PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA · 16. Shri Jasbir Singh Gill 17. Shri Chowdhury Mohan Jatua 18....
90
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES LAW AND JUSTICE Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi March, 2020 / Phalguna 1941 (Saka) REPORT NO. 101 ONE HUNDRED FIRST REPORT on Demands for Grants (2020-2021) of the Ministry of Law and Justice (Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 6 th March, 2020) (Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 6 th March, 2020)
Transcript of PARLIAMENT OF INDIA RAJYA SABHA · 16. Shri Jasbir Singh Gill 17. Shri Chowdhury Mohan Jatua 18....
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE
ON PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES LAW AND JUSTICE
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
March, 2020 / Phalguna 1941 (Saka)
REPORT NO.
101
ONE HUNDRED FIRST REPORT
on
Demands for Grants (2020-2021) of
the Ministry of Law and Justice
(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 6th
March, 2020)
(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 6th
March, 2020)
CS (P & L) - …..
PARLIAMENT OF INDIA
RAJYA SABHA
DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE
ON PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi
March, 2020 / Phalguna 1941 (Saka)
ONE HUNDRED FIRST REPORT
on
Demands for Grants (2020-2021) of
the Ministry of Law and Justice
(Presented to the Rajya Sabha on 6th
March, 2020)
(Laid on the Table of Lok Sabha on 6th
March, 2020)
C O N T E N T S
PAGES
1. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (i)
2. INTRODUCTION (ii - iii)
3. ACRONYMS (iv-v)
4. REPORT CHAPTER - I 1-6
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MINISTRY
CHAPTER – II 7-23
OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS (DEMAND NOs: 64, 65 and 66)
CHAPTER – III 24-43
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Vacancies in Courts
Pendency in Courts
Fast Track Courts and Fast Track Special Courts
Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for the
Judiciary
e-Court Mission Mode Project (MMP)-Phase-II
Gram Nyayalayas
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)
Enforcement of Contracts
Supreme Court of India
CHAPTER – IV 44-54
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
Streamlining of Appointment Procedure and Filling up of Vacancies of Notaries
Appointment of Law Officers
Bar Council of India
Litigation Policy and Expenses
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
Indian Law Institute
CHAPTER – V 55-63
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Pre and Post Legislative Scrutiny of Laws
Seeding of Aadhar with Electors’ Photo Identity Card (EPIC)
Paperless Election for Local Bodies
One Nation One Electoral Roll
Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation Programme (SVEEP)
5. RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS AT A GLANCE 64-77
6. *RELEVANT MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
7. ANNEXURES 78-81
________________________ *to be appended at printing stage
DEPARTMENT RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, LAW AND JUSTICE
(Re-constituted on 13th
September, 2019)
1. Shri Bhupender Yadav Chairman
RAJYA SABHA
2. Shri Naresh Gujral
3. Shri Prabhat Jha
4. Shri Majeed Memon
5. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Ray
6. Shri Shiv Pratap Shukla
7. Shri Vivek K. Tankha
8. Shri P. Wilson
9. Vacant
10. Vacant
LOK SABHA
11. Shri Pradan Baruah
12. Shri Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary
13. Shri Vinod Lakhamshi Chavda
14. Shri Mohanbhai Sanjibhai Delkar
15. Shri P. P. Mohammed Faizal
16. Shri Jasbir Singh Gill
17. Shri Chowdhury Mohan Jatua
18. Shri Suresh Kumar Kashyap
19. Shri Mohammad Akbar Lone
20. Shri Jyotirmay Singh Mahato
21. Shri B. Manickam Tagore
22. Shri Malook Nagar
23. Shri Chirag Paswan
24. Shri Suresh Pujari
25. Shri A. Raja
26. Shri Omprakash Bhupalsinh Rajenimbalkar alias Pawan
27. Shri Upendra Singh Rawat
28. Shrimati Sandhya Ray
29. Shri Kuldeep Rai Sharma
30. Shri Mahendra Singh Solanky
31. Vacant
SECRETARIAT
Dr. P.P.K. Ramacharyulu, Secretary
Shri A.A. Rao, Additional Secretary
Shri Pradeep Chaturvedi, Joint Secretary
Shri Mahesh Tiwari, Director
Shri Ashok K. Sahoo, Addl. Director
Shri Goutam Kumar, Deputy Secretary
Shri Anurag Ranjan, Under Secretary
Shri Amin Ansari, Assistant Research Officer
(i)
INTRODUCTION
I, the Chairman of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, having been authorised by the Committee to
submit the Report on its behalf, do hereby present this One Hundred First Report on
Demands for Grants 2020-21 pertaining to the Ministry of Law and Justice.
2. In accordance with the constitutional requirement under Article 113, the estimated
expenditure of Ministries/Departments of Government of India projected under various
Demands for Grants for the upcoming financial year need to be voted by Parliament. As a
sequel thereto, Demands for Grants of the relevant Ministries/Departments stand referred to
concerned Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee to make a close scrutiny
thereof under Rule 270 of Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of
States. While making scrutiny of Demands for Grants, the Committee has made an appraisal
of performance, programmes, policies of the Ministry of Law and Justice vis-à-vis
expenditure made out of Consolidated Fund of India in the current Financial Year.
3. In the Report, scrutiny of Demand Nos. 64, 65 and 66 pertaining to the Ministry of
Law and Justice, Election Commission of India (ECI) and Supreme Court of India (SCI),
respectively, for the Financial Year 2020-21 has been made by the Committee.
4. During the course of examination of the above Demands, the Committee heard the
views of the Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs; Secretary, Legislative Department;
Secretary, Department of Justice; Secretary General, Election Commission of India; the
Registrars, Supreme Court of India; Director, Indian Law Institute; Vice-President, Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, Member-Secretary, National Legal Services Authority and Director,
National Judicial Academy in its sittings held on the 19th
and 20th
February, 2020.
5. The Committee, while making its observations/recommendations, has mainly relied
upon the following:-
(i) Presentations made by the respective Secretaries of the three Departments of
the Ministry;
(ii) Presentations made by the senior Officers of Organizations under
administrative control of the Ministry;
(iii) Detailed Demands for Grants of the Ministry, Election Commission of India
and Supreme Court of India for the Financial Year 2020-21;
(iv) Detailed Explanatory Notes on the Demands for Grants 2020-21 received from
the Ministry, Election Commission of India and Supreme Court of India;
(v) Annual Report of the Ministry for the Year 2019-20 and the latest available
Annual Reports of the attached Offices of the Ministry;
(vi) Written replies furnished by the Ministry and Organizations/Offices of the
Ministry to the Questionnaires sent by the Committee Secretariat;
(vii) Outcome Budget, 2020-21, (Ministry of Finance)
(viii) Expenditure Budget, 2020-21, (Ministry of Finance)
(ix) Economic Survey (2018-19);
(x) Economic Survey (2019-20);
(xi) Prison Statistics India, 2018 (National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of
Home Affairs), New Delhi;
(xii) 255th
Report of the Law Commission of India on Electoral Reforms (2015)
(ii)
(xiii) Second Administrative Reforms Commission Report on Local Governance
(2007);
(xiv) India Justice Report (2019);
(xv) World Justice Project: Rule of Law Index (2019), New York;
(xvi) Ease of Doing Business (2020), of World Bank, Washington; and
(xvii) Written clarifications to the points/issues raised by Members in the meeting of
the Committee.
6. The Report is based on facts, figures and submissions (both oral and written) tendered
by Department/Institutions under the Ministry, to the Committee.
7. The Committee considered and adopted the Report in its sitting held on the 4th
March,
2020 and presented to both Houses of Parliament on 6th
March, 2020.
