Jump to content
karira

Nearly 30 million cases pending in courts

Recommended Posts

karira

Nearly 30 million cases pending in courts

 

Over three million cases are pending in India's 21 high courts, and an astounding 26.3 million cases are pending in subordinate courts across the country.

 

At the same time, there are almost a quarter million under-trials languishing in jails across the country. Of these, some 2,069 have been in jail for more than five years, even as their guilt or innocence is yet to be ascertained.

 

This has been revealed by official figures emerging from the home ministry's department of justice, under a Right to Information Act application placed by a citizen.

 

It has also been found that over a quarter of all pending high court cases are at Allahabad.

 

The Allahabad High Court had some 1.09 million pending cases, with over eight out of every 10 cases being civil cases at the end of 2006. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of India had a total of 39,780 civil and criminal pending cases at the end of last year.

 

Madras High Court (406,958 pending cases) and Bombay High Court (362,949) were the others with a large number of pending cases. Sikkim is the lowest with just 51 pending cases.

 

Of the pending cases in high courts, 704,214 were criminal and 3.2 million were civil cases.

 

In subordinate courts, Uttar Pradesh again topped the number of pending cases (4.6 million), followed by Maharashtra (4.1 million), Gujarat (3.9 million), West Bengal (1.9 million), Bihar (1.2 million), Karnataka (1.06 million), Rajasthan (1.05 million), Orissa (1 million), Andhra Pradesh (900,000).

 

In another query, the National Crime Records Bureau that functions under the home ministry told Hari Kumar P. of Kasargod in a Right to Information Act reply that the number of under-trials in India was highest in Maharashtra (15,784) and Madhya Pradesh (15,777).

 

Bihar (with 628 prisoners) topped the number of states with the maximum number of under-trials kept for over five years. Punjab also had 334 under-trials for over five years and Uttar Pradesh had 212. Delhi itself had 344 under-trials languishing in jails for over five years.

 

On the positive side, some states had no under-trials in jail for this long a period without their trials being completed. These states included Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Manipur, Mizoram, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, and Tripura, apart from some smaller states and union territories.

 

Nearly 30 million cases pending in courts- Hindustan Times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madhus333

The large number of pendency caused by the arrears and backlog existing in courts always point to the dissapointing state of affairs of the Indian Judicial system with 14 judges per million and 1 advocate for 1467 Indians. The courts and the executive are more focussed in increasing the number of judges, staffs and their salaries instead of finding out way and means to ameliorate the present maladies. It is the best opportune time for encouraging Alternative Dispute Resolutions (ADR). According Justice V.R Krishna Iyer, while inaugurating ADR Centre in Kochi, he graciously conveyed that a legislation should be made wherein lawyers shall try to settle cases rather than take the parties to the court. the Courts should be the last resort and ADR the first resort. He said that there should be "a National Movement for ADR in India through Centres like ADR Centre". We need some one to negotiate with the Courts!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nagpalsingh2000

This can not be called progress by any means, speedy disposal of cases is needed to be assertained by government, there'll be no sense of having development without effective enforcement of law....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
blckash

actually wat is rti.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • crusader
      By crusader
      I want to know that I have got information from Nagar nigam, Can I use it as an evidence in the court of law? What are the provisions related to that?
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission


       
       

      Decision No.292/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00588


       

      Dated, the 21st September, 2006


       
       

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Sharabh Dubey, 11/7 Civil Lines, Kanpur –208 001. (U.P.)
      Name of the Public Authority: The British India Corporation Limited, 14/136 Civil Lines, P.B. 77, Kanpur-208 001.
      DECISION
       
      Facts of the Case:
       

      The appellant is an employee of the respondent. He was transferred to another Unit of the company. The office order was challenged by him in the Court, which adjudicated on the matter. Subsequently, he has filed a few more petitions on service related matters in the Court. In this backdrop, he has sought documents relating to the legal opinion obtained by the respondent, file notings by the senior officials on the issue of transfer, letters/correspondence with other officials, etc.
      The CPIO has denied the information and sought exemption u/s 8(1)(d) & (g) of the Act.
      The case was heard on 12.9.06. The appellant could not be present. The CPIO and the appellate authority were present. In the course of hearing, the CPIO showed a copy of the petition filed by the appellant in the Court, whic hcontained almost all the documents asked for by him. The CPIO contended that the documents asked for by the appellant relate to the various petitions filed by him in the Court. He, therefore, pleaded that the disclosure of the documents might adversely affect the disputed cases. Hence, the relevant documents are treated as confidential.
       
      Commission’s Decision:
       

      There is a dispute between the appellant and the company on service matters, including transfer of the appellant to another unit. The matter is pending before the Court for adjudication. There is every possibility that the appellant would get opportunity for his effective defense. The information sought is in the interest of the seeker. And, as such, there is no overriding public interest, u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, for disclosure of the information.
      The appeal is therefore dismissed.
       

      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy