we have listed some of these companies. Note that the Law Commission of India (2014) had suggested the repeal of several of these laws (including the Esso Act, the Burmah Shell Act, the Burn Company Act) on the grounds that these laws do not serve any purpose with respect to the nationalised entity. However, it had suggested that a study of all the nationalisation Acts should be done before repealing these Acts, and if necessary a savings clause should be provided in the repealing Act.
Did Parliament scrutinise these Acts before passing them?
Many of these repeals were made through the Repealing and Amending Act, 2016. These include the Acts relating to BPCL, HPCL, OIL, Coal India Limited, SCI, National Textiles Corporation, Hindustan Copper and Burn Standard Company Limited. The Bill was not referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee, and was passed after a cursory debate (50 minutes in Lok Sabha and 20 minutes in Rajya Sabha). Similarly, the two Acts passed in 2017, that enable privatisation of SAIL, PowerGrid, and State Trading Corporation were not examined by a Standing Committee.
So what comes next?
The repeal of these Acts have cleared the legislative hurdle for privatisation of these companies. That is, the government does not need prior approval of Parliament to sell its shareholding. Therefore, it is now up to the government to decide whether it wishes to privatise these entities.
A version of this article was published by the Business Standard on October 20, 2019.
Table 1: Some Nationalisation Acts repealed since 2014 (list not exhaustive)
Company |
Act being repealed |
Repealing Act |
---|---|---|
Shipping Corporation Of India (SCI) |
The Jayanti Shipping Company (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1971 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
The Mogul Line Limited (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1984 |
||
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) |
The Burmah Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) |
The Esso (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
The Caltex [Acquisition of Shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Limited] Act, 1977 |
||
The Kosangas Company (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1979 |
||
Coal India Limited (CIL) |
The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
The Coal Mines (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1973 |
||
The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
|
The Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. |
||
Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) |
The Bolani Ores Limited (Acquisition of Shares) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1978 |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Indian Iron and Steel Company (Acquisition of Shares) Act, 1976 |
||
Power Grid Corporation of India Limited |
The National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited and the North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission Systems) Act, 1993. |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission System) Act, 1994. |
||
Oil India Limited (OIL) |
The Burmah Oil Company [Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the Undertakings in India of Assam Oil Company Limited and the Burmah Oil Company (India Trading) Limited] Act, 1981 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. (STC) |
The Tea Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Sick Tea Units) Act, 1985 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2017 |
National Textile Corporation Limited (NTC) |
The Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1972 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
The Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 |
||
The Laxmirattan and Atherton West Cotton Mills (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1976 |
||
Hindustan Copper Limited |
The Indian Copper Corporation (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1972 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
Burn Standard Co Ltd |
The Burn Company and Indian Standard Wagon Company (Nationalisation) Act, 1976 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
Indian Railways |
The Futwah-Islampur Light Railway Line (Nationalisation) Act, 1985 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2016 |
Braithwaite & Co Limited, Ministry of Railways |
The Braithwaite and Company (India) Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1976. |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Gresham and Craven of India (Private) Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1977 |
||
Andrew Yule & Co. Ltd. |
The Brentford Electric (India) Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1987 |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Transformers and Switchgear Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1983 |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2019 |
|
Alcock Ashdown (Guj) Limited, Government of Gujarat Undertaking |
The Alcock Ashdown Company Limited (Acquisition of Undertakings) Act, 1973. |
Repealing and Amending Act, 2019 |
Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (BCPL) |
The Bengal Chemical and Pharmaceutical Works Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980 |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
Organisations under Department of Pharmaceuticals |
The Smith, Stainstreet and Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1977 |
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017 |
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1984. |
Sources: Repealing and Amending Act, 2015; Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2015; Repealing and Amending Act, 2016; Repealing and Amending Act, 2017; Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2017; Repealing and Amending Act, 2019.