8. For facility of reference and convenience, the observations and recommendations of
the Committee have been printed in bold letters in the body of the Report. New Delhi, BHUPENDER YADAV
4th
March, 2020 Chairman,
Department-related Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Personnel Public Grievances
Law and Justice
(iii)
ACRONYMS
ACI Arbitration Council of India
AIJS All India Judicial Services
AMF Assured Minimum Facilities
BCI Bar Council of India
BE Budget Estimates
BSNL Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
CEO Chief Electoral Officer
CJI Chief Justice of India
CPWD Central Public Works Department
CSC Common Service Centre
CSS Centrally Sponsored Scheme
DEO District Election Officers
DLSA District Legal Services Authority
ECI Election Commission of India
EODB Ease of Doing Business
EPIC Electors’ Photo Identity Card
ERO Electoral Registration Officer
FTC Fast Track Court
FTSC Fast Track Special Court
EVM Electronic Voting Machine
FY Financial Year
ICT Information Communication Technology
IIDEM International Institute for Democracy and Election Management
ILDR Institute of Legislative Drafting and Research
ILI Indian Law Institute
IMMP Integrated Mission Mode Project
ISRO Indian Space Research Organisation
ITAT Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
LADCS Legal Aid Defense Counsel System
LIMBS Legal Information on Management and Briefing System
MCC Model Code of Conduct
MM Matadata Mitra
MMP Mission Mode Project
MOF Ministry of Finance
NALSA National Legal Services Authority
NB Nyaya Bandhu
NBCC National Buildings Construction Corporation
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
NDIAC New Delhi International Arbitration Centre
NIC National Informatics Centre
NITI National Institute for Transforming India
NERPAP National Electoral Roll Purification and Authentication Programme
(iv)
NM Nyaya Mitra
NJA National Judicial Academy
NJDG National Judicial Data Grid
NVSP National Voters Service Portal
OLW Official Language Wing
PLV Para Legal Volunteer
POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
RE Revised Estimates
SCI Supreme Court of India
SLSA State Legal Services Authority
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SVEEP Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation
UTRCs Under Trial Review Committee
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VSP Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan
VVPAT Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail
(v)
1
R E P O R T
CHAPTER - I
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE MINISTRY
The Ministry of Law and Justice owes its origin to the Charter Act, 1833 enacted by
the British Parliament. In accordance with the Government of India (Allocation of Business)
Rules, 1961, the Ministry comprises three Departments, namely, Department of Legal
Affairs, Legislative Department and Department of Justice. The key mandate of the Ministry
is to provide policy support in administration of justice; furnishing legal advice to
Government of India and defend Government of India in various Courts and Tribunals and
draft Supreme and Subordinate legislations for Government of India, etc.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1.1. The mandate of Department of Justice entails administration of justice, legal aid and
advice to weaker sections of the society and undertrials in jails, access to justice for
marginalised sections of society, appointment/removal of judges of Supreme Court and High
Courts, Family Courts, Fast Track Courts, Gram Nyayalayas, infrastructural development of
judiciary and modernization of court complexes, Second Judicial Pay Commission, National
Legal Services Authority, E-Courts Mission Mode Projects, Judicial Service Centres,
maintenance of National Judicial Data Grid, administration of All India Judicial Service, etc.
The Department of Justice has been nominated as nodal Department for enforcement of
contract parameter for World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Report. The Department also
launched three new initiatives to improve justice delivery system; namely, Nyaya Mitra (NM)
at courts to render assistance to reduce pendency, Nyaya Bandhu (NB) programme to offer
Pro-Bono legal assistance and counsel to under privileged litigants. Tele Law-providing legal
advice and consultation by empanelled lawyers via video conferencing, telephone at
Common Service Centres. It inter-alia administers the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987, the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Judges Protection Act,
1985, the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the Court
Fees Act, 1870, etc. It also observes Legal Services Day on 9th
December every year.
1.2. The Department of Justice is the administrative Department for the following
institutions/autonomous bodies/policy initiatives:
(a) National Legal Services Authority (NALSA):- The National Legal Services
Authority has been constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the patron-in-chief and second senior-most
judge of the Supreme Court is the Executive Chairman of the Authority.
NALSA monitors and evaluates implementation of legal aid programmes, and
lays down policies, principles, guidelines and frames effective and economical
schemes for the State Legal Services Authorities (SLSA) to implement the legal
services programmes throughout the country. The State Legal Services
Authorities, District Legal Services Authorities (DLSA), Taluk Legal Services
Committees (TLSC), etc. provide free legal services to underprivileged litigants
2
and organize Lok Adalats for speedy resolution of disputes. The prime objective
of NALSA is speedy disposal of cases and reducing the burden of judiciary.
(b) Family Courts:- The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted with a view to
providing for establishment of Family Courts by the State Governments in
consultation with the High Courts to promote conciliation and secure speedy
settlement of disputes relating to marriage, family affairs and related matters. In
accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the State Government
has to establish mandatorily Family Court for every area in the State comprising
a city or a town population of which exceeds ten lakh. In other areas of the
States, the Family Courts may be set up if the State Governments deem it
necessary.
(c) Fast Track Special Courts:- Fast Track Special Courts are set up for heinous
crimes, crimes against women and children. The Government has approved a
scheme for setting up 1023 Fast Track Special Courts across the Country for
expeditious disposal of pending cases under Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and rape cases.
(d) National Judicial Academy (NJA):- The National Judicial Academy is an
autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and
came into existence with effect from 17th
August, 1993. The affairs of the
Academy are managed by a Governing Council, chaired by the Chief Justice of
India. The registered office of the Academy is in the Supreme Court Building at
New Delhi and another office was established in August, 2000 at Bhopal. The
main objectives of the Academy are to impart training to the Judicial Officers of
the States/Union Territories and to study court management and administration
of justice in States and Union Territories.
(e) National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms: The mission was
set up with twin objectives of increasing judicial access by reducing delays and
arrears in the system and enhancing accountability at all levels through
structural changes and setting performance standards and facilitating
enhancement of capacities for achieving such performance standards. The
schemes/initiatives under the Mission are Action Research and Studies on
Judicial Reforms, Access to Justice for all, E-Courts Mission mode,
Infrastructure development of Subordinate Judiciary, judicial performance
evaluation, etc.
(f) Centrally Sponsored Scheme: The government is implementing a Centrally
Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for development of infrastructure facilities for
judiciary since 1993-94. The scheme covers construction of court buildings and
residential accommodations for Judicial Officers/Judges of District and
Subordinate Courts. The fund sharing pattern of the Scheme has been revised to
60:40 (Centre: State) and 90:10 (Centre: State) for the eight North-Eastern and
three Himalayan States from the year 2015-2016. In November, 2017, the Union
Cabinet approved continuation of the Scheme up to 31st March, 2020 with an
3
outlay of Rs 3,320 crore to be implemented in mission mode through the
National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms. However, the said
scheme is extended to next Financial Year for which Rs. 754 crore has been
allocated.
(g) Computerization of District and Subordinate Courts: E-Courts Mission
Mode Project (MMP) Phases – I and II:- This Project is being implemented
by the Department under the guidance of e-Committee, Supreme Court of India
primarily for universal computerization of all District and Subordinate Court
complexes. Initiated in 2010, the Phase-I of the Project concluded at a total cost
of Rs 639.144 crore. The Phase II of the Project with an outlay of Rs 1670 crore,
commenced in August, 2015 and was to be concluded in Financial Year 2019.
However an outlay of Rs. 250 crores is sought under BE of FY 2020-21. The
scheme includes components such as computerisation of Courts, Wide Area
Network (WAN) connectivity, Cloud connectivity in all Court complexes, use
of solar energy in 5% of Court complexes, computerisation of the Public
Prosecutors Office, video-conferencing facility for jails, enhancement of ICT
infrastructure of courts, digitization of old case records, computerisation of
judicial libraries, upgradation of application software, SMS based services,
Touch Screen Kiosks, etc.
(h) Establishment of Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act,
2008 :- The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 has been enacted by the Parliament to
provide for the establishment of the Gram Nyayalayas at the grass root level for
the purpose of providing speedy and inexpensive access to justice to the citizens
at their door steps. The Central Government meets fifty percent of the recurring
expenses incurred on the setting up of these courts in the first three years,
subject to a ceiling of Rs. 3.20 lakh per Gram Nyayalaya per annum.
1.3. Supreme Court of India:- The Department of Justice is the administrative
Department for the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court came into existence on 28th
January, 1950 by replacing the Federal Court of India and operated in the Chamber of Princes
in Parliament House till 3rd August, 1958. The Supreme Court is the apex court in the
judicial hierarchy of the land and is called the Temple of Justice. It is also the custodian of
Fundamental Rights and Rule of Law. The strength of the apex court was enhanced over the
years from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1977 , 26 in 1986 , 31 in 2009 and 34 in
2019 with the increase of case load on it. There is a separate demand, Demand No. 66
pertaining to the Supreme Court of India under which Rs. 308.61 crore have been allocated
for the Financial Year 2020-21.
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
1.4. The Department of Legal Affairs has a two-tier set-up, namely, the Main Secretariat
at New Delhi and Branch Secretariats at Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai and Bengaluru. The
Department tenders legal advice to all Ministries and Departments of Govt. of India. It
4
defends Govt. of India in all Courts and Tribunals where Govt. of India is a party. It appoints
Attorney General for India, Solicitor General of India and Additional Solicitor General of
India. In addition, Govt. Counsels are also engaged to defend Govt. of India in various courts
and tribunals across the country. It is responsible for maintenance of standards of legal
profession and legal education and is associated with legal reform also. It is also responsible
for appointment and renewal of Notaries across the country. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Indian Legal Service and Law Commission of India are within the administrative control of
the Department. The Department has launched Legal Information Management and Briefing
System to monitor pendency of cases on behalf of Central Government/
Organisations/Departments, etc. It is also responsible for signing and implementation of
Treaties and Agreements with foreign countries in matters of civil law.
1.5. It inter-alia administers the Advocate Act, 1961, the Advocate Welfare Fund Act,
2001, the Notaries Act 1952, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 and the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre Act, 2019. It has also
taken initiatives to improve India’s ranking in “Ease of Doing Business Report” (EOBR) of
World Bank by strengthening contract enforcement and arbitration mechanism.
1.6. Following Institutions/organizations are under the overall supervision of the
Department of Legal Affairs:-
Law Commission of India (LCI): - The Law Commission of India is a non-statutory
body, constituted by the Government once in three years. The term of Twenty-first Law
Commission ended on 31st August, 2018. The Twenty-second Law Commission has been
approved for constitution for the term of three years from the date of publication of its order
in the Gazette.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT): - ITAT is one of the oldest Tribunals, set
up under Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to hear appeals against orders passed by
authorities mentioned under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act. It has 63 Benches covering
all cities having seats of High Courts.
Bar Council of India (BCI): - The Bar Council of India is a statutory body
constituted under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and it has been empowered, among
other things, to lay down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for lawyers, and to
maintain and improve the standards of legal education in the country.
New Delhi International Arbitration Centre (NDIAC): The New Delhi
International Arbitration Centre (NDIAC), Act 2019 provides for the establishment and
incorporation of the NDIAC as an independent and autonomous institution for arbitration and
to make India a hub of institutional arbitration.
Indian Law Institute (ILI):- The Indian Law Institute is a premier legal research
institute founded on 27th
December, 1956. The prime objective of the Institute is to promote
advanced studies and research in law and to contribute substantially in reforming the
administration of justice, so as to meet the socio-economic aspirations of the people through
law and its instrumentalities. The Institute has been granted Deemed University status in the
year 2004.
5
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
1.7. One of the primary responsibilities of the Legislative Department is to draft Bills on
behalf of Ministries and Departments of Govt. of India. In addition, Ordinance promulgated
by the President of India, Regulation made by President of India for Union Territories,
Electoral Laws and Electoral reforms, maintenance of the updated Central Legislation since
1836 under Bharat Sanhita (India Code) and authoritative translation of Central Legislation
and Constitution of India in languages specified in the Eight Schedule of the Constitution
under the Authoritative Text (Central Laws) Act 1973, publication and preparation of
standard legal terminology, delimitation of Parliamentary and Legislative Assembly
Constituencies, etc. are also assigned to the Department under Allocation of Business Rules,
1961. The Department also imparts training in legislative drafting to Officers of the
Union/State Government.
1.8. It inter-alia administers Personal laws, Electoral laws, the Indian Contract Act, 1872,
the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Evidence Act, 1872, the Indian Trust Act, 1882, the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Limitation Act, 1963, the Election Commission (Conditions of
Service of Election Commissioners and Transaction of Business) Act, 1991, the
Representation of People Act, 1950 and the Representation of People Act, 1951. It also
facilitates procurement of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) for the Election Commission of
India, Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) Machines and reimbursement of election
expenditure of State Assemblies.
1.9. The Department has following two wings under it for the progressive use of Hindi and
other Scheduled languages:-
(i) Official Languages Wing (OLW): The Official Languages Wing has been
entrusted with the preparation and publication of standard legal terminologies
and for translating into Hindi language of Central Acts and Ordinances and
Subordinate legislations, etc. under the Official Languages Act, 1963.
(ii) Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan (VSP): The Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan is mainly
concerned with bringing out authoritative Hindi version of select reportable
judgements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, with the objective of
promoting the progressive use of Hindi in the legal field. It brings out various
publications of legal literature in Hindi and also holds exhibitions for giving
wide publicity to legal literatures available in Hindi and to promote their sales.
1.10. Election Commission of India: The Legislative Department is the administrative
Department for the Election Commission of India. Election Commission of India, an
autonomous constitutional authority created under Article 324 of Constitution for
superintendence, direction, control of elections to Parliament, State legislatures, and to the
offices of the President and the Vice-President of India. The Election Commission of India is
a multimember body (since 1993) headed by the Chief Election Commissioner, who acts as
Chairman of the Commission. The Commission is assisted by Deputy Election
Commissioners, Chief Electoral Officers (CEO), District Election Officers (DEO) and
Electoral Registration Officers (ERO), appointed by the Election Commission under
6
Representation of People Act, 1951. It recognizes/derecognizes political parties and allots
symbols to them. It implements Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for smooth conduct of free
and fair elections. It also observes 25th
January as National Voters' Day to encourage young
electors to take part in election process. There is an exclusive demand (Demand No. 65)
under which budgetary allocation is sought for running the activities of Election Commission
of India.
7
CHAPTER – II
OVERVIEW OF THE BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS FOR FINANCIAL YEAR
2020-21
The total proposed budgetary allocations for the Ministry of Law and Justice for the
Financial Year 2020-21 are shown under the following three Demands: -
Demand No. 64 is the consolidated Budget Estimates pertaining to the
Department of Legal Affairs, the Legislative Department and the
Department of Justice under the Ministry of Law and Justice;
Demand No. 65 pertains to the Election Commission of India; and
Demand No. 66 pertains to the Supreme Court of India. The expenditure
incurred on the Supreme Court of India is ‘charged’ expenditure.
2.1 The Revenue/Capital, Charged/Voted break-ups of the budgetary allocations under
Demand Nos. 64, 65 and 66 for the Financial Year 2020-21 are given below:-
TABLE NO. 1
Revenue/Capital, Charged/Voted break-ups of the Budgetary Allocations (Rupees in crore)
Demand No. Total Revenue Capital Charged Voted
64 – Ministry of Law and Justice
(Department of Legal Affairs,
Department of Justice and
Legislative Department)
2200.00 2000.00 200.00 - 2200.00
65 – Election Commission of India 270.00 269.00 1.00 - 270.00
66 – Supreme Court of India 308.61 308.61 - 308.61 -
Total 2778.61 2577.61 201.00 308.61 2470
2.2 Out of the total allocation of Rs.2200 crore for Demand No. 64 of the Ministry of Law
and Justice, Rs.2000 crore is allocated in revenue side, which accounts for 90 percent
(approx.). Similarly, out of the total allocation of Rs. 270 crore under Demand No.65 for the
Election Commission India, Rs.269 crore is allocated for revenue expenditure, which
accounts for 99 percent (approx.). Under Demand No. 66, Rs. 308.61 crore, which is 100%
revenue expenditure, is allocated for Supreme Court of India.
8
2.3 Out of the total allocation of Rs.2778.61 core under the Demand Nos. 64, 65 and 66,
79.18 percent is for the Ministry of Law and Justice, 11.10 percent for the Supreme Court and
9.72 for the Election Commission of India.
Ministry of Law and Justice (Demand No. 64)
2.4 Under Demand No. 64, the Ministry of Law and Justice has been allocated Rs 2200
crore for the Financial Year 2020-21, out of the total budget of Rs. 30,42,230 crore of the
Government of India, which is 0.07 percent of total budget of the Government of India.
Further, out of these allocations, 54. 17 percent have been earmarked for the Department of
Justice, 31.10 percent for the Legislative Department and 14.73 percent for the Department of
Legal Affairs.
TABLE NO. 2
Department-Wise Projection, Allocation, Utilization and Variation (Demand No 64)
Rs. in Crore
BE 2019-20 RE 2019-20 Projection
made to
MoF for
2020-21
BE 2020-21 %
Change
in BE
2019-20
to BE
2020-21
Variation
between
projection
and BE
2020-
21(%)
Revenue Capital
Total Revenue Capital
Total Revenue Capital
Total
Department
of Legal
Affairs
253.59 110.00
363.59 253.59 35.00
288.59 426.67 274.11 50.00
324.11 (-)10.86 (-)24.04
Legislative
Department 1475.63 25.00 1500.63 1426.14 75.00 1501.14 1007.65 534.00 150.00 684.00 (-)54.42 (-)32.12
Department
of Justice 1190.89
-- 1190.89 1383.63
-- 1383.63 2714.10 1191.89
-- 1191.89 (+)0.08
(-)56.09
Grand
Total 3055.11 3173.36 4148.42 2200.00 (-)27.99 (-)46.97
9
2.5 The Committee was informed by the Ministry that as against the projected demand of
Rs 4148.42 crore under Demand No. 64 for BE 2020-21, the Ministry of Finance has
provided a total allocation of only Rs 2200 crore, which is a shortfall of Rs 1948 crore (46.97
%) against the projected demand. The Department of Legal Affairs has been allocated 24.4
percent less than the projected demand. Similarly, the allocations to Legislative Department
and Department of Justice have been reduced by 32.12 percent and 56.12 percent,
respectively, against their projected demand.
2.6. It may be observed from the table that in BE 2020-21, out of the total allocation of
Rs.324.11 crore to the Department of Legal Affairs, Rs.274.11 crore is allocated under
Revenue Head and Rs. 50 crore under Capital Head. Out of the total allocaton of Rs. 684
crores to the Legislative Department, Rs 534 crore in Revenue Head and Rs.150 crore under
Capital Head. Further, allocation of Rs. 1191.89 crore made to Department of Jutice is under
Revenue Head only. The allocations made to Department of Legal Affairs and Legislative
Department in BE 2020-21 over BE 2019-20 has decreased by 10.86 and 54.42 percent,
respectively. However, the allocation to Departmnent of Justice has increased by 0 .08
percent for the same period.
2.7. Details of Scheme/Non-scheme, Revenue/Capital wise approved allocation by the
Ministry of Finance as well as variation from BE/RE 2019-20 are as under:
TABLE NO. 3
Scheme and Non-Scheme Allocation and Variation under Demand No. 64
Rs. in crore
BE 2019-20 RE 2019-20 BE 2020-21 Variations (%)
SCHEME NON-
SCHEME TOTAL SCHEME
NON-
SCHEME TOTAL SCHEME
NON-
SCHEME TOTAL
BE
2019-20
to BE
2020-21
RE
2019-20
to BE
2020-21
Revenue 1012.26 1907.85 2920.11 1200.00 1863.36 3063.36 1047.73 952.27 2000.00 (-)31.51 (-)34.71
Capital 135.00 135.00 110.00 110.00 200.00 200.00 (+)48.15 (+)81.82
Total 1012.26 2042.85 3055.11 1200.00 1973.36 3173.36 1047.73 1152.27 2200.00 (-)27.99 (-)30.67
Grand Total 3055.11 3173.36 2200.00
2.8. In BE 2020-21, out of the total allocation of Rs.2200 crore for Demand No. 64 of the
Ministry of Law and Justice, Rs.1047.73 crore is allocated under Scheme and Rs. 952.27
crore in Non-Scheme. The overall allocations made in BE 2020-21 has decreaed by 27.99
percent over BE 2019-20 and by 30.67 percent over RE 2019-20.
2.9. There are no Scheme allocations for Legislative Development and Department of
Legal Affairs. They have been allocated Rs 684 crore and Rs. 324.11 crore, respectively in
BE 2020-21. The Department of Justice has both Non-Scheme & Scheme allocations of Rs.
144.16 crore and Rs. 1047.73 crore, respectively, in BE 2020-21.
10
TABLE NO. 4
Department-wise Utilisation of Allocations
(Rs in crore)
Department BE
2019-20
RE
2019-20
Actual Up to
31.01.2020 % of BE
Department of Legal Affairs 363.59 288.56 216.49 59.54
Legislative Department 1500.63 1501.14 1161.67 77.41
Department of Justice 1190.89 1383.63 929.61 78.06
Total 3055.11 3173.36 2307.77 75.53
2.10 The overall utilisation by the Ministry of Law and Justice under Demand No. 64 is
75.53 percent in BE 2019-20. Out of Rs.363.59 crore allocations, only Rs.216.49 crore (59.54
percent) has been utilised by the Department of Legal Affairs. Further, out of Rs. 1500.63
crore and Rs. 1190.89 crore allocated to the Legislative Department and the Department of
Justice, only Rs. 1161.67 crore (77.41 percent) and Rs. 929.61 crore (78.05 percent),
respectively, have been utilized.
2.11. The Committee observes that out of the total allocation of Rs. 3055.11 crore in
the current Financial Year, the Ministry has been able to utilise Rs. 2307.77 crore (75.53
percent) of the total allocations. Further allocations to the Ministry has reduced by
27.99 percent in BE 2020-21 over BE 2019-20. The allocations under Legislative
Department and Department of Legal Affairs have been reduced by 54.42 percent and
10.86 percent, respectively, whereas, the allocation for Department of Justice has
increased by 0.08 percent.
2.12. The allocations for the Legislative Department has been reduced under the Head
‘Elections (Reimbursement to States/UTs)’ from Rs. 1429.5 crore in BE 2019-20 to Rs
437 crore in BE 2020-21. Out of Rs. 1429.5 crore under the Head ‘Elections
(Reimbursement to States/UTs), only Rs. 1099.27 crore has been reimbursed to
States/UTs till 31st December, 2019. An allocation of Rs. 437 crore has been proposed
for the next Financial Year for the same purpose as bulk of payments for the General
Election to the Seventeenth Lok Sabha and General Elections to certain Legislative
Assemblies has been made to States/UTs for reimbursement in the current Financial
Year. The Committee is satisfied with the rationale given for reduction by the Ministry.
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
2.13. The Committee has been informed that the budgetary allocations for the Department
of Legal Affairs are under Non-Scheme only. Further, as against the projection of Rs.426.27
crore to Ministry of Finance, the Department of Legal Affairs was allocated 324.11 crore
only, which is 14.73 per cent (approx.) of the total allocation under the Demand No. 64.
2.14. The following table is indicative of the increase/decrease in Major Heads/Unit under
the Department in BE 2020-21 over BE 2019-20 and RE 2019-20.
11
TABLE NO. 5
Allocation to the Department of Legal Affairs
(Rupees in crore)
NON-SCHEME
Sl.
No.
Major Head/Name of the Unit BE
2019-20
RE
2019-20
Expenditure
up to
31.1.2020
BE
2020-21
Increase/
Decrease
(BE-BE)
1. Department of Legal Affairs 57.88 57.88 49.07 60.87 (+)2.99
2 Indian Law Institute 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00
3 New Delhi International Arbitration
Centre
0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 (+)3.00
4. Central Agency Section 10.24 10.24 8.87 10.40 (+)0.16
5. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT)
108.93 108.93 83.70 113.90 (+)4.97
6 Arbitration Council of India 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 (+)9.00
7 Law Commission of India 7.38 7.38 3.27 7.80 (+)0.42
8 Legal Advisers and Counsels 66.16 66.16 57.02 66.14 (-)0.02
9. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT) (Capital Outlay)
110.00 35.00 11.56 50.00 (-)60.00
Total 363.59 288.59 216.49 324.11 (-)39.48
Capital 110.00 35.00 11.56 50.00 (+)60.00
Revenue 253.59 253.59 204.93 274.11 (-)20.52
2.15. The budgetary allocation for the Department for Financial Year 2020-21 is Rs. 324.11
crore, which includes Capital Outlay of Rs. 50 crore and Revenue outlay of Rs. 264.11 crore. It
may be seen from the above table that in BE 2020-21 there is a decrease of Rs. 39.48 crore over
BE 2019-20 and an increase of Rs. 35.52 crore over RE 2019-20. It may also be observed that the
overall expenditure of the Department as on 31st January, 2020 is just Rs. 216.49 crore, which
includes Rs. 11.56 crore under Capital head and Rs. 204.93 crore under Revenue head.
2.16. Out of the total allocations of Rs 324.11 to the Department of Legal Affairs, around 50
percent is meant for ITAT, i.e., Rs. 163.9 crore. The other major expenses of the Department are
Secretariat Expenditure of the Department (Rs.60.87 crore) and Legal Advisers and Counsels (Rs
66.14 crore). It may be observed from Table No. 4, that the allocations for the Department has
been reduced by 10.86 percent because of reduction in allocation in the Capital Head for ITAT
from Rs. 110 crore in BE 2019-20 to Rs. 50 crore in BE 2020-21, which is almost 54 percent.
2.17. The ITAT had projected Rs. 120 crore to the Ministry of Finance against which only
Rs.50 crore was allocated for BE 2020-21, which is a reduction of 58 percent approx. Further, out
of Rs. 110 crore allocated for ‘ITAT-Capital Outlay’ in the current Financial Year, the provisional
expenditure till 31st January, 2020 was only Rs. 11.56 crore. To the query of the Committee
about the underutilization of funds, the ITAT submitted that;-
“ITAT has envisaged spending Rs. 110 crore in various projects, including
commitment of funding for the project at World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New
Delhi during the Financial Year 2019-20, which explains sharp fluctuations between
Actuals 2018-19 and BE 2019. However, in view of ongoing litigation in this NBCC
12
Project, the construction could not be progressed as per projections.”
2.18. However, during the meeting of the Committee, the Vice-President of ITAT submitted
that the litigation pertaining to World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi is over and
construction work would commence during next Financial Year. Further, ITAT submitted that
construction of ITAT complex/building at Cuttuck, Pune and Ahmedabad are under various
stages of consideration/implementation. Accordingly, the ITAT has projected for higher
allocations in BE 2020-21.
2.19. The Committee observes that an allocation of Department of Legal Affairs was
reduced under the head ‘Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) (Capital Outlay)’ due to
non-utiisation of allocations. Further, the Committee is satisfied with the justification given
for underutilization of allocations. The Committee also observes that purchase/construction
of office complex/building in New Delhi, Cuttack, Pune and Ahmedabad may be expedited
in the coming Financial Year and if need arises, additional funds may be sought during RE
stage. The Committee also recommends that the funds allocated to ITAT may be utilized
optimally in the coming Financial Year.
2.20. The Committee was informed that for New Delhi International Arbitration Centre
(NDARC) and Arbitration Council of India (ACI), Rs. 3 crore and Rs.9 crore, respectively, have
been allocated which the Government proposes to establish in the next Financial Year. The
Central Agency Section, which is engaged in conducting litigation on behalf of Union
Government, has been allocated Rs. 10.4 crore as against Rs. 10.24 crore in the current Financial
Year. Further, the Indian Law Institute and the Law Commission of India have been allocated Rs.
3 crore and Rs.7.8 crore, respectively.
2.21. The Indian Law Institute (ILI) receives a recurring grant from the Department of Legal
Affairs to meet its establishment related expenses and it also generates some funds on its own
through course fees, membership fees, sale of publications, etc. The ILI has been allocated Rs. 3
crore as Grants-in-aid in BE 2020-21, which is the same as in BE 2019-20.
2.22. The Director, Indian Law Institute during the meeting of the Committee submitted that the
allocations made to the Institute are insufficient and sought for higher allocations. In their written
replies to the queries of the Committee, the ILI has informed the Committee that from Financial
Year 2017-18 onwards, the Institute is continuously having financial deficit. The expected
earning of the Institute would be around Rs. 4 crore in the Financial Year 2020-21 from rental
income (Rs. 1.5 crore), fee from students (Rs. 1.75 crore), interest on investment (Rs. 65 lakh)
and publication income (Rs. 10 lakh).
2.23. The Committee observes that in the last few years, there have been wide variations in
allocations to the Indian Law Institute. It was allocated Rs. 5.31 crore in Financial Year
2015-16, Rs. 1 crore in Financial Year 2016-17, Rs 2 crore in Financial Year 2017-18 and
Rs. 3 crore each in Financial Year 2018-19, Financial Year 2019-20 and Financial Year
2020-21. The ILI has been requesting for more allocations year after year, whereas the
allocations was first reduced after the Financial Year 2015-16, and from the Financial Year
2018-19 to 2020-21, allocations to the Institute has been kept at Rs 3 crore. The Institute has
been allocated Rs 3 crore in BE 2020-21 as Grants-in –aid and its total earning is Rs. 4
13
crore. The Institute had projected Rs 10 crore as tentative expenditure for the Financial
Year 2020-21, therefore, again there will be a deficit of Rs. 3 crore. The Committee,
recommends the Department to take into account the requirement as proposed by ILI so
that its research and teaching activities are not affected. The Committee also suggests the
ILI to generate funds for itself by taking up more and more research/consultancy activities
and opening extension centres in major cities for imparting affordable quality legal
education.
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
2.24. The Committee has been informed that the budgetary allocations for the Legislative
Department are under Non-scheme only. Further, as against the projection of Rs.1007.65
crore to Ministry of Finance, the Legislative Department has been allocated only Rs. 684
crore, including Rs. 150 crore as Capital allocation for purchase of Electronic Voting
Machines (EVMs). The allocation for the Legislative Department is 31 percent (approx.) of
the total allocation under Demand No. 64.
2.25. The following table is indicative of the increase/decrease from BE 2019-20 and RE
2019-20 in the allocation to BE 2020-21 and expenditure of Legislative Department up to 31st
January, 2020.
TABLE NO. 6
Allocation and Variation under Legislative Department
(Rs. in crore)
NON-SCHEME
Sl.
No.
Name of the Unit/Head/
Scheme
BE
2019-20
RE
2019-20
Expenditure
up to
31.01.2020
BE
2020-21
Variations
BE 2020-21
over
BE 2019-20
1. Legislative Department 26.04 26.04 20.92 26.55 (+)0.51
2. Official Language Wing 13.25 13.25 11.14 13.25 (+)0.00
3. Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan 6.79 6.79 5.37 7.00 (+)0.21
4. Social Security and Welfare 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 (+)0.20
5. Elections
(Reimbursement to State/UTs)
1429.54 1380.05 1099.27 437.00 (-) 992.54
6. EVMs professional service 0.01 0.01 0.00 50.00 (+)49.99
TOTAL (Revenue) 1475.63 1426.14 1136.70 534.00 (-)941.63
7. EVMs for Election
Commission (Capital)
25.00 75.00 24.97 150.00 (+)125.00
TOTAL 1500.63 1501.14 1161.67 684.00 (-)816.63
2.26. It may be seen from the table supra that there is a total decrease of Rs. 816.63 crore in
BE 2020-21 over BE 2019-20, which is 46 percent approx. less mainly on account of
reduction in allocations under the Head ‘Election (Reimbursement to States/UTs)’ from Rs.
1429.54 crore in BE 2019-20 to Rs. 437 crore in BE 2020-21, which is a reduction of almost
31 percent approx. The Major Heads under the Election (Reimbursement to States/UTs) are
Electoral Officers (Rs 90 crore), preparation of Electoral Rolls (Rs 85 crore), Charges for
14
Conduct of Election for Lok Sabha (Rs.200 crore), Charges for Conduct of Election for Rajya
Sabha (Rs. 0.29 crore), Expenditure in UTs (without Legislature) (Rs.7.62 crore),
Expenditure on EVMs Professional Services (Rs. 50 crore), Expenditure on
Presidential/Vice-Presidential Elections (Rs.0.09 crore), Issue of Electors’ Photo Identity
Cards (EPIC) to voters (Rs.54 crore), and EVMs for Election Commission (Rs. 150 crore).
The Official Language Wing and Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan have been allocated Rs. 13.25
crore and Rs. 7 crore, respectively. Further, Rs. 20 lakh has been allocated under a new Head
‘Social Security and Welfare’
2.27. The Department in its written replies to the questionnaire of the Committee has
submitted that the reasons for reduced allocation under the head ‘Elections (Reimbursement
to state/UTs)’ is on account of the Lok Sabha Election, 2019, the Department has already
provisionally released substantive amount in the Financial Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 to the
States/UTs (Rs. 526.25 crore in Financial Year 2018-19 and Rs. 865.85 crore in Financial
Years 2019-20) as advance to the meet the election expenditure.
2.28. While observing the pattern of expenditure and allocations to the Legislative
Department from the above mentioned table, the Committee observes that the major
portion of the allocations to the Legislative Department is for secretariat expenditure.
The Committee further observes that, except election related expenses in both revenue
and capital head, expenditure trends of the Legislative Department is satisfactory. The
variations in allocations between RE 2019-20 and BE 2020-21 under the Heads
Elections (Reimbursement to State/UTs), EVMs professional service and EVMs for
Election Commission (Capital) is primarily due to the General Election to Seventeenth
Lok Sabha in 2019, because of which substantive amount was already released to States
/UTs as advance to meet electoral expenses and further allocations depends on the
receipt of valid audit certificates.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
2.29. The allocation for Department of Justice is Rs.1191 crore, which includes Rs.144.16
crore under Non-Scheme and Rs.1047.73 crore under Scheme side, and it is 54 per cent
(approx) of the total allocation under Demand No.64.
2.30. The following table is indicative of the increase/decrease from BE 2019-20 and RE
2019-20 in the allocation to BE (2020-21) and expenditure of Department of Justice up to
31st January, 2020.
15
TABLE NO. 7
Allocation and Variation under Department of Justice (Rs. in crore)
Head BE 2019-20 RE 2019-20 BE 2020-21 Variations
BE 2020-
21 over
BE 2019-
20
Scheme Non-
Scheme
Scheme Non-
Scheme
Scheme Non-
Scheme
Secretariat Expenditure of Department
of Justice 16.55 16.55 21.98 (+)5.43
Secretariat Expenditure of National
Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal
Reforms
2.10 2.10 2.10 0
National Judicial Academy 11.00 16.00 11.00 0
National Legal Services Authority
(NALSA) 6.50 6.50 6.60 (+)0.10
NALSA (Grants-in-Aid) 140.00 140.00 100.00 (-) 40
Supreme Court Legal Services
Committee (SCLSC) 2.48 2.48 2.48 0
Total (Non-Scheme)
178.63 183.63 144.16 (-) 34.47
a) Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS)
for Development of Infrastructure
Facilities for judiciary including
Assistance to States for Establishing and
Operationalising Gram Nyayalayas.
720.00 990.00 762.00 (+)42.00
b) ECourts Phase-II (Integrated Mission
Mode project) including North Eastern
States
256..53
180.00 250.00 (+) 6.53
c) Action Research and Studies on
Judicial Reforms including Access to
Justice
35.73 30.00 35.73 0
Total (Scheme) 1012.26 1200.00 1047.73 (+) 35.47
Grand Total (Scheme + Non Scheme) 1190.89 1383.63 1191.89
2.31. As against the projection of Rs. 2714.10 crore, the Department of Justice has been
allocated Rs. 1191.89 crore only in BE 2020-21. Out of the total allocation to the
Department, Rs 762 crore is allocated for the Central Sponsored Scheme for Infrastructure
Development of Judiciary (including Gram Nyayalayas), Rs. 250 crore for E-Courts Project
Phase – II (including North Eastern Region) and Rs. 35.73 crore for Action Research and
Studies on Judicial Reforms, including Access to Justice. In addition to the above allocations
under the Department of Justice, additional Rs. 150 crore has been allocated under the head
‘National Mission for Safety of Women’ for setting up of Fast Track Special Courts (FTSC)
from the Nirbhaya Fund.
2.32. The Department submitted that as against the allocations for the current Financial
16
Year, the provisional expenditure as on 31st January, 2020, was Rs. 37.31 crore for E-Courts
Project Phase – II, Rs. 17.68 crore for Action Research and Studies on Judicial Reforms and
Rs. 707.26 crore for Infrastructure Development of Judiciary (including Gram Nyayalayas).
2.33. In the overall allocation to the Department, there is an increase of Rs 70 crore for the
Scheme over RE 2019-20 mainly due to increase in budgetary allocation under e-Court
Phase-II from Rs 180 crore in RE 2019-20 to Rs 250 crore in BE 2020-21.Further, the
Grants-in-aid to National Judicial Academy has remained constant at Rs. 11 crore, whereas
that of for NALSA has been reduced from Rs 140 crore in BE 2019-20 to Rs. 100 crore in BE
2020-21.
2.34. The Director, National Judicial Academy during his deposition in the meeting of the
Committee on the Demand for Grants (2020-21) submitted that the NJA had projected Rs.
28.2 crore as Revenue Grant-in –aid and Rs. 2 crore as Capital Grant-in-aid for the Financial
Year 2020-21. The NJA also informed that Rs. 30.2 crore projected by it, was approved by
the Department of Justice and forwarded to the Ministry of Finance. Regarding human
resource in the Academy the Director submitted that, out of the total sanctioned strength
positions of employees (124), only 99 are in position and the NJA is in dire need of financial
support to maintain some of the essential services and quality and also to fill-up vacant
positions. The existing employees have not yet given the arrears of enhanced salary as per
Seventh Pay Commission recommendations. The allocations and expenses of the National
Judicial Academy for the last few years are as under:-
TABLE NO. 8
Allocation and Expenditure of the National Judicial Academy
2.35. It may be observed from the above table that NJA has been facing financial deficit for
the last few years and it has been affecting its ongoing activities. In BE 2019-20 and RE
2019-20 Rs. 11 crore and Rs. 16 crore, respectively were allocated to the NJA. Further, the
NJA has been allocated Rs. 11 crore for BE 2020-21, as against the projection of Rs 30.2
crore as Grants-in-aid made to the Ministry of Finance.
2.36. The Committee observes that both actual requirements and expenses of NJA are
more than allocations for the last few years. The Committee notes that the NJA is a
premier institution of the country for the training of judges of Higher Judiciary, judges
of neighboring countries, /District Courts and Tribunals etc. and plays an important
role in leveraging soft power of the country in the field of judicial training and research.
Year BE RE Actual
Released
Actual Expenses
Incurred by NJA
Short-fall of
funds
Remarks
2017-18 10.00 10.00 10.00 14.68 (-)4.68
Shortfall met out from
the funds available with
NJA on account of
lodging and boarding
charges, registration
fees, interest income
and other miscellaneous
receipts
2018-19 10.00 10.00 10.00 17.30 (-)7.30
2019-20 11.00 16.00 10.00 12.18 (upto
31.12.2019)
(-)2.18
(upto Dec 2019)
17
The Committee, accordingly, recommends the Department to approach Ministry of
Finance for enhanced allocations to NJA as approved by it at RE stage during the
Financial Year 2020-21, so that on-going training and research activities of the
Academy are not hampered due to financial constraints. The action taken on the
recommendations of the Committee may be apprised by the Department in its Action
Taken Replies.
2.37. The Member-Secretary, National Legal Services Authority during his deposition in
the meeting of the Committee on the Demand for Grants (2020-21) apprised the Committee
of the requirement of enhanced allocations of Rs. 280 crore for the Financial Year 2020-21 to
undertake its activities/programmes. Details of projections of funds made by NALSA under
the Ministry of Law and Justice to the Ministry of Finance and amount allocated under BE
2020-21 and percentage change/variation over BE2019-20 and RE 2019-20 is as below:
TABLE NO. 9
Allocation and Expenditure of NALSA
(Rs in crore)
Name of the
Organisation/
Institution
Actuals
2018-19
BE
2019-20
RE
2019-20
Expenditure
up to
31.01.2020
Projection
To MoF for
BE 2020-21
BE
2020-21
Variations
(in Percentage)
NALSA 150 140 140
140 280 100
BE 2020-21
over
RE 2019-20
BE 2020-21
over
Projections to
MoF
Total 150 140 140 140 280 100 (-) 28.57% (-) 64.29%
2.38. The Committee observes that the NALSA was allocated Rs. 140 crore in both BE and
RE 2019-20, whereas it has been allocated Rs. 100 in BE 2020-21 against the projected
demand of Rs. 280 crore made to the Ministry of Finance. In the total projection of Rs 280
crore, NALSA had made projections for Rs. 70 crore for Legal Counsel fees, Rs. 65 crore for
Paral Legal Volunteer Activities, Rs. 36 crore for Lok Adalats, Rs 30 crore for Mass
Awareness programme, Rs. 20 crore for Legal Service Clinics and Front Aid Officers, etc.
while computing the projection of Rs 280 crore.
2.39. The Committee notes that there is no under utilization in the current Financial
Year. The Committee is also of the view that NALSA needs to rationalise its expenses
relating to Legal Counsel Fee by engaging more and more Senior Lawyers on pro-bono
basis. Further, expenses relating to Mass Awareness Programme needs to be
rationalized to eliminate wasteful expenditure, if any.
2.40. Details of projections of funds made for CSS under the Ministry of Law and Justice
to the Ministry of Finance and amount allocated in BE (2020-21) and percentage
change/variation over BE/RE (2019-20) is as below:
18
TABLE NO. 10
Centrally Sponsored Scheme for the Infrastructure Facilities for Judiciary
(Rs .in crore)
Name of the Scheme
/ Sub-Scheme
Actual
s 2018-
19
BE
2019-20
RE
2019-20
Projection
to MoF for
BE 2020-
21
BE 2020-
21
Variation(in percentage)
BE 2020-21
over RE 2019-
20
BE 2020-21
over projections
to MoF
Centrally
Sponsored Scheme
for the
infrastructure
facilities for
Judiciary
702.86 710.00 982.00 1490.00 754.00 (-)23.21% (-)49.39%
2.41. The Department in its written replies submitted that as on 9th
January, 2020, there
were 19,593 court halls/rooms available in District and Subordinate Courts and 2728 were
under construction. Further, there were also 17,236 residential units available and 1854 are
under construction. To ensure the timely completion of the remaining court halls/residential
units, the Department had projected higher budgetary allocations of Rs. 1490 crore for the
Scheme for the next Financial Year.
2.42. The Committee observes that as against the projection of Rs. 1490 crore for CSS
Scheme for Infrastructure Development of Subordinate Judiciary, only Rs 754 crore
was allocated, which is a telling reduction of 50 percent approx. over the projections
made to Ministry of Finance and 23 percent approx. over RE 2019-20. The Committee
feels that reduction of funds may adversely affect optimal execution of schemes and the
shortfall of 50 percent approx. over projections is too large to be ignored. The
Committee, accordingly, recommends that the funds allocated may be reconsidered
during the RE 2020-21, depending upon the progress of the work.
2.43. The total outlay for the e-Courts Project Phase-II is Rs. 1670 crore, out of which Rs.
1393 crore is proposed to be released during the current Financial Year 2019-20. Out of the
balance amount Rs. 277 crore (Rs. 1670 crore - Rs. 1393 crore), Rs.250 crore is allocated for
BE 2020-21. The activities under e-Courts Project that are proposed in BE 2020-21 includes
WAN connectivity by BSNL for Rs.79.84 crore and Rs. 54.38 crore for National Informatics
Centre (NIC) for sustenance of National Data Centre. As informed by the Department of
Justice, the expenditure as on 31st January, 2020 is only Rs. 37.31 crore. Details of
projections of funds made for eCourts to the Ministry of Finance and amount allocated in BE
2020-21 and percentage change/variations over BE 2019-20 and RE 2019-20 is as below:
19
TABLE NO. 11
e-Courts Project Phase-II
(Rs.in crore)
Name of the
Scheme /
Sub-Scheme
Expenditure
2018-19
BE
2019-20
RE
2019-20
Projection to
MoF for
BE 2020-21
BE
2020-21
Variation in percentage
BE 2020-21
over RE
2019-20
BE 2020-21
over projectio
ns
to MoF
e-Courts Project
Phase-II
286.03 256.53 180.00 278.32 250.00 38.89 (-)10.17
2.44. The Committee observes that allocations for eCourts Project Phase-II in BE
2020-21 has increased by 39 percent approx. over RE 2019-20. Further, as compared to
projections made to the Finance Ministry for Financial Year 2020-21, the allocations
have decreased by 10.17 percent. However, the Committee is pained to note that out of
Rs. 180 crore allocations in RE 2019-20, only Rs. 37.31 crore was spent by the
Department as on 31st January, 2020. Thus, despite under utilisation of allocations, the
Departments made projection for higher allocations for the next Financial Year. The
Committee, therefore, recommends the Department to improve the ratio of funds
allocations vis-à-vis utilisations as under utilisation implies under performance of the
project.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (DEMAND NO. 65)
2.45. Election Commission India is a constitutional authority created under Article 324 of
Constitution. The entire expenditure incurred by the Election Commission of India is voted.
Budgetary allocation of Rs 270 crore has been made for the Financial Year 2020-21, of
which Rs 269 crore is for the revenue expenditure and Rs 1.00 crore is for the capital
expenditure for construction of additional office building at Dwarka, New Delhi. The
variation between BE 2020-21 over BE 2019-20 and RE 2019-20 and that between BE 2020-
21 and projections made to MoF are reflected in the table below.
