Judicial Impact

Assessment

Judicial Process
Vyshnavi Neelakanda Pillai, 1st M.L.,
TNDALU, Chennai
No of cases Disposed= The Arrival
of Fresh cases

2. “ There is no point in blaming

the judiciary for the increase of
pending cases, the blame must also
be with the other departments that
help it” – Justice Rao
REASON FOR PENDING OF C
ASES
The demand for legislation depends on a variety
of factors most of which are not factored in the
making of laws. in the court system being left
with little or no extra resources to cope with
additional cases generated by new laws.
1. Legislative Activity
2. Judicial Interpretation of Laws
3. Economic Activity
 Judicial Specialization
Judicial hours, time consumed
 Need for division based on specialization
of courts

Time consumed and cost incurred in each

and every stage of civil and criminal cases is
added to calculate the cost in terms of
administration of justice
 WHAT IS JIA??
1) A Methodology to know how much workload a
legislation will create in courts.
2) To calculate the work load change that judiciary has
to bear due to the law or change of law and calculating
the expected indicative cost for same change
3) “A process whereby the government can anticipate
the likely cost of implementing a legislation through
the courts and help deliver timely justice to litigants.”
– Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon
JIA OFFICES @ NATIONAL, STATE &
DISTRICT
The key institution to develop linkage
between judiciary and the legislature and
streamline budgeting of courts
Gather statistics on a variety of things;
Process and analyse data on weak points in
the judicial administration;
JIAO at State level requires the fora or
courts for improving of subordinate
judiciary with full infrastructural facilities
Extra Case Load Factor- Justice
Jagannadha Rao Report

Primary recommendation of Justice

Jaganatha Rao Report
Need for scientific assessment at the time of
introduction of new case laws
Report explained to estimate before hand
the additional work load to be borne by the
judiciary due to introduction of new laws

Purpose of Constituting the Committee:

To ensure that the amendments become
effective and result in quicker dispensation
of justice
Some of the Key Proposals of the Report
1. Make necessary budgetary provisions for
adjudication of cases to meet the necessary
work load to be borne by the judiciary due
to the arrival of new laws
2. Making of necessary Assessment and
providing necessary financial support at
the bill stage itself
3. Gearing of funds to the state by the centre
for this purpose
4. The centre must recommend the
establishment of additional courts for
implementation of union laws. *
5. Establishment of JIAO in Delhi and other state
capitals with the help of Social Scientists,
Statisticians and Legal Experts
6. The Report has recommended multiple
methodologies based on two field studies
commissioned by it.
Strategies Recommended by the Report
1. When legislatures make changes in CPC or
Cr.PC, they impact on litigation. 
2. If laws are made or amended creating or
extinguishing substantive rights, it impacts
on the workload of courts. 
3. When rights are interpreted narrowly or
liberally by High Courts and the Supreme
Court in the course of adjudication, it results
in less or more litigation. 
 Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India. (2005) 6 SCC 344

3JB : Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari and

Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject : Basically related to Constitution and is
a case of civil nature.
Issue involved in the Case: Whether the
amendments made in the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 by the Amendment Act of 1999
and 2000 were constitutionally valid?
In the former case**there were certain
amendments made to Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 by the Amendment Acts of
1999 and 2002.
A committee was formed by Salem bar 2003
case to gave report on amendment in CPC.
 Amendments Made
(i) In Section 26(2) and Order 6 Rule 15(4) of
CPC, 1908 in this the affidavit filed under
Section 26(2) and Order 6 Rule 15(4) would
not be evidence for purpose of trial.
(ii) Written statement – Order 8 Rules 1 and
10 of CPC, 1908
(iii) Execution of decree – Section 39 (4) and
Order 21 Rules 3 and 48
(iv)Sale of attached property - Sections 64 (1)
and 64 (2) of CPC, 1908;
(v) Notice – Section 80 of CPC, 1908;
(vi)ADR – Section 89 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 and Sections 82 and 84 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
 Judgement – 3 Divisions
Report contains:
R1. The consideration of the various grievances
relating to amendments to the Code and the
recommendations of the Committee.
R2.The consideration of various points raised in
connection with draft rules for ADR and mediation
as envisaged by section 89 of the Code read with
Order X Rule 1A, 1B and 1C.
R3. A conceptual appraisal of case management
Observations made by the Jagannadha
Rao committee in the case

The Committee :
1. May consider devising a model case
management formula as well as rules and
regulations which should be followed while
taking recourse to the Alternate Disputes
Resolution (ADR) referred to in section 89.
Observed that the model rules, with or
without modification, which are formulated
may be adopted by the High Courts
concerned for giving effect to section 89(2)
(d) of the Code.
Further, it was observed that if any
difficulties are felt in the working of the
amendments, the same can be placed before
the Committee which would consider the
same and make necessary suggestions in its
report.
Model case Management Formula
The courts May consider devising a Model Case
Management Formula as well as rules and
regulations which should be followed while taking
recourse to the ADR referred to in section 89.

