The Tribunal of India struggles under a massive legal back

The high court of Allahabad – one of the oldest and most prestigious in India, formerly told of characters like the first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru and the future judges of the Supreme Court – is back in honor.

This time, however, for very different reasons.

With more than a million cases in progress, it is among the most overloaded courts in the country. Questions ranging from criminal trials to disputes and family disputes have been pending for decades, leaving thousands of people in the most populous state in India, Uttar Pradesh, trapped in legal limbo.

Consider Babu Ram Ram Rajput, 73, a retired government employee who has been fighting against a real estate dispute for more than three decades.

He bought land during an auction in 1992, but the previous owner challenged the sale – and the case remains unresolved to date.

“I just hope that my case will be decided while I’m still alive,” said Rajput.

The struggle of the high court reflects a broader crisis in the judiciary of India, where too few judges and a constant flow of business have caused paralyzing delays.

With a sanctioned force of 160 which, according to experts,, were never fully filled, the court is missing seriously. Delays in police investigations, frequent adjournment and mediocre infrastructure add more to backwards, leaving the system stretched beyond capacity.

Each judge faces hundreds of cases a day – sometimes more than 1,000. With only five hours of work, it’s less than a minute per case. In practice, many are not heard at all.

Lawyers say that urgent questions – such as deposit pleas or expulsion stays – are heard first, pushing the older cases further in the list.

The main lawyer Syed Farman Naqvi claims that the courts often emit provisional or temporary orders in urgent cases – but once the need for need, the case persists while new cases accumulate.

Retirement judge Amar Saran said that the mounting arrears forced the judges to an “approach to the cut grass” – issuing rapid standard ordinances, of the government’s bustle to direct the lower courts to deal with the issue.

In April, the court confronted the extent of its delays while ruling on a case of rape and murder for more than 40 years. By delivery of the verdict, four of the five condemned men had died. Ordering the only surviving convicted to surrender, the court admitted having regretted not having ruled earlier.

The backwards even caused legal action. Earlier this year, a group of lawyers from the High Court of Allahabad asked for more judicial appointments, qualifying the court as “paralyzed” by a shortage of judges who leaves persistent affairs for years.

The crisis drew the attention of the main court of India. In January, the Supreme Court described it as “worrying” that the case lists at the High Court of Allahabad are unpredictable, saying that the system had completely collapsed.

The uncertain hearing dates have hit hard people, especially in the vast Uttar Pradesh. Many travel hundreds of kilometers in Prayagraj where the court is located on a few days of notice for their hearing.

Mr. Rajput comes from Kanpur, 200 km (125 miles) from Prayagraj. He spends about four hours traveling whenever his case is listed – but can never be sure that he will really be heard.

“I’m over 70,” he said. “I often learn a few days in advance that my case is listed”, making hassle. “He adds that several times his case is not heard because other questions take all day.

Lawyers have long exhorted the court to set up another bench – a branch of the high court in another city to facilitate access and accelerate audiences – in the western part of the State. Currently, an additional bench exists in the city of Lucknow. A similar recommendation was made in 1985 by a government commission, but it has not yet been implemented.

Earlier this year, the government of the state would have urged the high court to create another bench, but the letter was then withdrawn for unknown reasons. The push for more benches is not limited to Uttar Pradesh; A report by the law commission of 2009 said that all states would benefit from additional branches of the High Court.

Although new benches can help in the long term, experts say that faster fixes – such as the appointment of more judges – are required.

But the process is slow and complex: the higher judges of the High Court are first of all candidates for preselection, then the list is examined by the governments of the States and Federals, and the Chief Judge of India. After that, the judges of the Supreme Senior Court transmit the final list to the federal government for appointment.

Experts say that the selection of good candidates is often difficult. The former chief judge of the High Court of Allahabad, Govind Mathur, notes that the chief judges, often appointed from the outside of the state, may not know the lawyers or the local judges, complicating the recommendations. The names can be rejected at any stage and remain confidential until the Supreme Court transmits them to the government.

Last year, the Supreme Court recommended only one appointment for the High Court of Allahabad, despite almost half of the vacant seats. Some progress has occurred this year with 15 new judges, but almost half of the positions remain empty after retirement and transfers. Earlier this month, 26 other names were sent to the government, which sparked hopes – but the impact on the backwards remains uncertain.

Experts say that the backlog is so huge that even at full power, each judge would take care of more than 7,000 matters pending. Certain progress occurred this year, after 40 new judges were added – of which 24 were appointed last week – but the backlog persists.

Mr. Mathur says that deeper judicial reforms – as a “uniform policy for the hearing and elimination of business” – are essential, rather than leaving them to individual judges.