TABLE NO. - 12
Budgetary Allocation for Election Commission of India (ECI)
(Rs. in crore)
BE
( 2019-20)
RE
(2019-20)
Projections
to MoF for
BE 2020-21
BE
(2020-21)
Variation in BE 2020-21
over
BE 2019-120
286.68 286.68 316.93 270.00 (-) 16.68
2.46. The Commission has been allocated Rs. 270 crore in BE 2020-21, which is a decrease
of Rs. 16.68 crore (5.82 percent) over RE 2019-20. Since, Commission’s overall budgetary
allocation for RE 2019-20 is same as in BE 2019-20. The RE 2019-20 allocation is 286.68
20
crore, out of which Rs. 31.22 crore is for Capital expenditute for making payment towards
purchase of land from Delhi Development Authority and pre-construction actvities.
Allocation under Revenue Head has been increased by 2.8 percent, whereas allocation under
Capital Head has been decreased by 96 percent in BE 2020-21 in comparison to BE 2020-21.
The revenue expenditure accounts for 99 per cent (approx.) of the total proposed allocation in
BE 2020-21.
2.47. Out of the total Budget for the Financial Year 2020-21, 19.90 percent approx. is
proposed to be incurred on Salary and allowances of the Commission and its employees,
26.71 percent on Information Technology, 27.22 percent on Voters Awareness, 6.65 percent
on Training and 0.37 Percent on Capital Section. Under the head training, the Commission
provides training programmes to both domestic and election officials of other Countries at
India International Institute for Democracy and Election Management (IIIDEM), New Delhi.
Under the Head- Voters Awareness, the Systematic Voters Education and Election
Participation (SVEEP) is the main component with the twin objectives of complete enrolment
and voters’ participation during elections.
2.48. As submitted by the ECI, the budget allocation for the Financial Year 2019-20 for
SVEEP activities is 51 paise per elector. In other national flagship programme such as
Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, Poshan Abhiyan, etc. the spending is in the range of 8 to 10% of
total outlay. The spending for awareness is the minuscule proportion of total spending for
conduct of election and revision of electoral rolls across the country.
2.49. The Commission has brought to the notice of the Committee that a significant amount
of Rs.38.81 crore has been reduced in the proposed Budget Estimate (BE), while allocating
the actual Budget Estimate (BE) in Revenue Head for the Financial Year 2020-21. The
process of setting up of the SVEEP regional centre in Jaipur is already underway for covering
the western States of the country. Now, on the same lines it is proposed to set up five more
SVEEP Regional Centres in different zones, so that content creation for SVEEP activities
resonate with cultural and linguistic ethos.
S.No Regional Centre
1. Jaipur (already created) – Western Region
2. Kolkata – Eastern Region
3. Bengaluru – Southern Region
4. Lucknow- Central Region
5. Shillong- North-Eastern Region
6. Chandigarh- Northern Region
2.50. In view of the above, the ECI has submitted that the SVEEP Budget of Rs.12 crore is
also required in ‘Capital Head’ for the six SVEEP Regional Hubs. The additional amount of
21
Rs.38.81crore in Revenue Head under Voter Awareness Head for the FY 2020-21 and
Rs.12.00 crore in Capital Head under Voter Awareness Head for the FY 2020-21 is the
requirement of the ECI.
2.51. The Committee observes that the expenditure of the Commission till 31st
December, 2019 was only Rs. 191.24 crore, out of allocations of Rs. 286.68 crore in the
current Financial Year. Further, out of the total allocations of Rs. 25 crore for
advertisement and publicity, only Rs 11.7 crore was spent by the Commission despite
the year 2019 being year of General Election for Seventeenth Lok Sabha.
2.52. The Election Commission in its written replies submitted that funds allocated under
Capital Section for BE 2020-21 is insufficient to meet the construction cost of additional
office building for the Commission and additional demand may be projected after obtaining
construction plan from CPWD/NBCC. The Commission in its written replies to the queries of
the Committee submitted that the Commission requires additional allocation of Rs. 50.81
crore under the Voters Awareness Programme (both capital and revenue) for the Financial
Year 2020-21 to optimally undertake its activities.
2.53. The Committee observes that the allocations to the Election Commission of India
in BE 2020-21 is not as per the projection made to the Ministry for Finance. The
allocations have been reduced under the Head Voters Awareness Programme, which
may affect the digital outreach and awareness programmes of the Commission.
However, the Committee also observes that ECI has not been able to utilise its funds
under the Heads ‘Voters Awareness’ during current Financial Year despite the year
being year of General Election to the Seventeenth Lok Sabha. The Committee,
accordingly, recommends the ECI to improve its funds utilisation ratio under the Heads
where under utilisation persists. The Committee also recommends the Ministry to
enhance the allocations for construction of additional office buildings and Voters
Awareness programmes at RE stage, so that the activities and programmes of
Commission do not suffer.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (DEMAND NO. 66)
2.54. The Supreme Court of India is the highest Constitutional Court and also the final
court of appeal in our country. The expenditure incurred on the Supreme Court of India is
‘charged’ on the Consolidated Fund of India. Accordingly, entire Demand No. 66 is a
‘charged’ expenditure.
2.55. Budgetary allocation of Rs 308.61 crore has been made for the Financial Year 2020-
21. The entire Demand consists of Revenue expenditure only. The variation between BE
2020-21 over BE 2019-20 and that between RE 2019-20 and projections made to Ministry of
Finance are reflected in the table below.
22
TABLE NO. - 13
Budgetary Allocation for Supreme Court of India (SCI) (Rs. in crore)
BE
2019-20
RE
2019-20
Projections to
MoF for BE
2020-21
BE
2020-21
Variation in
BE 2020-21
over BE 2019-
20
Variation in
BE 2020-21
over RE 2019-
20
269.46 296.55 358.00 308.61 39.15 12.06
TABLE NO. - 14
Detailed Explanation of Allocation
(Figures in thousands)
Heads Àctuals
2018-19
B.E.
2019-20
R.E.
2019-20
B.E.
2020-21
Variations in
BE 2020-21
over BE 2019-
20
Salaries 2073377 2150000 2320000 2399600 (+)249600
Total – A 2073377 2150000 2320000 2399600 (+)249600
Non-Salary
Medical Treatment 87964 80000 90000 90000 (-)10000
Overtime Allowance 24 600 600 600 0
Domestic Travel
Expenses
10269 10000 12000 12000 (+)2000
Foreign Travel Expenses 28167 30000 30000 30000 0
Office Expenses 312967 317900 323000 349900 (+)32000
Publications 3247 4000 4000 4000 0
Deptt. Canteen 11649 100 100 0 (+)100
Professional Services 57636 100000 135800 100000 0
Information Technology 0 2000 50000 100000 (+)98000
Total – B 535300 544600 645500 686500 (+)141900
Total (A + B) 2585300 2694600 2965500 3086100 (+)391500
2.56. There is an increase of Rs 39.15 crore in BE 2020-21 over BE 2019-20 and Rs. 12.06
crore in BE 2020-21 over RE 2019-20. Major portion of the allocations under the Supreme
Court of India (Demand No. 66) is allocated for Salary, followed by Office expenses and
Professional and IT Services. The professional service includes pay and allowances to Delhi
Police and IT services includes upgradation of Data centre.
23
2.57. The Supreme Court of India in its written replies to the Committee has submitted that
due to increase in the strength of judges from 31 to 34 and revision of salary as per Seventh
Pay Commission, salary component has increased in BE 2020-21. Further, additional amount
is required under the head ‘Information Technology’ for the upgradation of Data Centre.
Additional expenses under the head ‘Office Expenses’ have been allocated for normal office
expenses and for the upgradation of Supreme Court Museum. There have not been instances
of under-utilization of funds between the Financial Years 2017-18 to 2019-20 allocated to the
Supreme Court.
2.58. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India while making his presentation before the
Committee submitted that as against the projected demand of 358 crore for the Financial Year
2020-21, the Supreme Court has been allocated Rs. 308 crore,. The remaining amount will be
sanctioned during first supplementary budget. The increased allocations are mainly on
account of revision of salary from Sixth Pay Commission to Seventh Pay Commission.
2.59. While observing the pattern of expenditure and allocations of the Supreme
Court from the above mentioned table, the Committee observes that the Supreme Court
of India has been making optimum utilization of allocations made to it under various
Heads. The Committee appreciates the Supreme Court for proactively utilizing
allocations made to it.
24
CHAPTER - III
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
3.1. The budget of the Department has the provisions of both Scheme and Non-Scheme
Expenditures. The Department facilitates administration of justice, access to justice, legal aid,
Lok Adalats and Fast Track Courts, implements the National Mission for Justice Delivery
and Legal Reforms, monitors development of judicial infrastructure through a Centrally
Sponsored Scheme, leveraging Information and Communications Technology (ICT) for
improved justice delivery, formulates and implements policies for judicial reforms, facilitates
the National Judicial Academy as a resource centre, etc. The Department is also the nodal
Department for enforcement of contract parameters for Ease of Doing Business. The
Department of Justice has been allocated Rs. 1191.89 crore in BE 2020-21. The detailed
budgetary provisions of the Department of Justice are given in Chapter II of the Report.
