Towards a Transparent, Accountable Judiciary

Hindustan Times

1. Core Summary

The article argues that India’s judiciary—especially High Courts—must embrace greater transparency and accountability. It supports the Supreme Court’s recent direction requiring High Courts to:

• Disclose adjournments,
• Explain causes of delay, and
• Upload judgments without unreasonable time lag.

The author suggests that these steps are necessary because the judicial system is suffering from a severe backlog, infrastructural deficits, and procedural inefficiencies that harm ordinary litigants.

2. Key Arguments Presented

A. Backlog and Delay Reflect a Systemic Judicial Crisis

• Indian courts are plagued by staggering vacancy levels, mountains of pending cases, and inadequate physical/technological resources.
• Several High Courts have over 30% judicial vacancies, creating a vicious cycle of adjournments and delay.

B. Supreme Court’s intervention promotes accountability

• The SC’s insistence on publishing reserved judgments and disclosing reasons for adjournment is framed as a right of litigants.
• Delayed judgments harm the accused and victims alike; prolonged detention and uncertainty violate justice.

C. Judicial behaviour needs reform

• Excessive reliance on adjournments, absenteeism, and slow pace of writing judgments contribute to pendency.
• Courts must adopt procedural discipline; judicial “convenience” cannot supersede citizens’ rights.

D. Courtroom management is outdated

• Lack of video-conferencing, poor scheduling, ad-hoc practices, and inadequate staffing hinder efficiency.
• No comprehensive administrative reforms have taken root.

E. Transparency + Accountability = Judicial legitimacy

• Since judges operate without public scrutiny, they must build legitimacy through timeliness, accessibility, clarity, and discipline.

3. Author’s Stance

The author advocates strongly for:

• Judicial transparency (real-time decisions, quick uploads).
• Judicial accountability (monitoring adjournments, adherence to timelines).
• Systemic reforms (technology, staffing, case management).

She remains sympathetic to judges’ workloads but insists that the judiciary must embrace modern expectations of efficiency.

Stance: Reform-oriented, pro-transparency, citizen-centric.

4. Possible Biases or Limitations

A. Insufficient focus on structural constraints

• The article criticises judges but somewhat underplays that many courts lack:
• adequate staff
• infrastructure
• secure funding
• digital tools
• basic courtrooms

B. Neglects the Bar’s role

• Lawyer-induced delays (tactical adjournments, strikes, boycotts) are a significant contributor to pendency but not fully addressed.

C. Oversimplifies expectations

• Writing complex judgments in constitutional or criminal cases takes time; instant uploads may not be realistic in all cases.

5. Pros and Cons of the Argument

Pros

1. Upholds constitutional rights

• Delayed justice violates Article 21 (Right to Life/Speedy Trial).

2. Encourages public confidence

• Transparency improves legitimacy and reduces suspicion of arbitrariness.

3. Promotes efficiency

• Time-bound judgment delivery helps reduce pendency.

4. Aligns with global best practices

• Many advanced jurisdictions have fixed timelines and mandatory case management systems.

Cons

1. Risks oversimplifying judicial workload

• Heavy caseloads + complex matters mean timelines may be hard to meet.

2. Need for comprehensive judicial reforms

• Without more judges, technology, and staff, procedural fixes alone may not be enough.

3. No discussion of structural independence concerns

• Excessive oversight may blur lines between accountability and interference.

6. Policy Implications (UPSC GS Papers)

GS-2: Judiciary

• Relates to judicial reforms, independence, pendency, accountability mechanisms.
• SC directions on adjournments and judgments touch upon procedural discipline.

GS-2: Governance

• Highlights importance of transparency and institutional responsiveness.

GS-2: Polity — Separation of Powers

• Reflects how administrative inefficiency can weaken the judiciary as a pillar of democracy.

GS-2: Citizens’ Rights

• Speedy trial is an essential part of Article 21.

7. Real-World Impact

Positive Impact

• Faster judgments reduce suffering for undertrials and victims.
• Improves investor confidence through predictable judicial timelines.
• Enhances public trust in courts.

Negative Impact if Unaddressed

• Judicial sluggishness encourages:
• vigilantism
• extra-legal settlements
• reduced domestic and foreign investment
• erosion of constitutionalism

8. Balanced Summary

The article persuasively argues that India’s judiciary is in urgent need of transparency and procedural discipline. The Supreme Court’s directions to High Courts to disclose adjournments and ensure timely judgments are justified in a system plagued by massive backlogs and inefficiency.

While judicial independence must be preserved, accountability mechanisms are essential for restoring public trust. However, true reform requires deeper structural solutions—filling vacancies, modernising infrastructure, digitisation, better case management, and bar reforms.

The future of India’s justice delivery will depend on whether the judiciary embraces both independence and accountability as complementary values.

9. Future Perspectives

1. Fill 100% judicial vacancies on a priority basis.
2. Adopt AI-assisted case listing and scheduling.
3. Institutionalise timelines for reserved judgments (e.g., 90 days).
4. Nationwide rollout of video-conferencing and e-courts.
5. Case management systems inspired by UK/US models.
6. Performance audits for court administration (not judges).
7. Strengthen National Judicial Data Grid for real-time transparency.

Limit adjournments strictly except in extraordinary circumstances