 It was also observed that the model rules, with or

without modification, which are formulated may
be adopted by the High Courts concerned for
giving effect to section 89(2)(d) of the Code.
Further, it was observed that if any
difficulties are felt in the working of the
amendments, the same can be placed before
the Committee which would consider the
same and make necessary suggestions in its
report.
Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and
Otrs, 2011
Challenges the constitutionality and administration
of several tribunals.
Have used JIA as a key point in the report submitted
to the Madras High Court by Justice Prabha Sridevan,
IPAB Chairman .
The Report is based on the infrastructure and
resources which had been available to the IPAB.
The Report says that the Central Government had not
carried out any ‘JIA’ to assess the resources that would
be required by the IPAB after it was created. 
 Key issues in the Report
 The government has failed to conduct a
‘JIA’ to assess the resources required by the
IPAB;
That the IPAB is currently functioning out
of an office of only 5500 sq. ft. despite
requiring over 20,000 sq. ft. as per the
CPWD norms;
 That there is an urgent requirement to create
several more posts at the IPAB to assist the judicial
members in deciding cases;
That the pay scales of the non-judicial staff at the
IPAB are below the pay-scales fixed for the staff of
other tribunals. The IPAB is therefore being
discriminated against by the Government;
 That the 6th Pay Commission recommendations
have not been implemented with respect to the
Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the tribunal
 PROBLEMS FACED BY THE
TRIBUNALS
The DRT has a staggering backlog of 37,616 cases
involving a sum total of Rs. 11,3081.43 crores (Rs.
11,3081,43,00,000);

Some like the IPAB have no space, others like TDSAT

function from Hotel Samrat;

While the CCI operates from the premises of a private

building.
Judicial Reform & Assessment Statistics
Started in 2008-09 as a new Plan scheme.
 Included in the 11th Five Year Plan with an outlay of
Rs.22.62 crore.
The website of the Ministry of Law and Justice says
that Rs.1.71 Cr., was incurred as expenditure under the
scheme until 2010-11.
The Plan outlay for the scheme for 2011-12 is Rs.2.53
Cr.,;
The scheme, among other things, proposes to
facilitate the study of the feasibility of JIA.
 JIA Test- UK, 2010
A tool to help policy makers find the best
way of achieving their policy aim. This aims
at :
1. Identifying the areas in which impacts
need to be determined
2. Suggesting methods for assessing and
quantifying the impacts
3. Identifying the ways to avoid or minimise
any negative impacts .
 EXAMPLES OF JIA
Whether the penalty is necessary and proportionate to
the harm being caused
Who will be responsible for investigating and
prosecuting any offence
Implication of legal aid scheme
How the courts will be affected
Rights of appeal
Enforcement cost of financial penalities
 History of JIA
The Indian Idea of JIA comes from 2
Sources:
1. JIA was a response of an impatient
business class
2. And of a business-friendly government to a
judicial system that was unable to protect
the rights of business on a timely basis
Questions left unanswered??!!??
****
1) WHY is it that JIA was not an issue when
the UDHR was proclaimed in 1948 or when
the ICCPR and the ICESCR were adopted in
1966, creating rights for every human being
on earth although there was absolutely no
judicial capacity to enforce those rights in
most of the world?
2) Why is it that JIA was not an issue when the
Constitution of India was adopted in 1950,
with its massive arsenal of rights for the
excluded, even more potent than the
international human rights regime—
although India’s Supreme Court was not yet
born and India’s judicial system had about 10
% of the capacity it has today?
 Demerits of JIA
Failed to Link the recognition and
creation of rights and remedies to the
existence or creation of judicial system
capacity;
The capacity of the judicial system to
handle cases should never constrain the
development of rights and remedies for
common people.
In the case of legislation that gives remedies
to the powerless against the powerful, the
“cost” of the judicial infrastructure needed to
implement the Bill will in all likelihood
(unless there is a radical shift in the social
balance of power) become an excuse to whittle
down such rights and remedies to “affordable”
levels or to postpone them to a future date
when resources may become available.
 Judicial Use Assessment
An indicator to measure whether or not
people were actually using courts to enforce
their rights or whether their rights remained
on paper.
The concept high lights the usage of rights based
legislations by a common man
 CONCLUSION
Although JIA Suggest better planning in
setting up of courts with adequate
infrastructural facility and paves way for a
degree of specialization besides attitudinal
changes and values that governs the process
of the courts, the following are the changes
that I suggest to be implemented in JIA
Judicial officers must be imparted with
proper Judicial training in disposal of cases
Creating JIA fellowship for students
 Conduction of JIA Test
Appointment of more and more judicial
officers and create new vacancies to reduce
the over burden of Separate offices to be
established for the maintenance of
accounts;
Hiring students from the NLS and Law Colleges,
who are right now deep immersed in the whims and
fancies of the corporate sector.
An action plan should be developed for each court
in the country to ensure that the judicial system is
fully used to secure rights as envisaged by the
Constitution. Such an approach will expand and
value the rights of people rather than allow rights
and their enforcement to be constrained by lack of
judicial capacity and budgetary resources. Judiciary
The JUA and JIA must be clubbed together
since the two concepts deals with the
various dimensions of the Legal Process.
This formation will help in understanding
the overall problems faced by the judiciary
and gives us the proper reason for pending
of cases and helps us arrive in the apt
solution for these problems.
THANK YOU