Date: 22/11/2022

Relevance: GS-2: Important Aspects of Governance, Transparency and Accountability; Statutory, Regulatory and various Quasi-judicial Bodies.

Key Phrases: Quasi-Judicial Courts, administrative functions, electronic platforms, speed of disposal, multi-pronged action plan, Annual Inspection, Interdisciplinary Research, State index of performance, Rigorous Induction Training.

Why in News?

• The functioning of quasi-judicial courts is of paramount importance as they deal with vital land and related issues.
• Their failure to administer speedy justice leads to harassment of citizens, besides abetting criminal activity by unscrupulous elements.

Issues with the quasi-judicial bodies:

• Understaffed:
  • The maladies that these agencies suffer from are far graver than judicial set-ups, as they are staffed by revenue authorities who have several other functions. Usually, many of these offices are understaffed.
• Burdened with duties other than court work:
  • Their engagement with duties such as law and order, protocol, coordination, and other administrative functions leaves them with much less time for court work. Their access to court clerks and record keepers is limited.
• Lack of access to electronic platforms:
  • Computers and video recorders are not available in many of these courts. Only a few states — such as Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan — have electronic platforms for supporting activities such as the filing of cases, publication of cause lists and sending summons.
• Lack proper knowledge of law and procedures:
  • Several of the presiding officers lack proper knowledge of law and procedures — which has landed many a civil servant in deep trouble in sensitive matters such as those related to arms licences.
• Lack of adequate supervision:
  • The most critical issue faced by these systems is the lack of adequate supervision and ownership by the administrative and political leadership.
• Lack of compilation of data:
  • Data on the level of pendency or the speed of disposal is not compiled in many states. This is why there is scarcely any attempt to increase staff strength. There is hardly any public scrutiny say by the press or legislature.

What can be done to improve matters?

• Efficient functioning:
  • The government should make the efficient functioning of these agencies a priority and clearly articulate its position on the issue.
• Detailed data collection and its utilization:
  • Detailed data on the functioning of these agencies must be collected and published from time to time — at least annually. These should be laid before the concerned legislatures.
  • These results should be the basis of decisions regarding the rationalising of staff strength.
  • If the pendency exceeds a certain threshold, additional officials should be posted to exclusively handle judicial functions. This data should be used to enforce accountability.
• Establishment of Electronic platforms:
  • An electronic platform should be established to handle all ancillary work related to the administration of justice, such as filing of complaints, issue of summons, movement of case records between courts, issuing copies of the judgments and so on.
  • It could establish a sound basis for analysing the functioning of these bodies and facilitate the publication of statistics.
• Annual Inspection:
  • Annual inspections of the subordinate courts should be made mandatory.
  • This should be an important indicator for assessment by the superior authority.
  • The inspections could become the basis of customised training of presiding officers.
• Interdisciplinary Research:
  • Interdisciplinary research on the functioning of these courts should be encouraged.
  • This would identify the areas of improvement such as legal reforms or issue of clear guidelines.
• Regular training and orientation:
  • Regular training and orientation of the adjudicating authorities should be taken up from time to time.
  • If it is possible to deliver customised orientation to the adjudicating officers in their areas of weakness, the benefit is likely to be multiplied.
• State index of performance:
  • The state index of performance of these quasi-judicial courts be made and published.
  • It would draw the attention of the states to their performance in comparison to others and help them identify areas of weakness.
• Compilation of important decisions and guidelines:
  • Important decisions, guidelines and directions could be compiled and published on the portal of the apex adjudicating forum such as the Board of Revenue. These would be helpful to lower-level agencies.
• Rigorous Induction Training:
  • More rigorous induction training of officials handling judicial work would help.o Usually, training academies, at the Central or state levels, largely focus on the executive magistrate’s courts, rather than on revenue courts.
  • The importance of judicial work should be instilled among the trainees and the skill and confidence in handling them should be developed.
• Procedural Reforms:
  • Procedural reforms such as minimising adjournments, mandatory filing of written arguments and other such reforms proposed by bodies like the Law Commission for reform of the Civil Procedure Code should be adopted by these adjudicating bodies.

Conclusion:

• A multi-pronged action plan inclusive of legal, governance and HR reforms is required to move ahead.
• For the ease of living of citizens, it is not only required to ensure the reduction of licences and regulations but also to make adjudication by administrative authorities timely, accessible, and affordable.
• Adjudicating authorities should embrace procedural reforms such reducing adjournments, requiring the submission of written arguments, and other similar improvements suggested by organisations like the Law Commission for revision of the Civil Procedure Code.

Source: The Indian Express

Mains Question:

Q. What are the problems with the functioning of quasi-judicial bodies, and what reforms in these bodies should be made to ease the lives of citizens? Discuss.