Vacancies in Courts
3.2. Constitution of India has provided for a single integrated system of courts to
administer and interpret both Union and State laws. The Supreme Court being the highest
court of appeal is at the top of hierarchy as per Article 124 of the Constitution, followed by
High Courts at State levels as per Article 214 which caters to one or more than one States.
Below High Courts exist Subordinate Courts comprising District Courts at district level and
other lower Courts at taluk levels. As per the Constitutional framework, the selection and
appointment of judges in Subordinate Courts is the responsibility of the High Courts and
State Governments concerned while appointment of Judges in High courts is the
responsibility of the Union Government which requires collaboration and consultation with
the State Government concerned and the Supreme Court Collegium.
Vacancy in High Courts
3.3. The Committee understands that Judges of High Courts are appointed under Articles
217 (1) and 224 of the Constitution supported by the Memorandum of Procedure prepared in
the year 1998 pursuant to the Supreme Court Judgment of October 6, 1993 (Second Judges
case) read with their Advisory Opinion of October 28, 1998 (Third Judges case). As per the
Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of Judges of High Courts, the initiation of
proposal for appointment of Judges in the High Court vests with the Chief Justice of the
concerned High Court. As per the existing Memorandum of Procedure, the following
timelines have been prescribed:
TABLE NO. 15
Activities Timelines
Proposal to be initiated by Chief Justice of High
Court
Six months before
occurrence of vacancy
Chief Minister/Governor to recommend proposal
received from the Chief Justice of High Court
Within six weeks
25
Chief Justice of India/Supreme Court Collegium
to recommend the proposal of MLJ
Within four weeks
Recommendations of CJI to PM for advising the
President for approval
Within three weeks
3.4. The Apex Court in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of
India (1993) case had categorically expressed that the appointment procedure must be
initiated at least six months before and should be completed one month prior to the
occurrence of vacancy. The Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 23rd February, 2018 in
Writ Petition(C) No. 835 of 2017 in Sunil Samdaria vs. Union of India took note of the undue
delay in filling up of vacant posts of Judges and directed all stakeholders including High
Courts for filling up of vacant posts in a time bound manner.
3.5. As submitted by the Department of Justice, as on 20th
February, 2020, 397 vacancies
out of 1079 sanctioned posts exist in various High Courts which is almost 37 percent of the
sanctioned strength. A statement showing the approved strength, working strength and
vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts, as on 20th
February,
2020 is produced in the Table below:-
TABLE NO. 16
Vacancies of Judges in Supreme Court of India and High Courts
Sl.No. Name of the High
Court
Sanctioned Strength Working Strength Vacancy
A. Supreme Court of
India
34 33 01
B. High Court Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl Total
1 Allahabad 76 84 160 65 40 105 11 44 55
2 Andhra Pradesh 28 09 37 18 0 18 10 09 19
3 Bombay 71 23 94 53 18 71 18 05 23
4 Calcutta 54 18 72 25 15 40 29 03 32
5 Chhattisgarh 17 05 22 11 04 15 06 01 07
6 Delhi 45 15 60 35 0 35 10 15 25
7 Gauhati 18 06 24 15 06 21 03 0 03
8 Gujarat 39 13 52 27 0 27 12 13 25
9 Himachal Pradesh 10 03 13 09 01 10 01 02 03
10 Common High Court for
the UT of Jammu and
Kashmir and UT of
Ladakh
13 04 17 09 0 09 04 04 08
11 Jharkhand 19 06 25 16 02 18 03 04 07
12 Karnataka 47 15 62 24 18 42 23 -03 20
13 Kerala 35 12 47 27 06 33 08 06 14
14 Madhya Pradesh 40 13 53 31 0 31 09 13 22
15 Madras 56 19 75 46 09 55 10 10 20
16 Manipur 04 01 05 04 0 04 0 01 01
17 Meghalaya 03 01 04 03 0 03 0 01 01
18 Orissa* 20 07 27 14 0 14 06 07 13
19 Patna 40 13 53 26 0 26 14 13 27
20 Punjab and Haryana 64 21 85 38 17 55 26 04 30
21 Rajasthan 38 12 50 21 0 21 17 12 29
26
*Acting Chief Justice
3.6. It is apparent from the above table that 37% of posts of judges in various High Courts
are lying vacant. In some of the High Courts, the vacancy position are very high, i.e. High
Courts of Allahabad (55), Calcutta (32), Punjab and Haryana (30), Rajasthan (29), Gujarat
(25), Delhi (25) and Bombay (23).
3.7. The Department in its written replies to the Committee has submitted that the
sanctioned strength of High Court was increased from 906 in the year 2014 to 1079 in the
year 2016 which is almost 19 percent. To a query of the Committee about steps taken to fill
up vacancies in High Courts, the Department in its written replies has stated that filling up
vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts is continuous collaborative
process between the Executive and the Judiciary as it requires consultation and approval of
various constitutional authorities.
3.8. The Department in its replies submitted that in some cases High Courts are not
initiating the proposal for appointment of Judges as per the Memorandum of Procedure; there
is a delay in the range of six to fifty two months by the High Courts. There are also instances
of high rate of rejection by the Supreme Court Collegium. A statement showing delay in
recommending names High Court-wise is provided at Annexure-I.
3.9. The Department further submitted that as against 397 vacancies in the High Courts,
206 recommendations received from various High Courts, are under process with the
Government and the Supreme Court Collegium. The Government is yet to receive 191
recommendations from the High Court Collegium for 191 vacancies for the post of Judges in
High Courts. Out of 206 proposals, 95 proposals have been submitted to Supreme Court
Collegium for their advice; 36 proposals are being examined for onward submission to
Supreme Court Collegium; 20 proposals are pending for want of Intelligence Bureau Report;
15 proposals are pending for want of views of State Government; 12 proposals are pending
for remission and remaining 28 proposals are under various stages of processing with the
Government.
3.10. To the query of the Committee as to whether infrastructural and supporting staff
constraints are coming in the way of filling up of vacancy positions of judges in High Courts,
the Department in its written reply has submitted that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High
Court vide his letter dated 17th
November, 2014 to the Department submitted as under:-
‘…it would be appropriate that the proposal for enhancing Judge
strength be kept in abeyance till the infrastructure required to
accommodate the additional post of Judges would be made available
22 Sikkim 03 0 03 03 0 03 0 0 0
23 Telangana 18 06 24 12 01 13 06 05 11
24 Tripura 04 0 04 03 0 03 01 0 01
25 Uttarakhand 09 02 11 09 01 10 0 01 01
Total 771 308 1079 544 138 682 227 170 397
27
to accommodate the enhanced strength of Judges in Allahabad High
Court.’
3.11. It was further stated that State Governments are responsible for providing
infrastructure, quarters for High Court judges and their supporting staff. The Department has
also clarified that the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Infrastructure Development of
Subordinate Judiciary covers the construction of Court buildings and residential quarters of
Judicial Officers of District and Subordinate Courts; the High Courts are not covered under
the Scheme.
3.12. A Division Bench of Supreme Court in the case of M/s PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and others on 17th
February, 2020 has observed as under:-
“…. Needless to emphasise that Chief Justices of High Courts must
make endeavours to recommend the names against the vacancies as
early as possible even if they are not made at one go. We may also
note that there appears to be some hesitation in some courts to
recommend the names without the earlier list being cleared. We
understand that there is no such impediment and it should be a
continuing process of recommending the names without waiting for
the result of the earlier recommendations till all recommendations are
made. Otherwise, the time period to process names is such that by the
time appointments takes place, another set of vacancies arise which
brings the problem of vacancies to square one”.
3.13. The Committee feels that there should not be inordinate delay in filling up
of vacancies of judges in High Courts. As on 20th
February, 2020, 37 percent
appx. (397) of the sanctioned strength of judges (1079) in High courts are lying
vacant. The Committee has expressed its concern in the past in its Eighty-seventh,
Ninety-first and Ninety-sixth Reports on the issue. Every year approximately 35 to
40 percent of posts of High Court Judges remains unfilled, which is a shared
concern. Except High Court of Sikkim, all 24 High Courts have number of
vacancies. The vacancy position of judges is very high in High Courts of
Allahabad (55), Calcutta (32), Punjab and Haryana (30), Rajasthan (29), Gujarat
(25), Delhi (25) and Bombay (23). It is understood that initiation of process of
appointment should commence six months prior to the occurrence of vacancy by
the concerned High Court as per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP). Even
though dates of the retirement of judges are well known in advance to the Registry
of the High Court, the recommendation by High Court collegium generally takes
six to fifty two months, which result in eventual delay in the issuance of warrant of
appointment by the President of India, as the Department of Justice is required to
consult the Governor and the Chief Minister of the concerned State and verify
antecedents of the proposed candidates before sending the name along with
intelligence inputs to the Supreme Court Collegium for consideration. There are
also instances of high rate of rejection by the Supreme Court Collegium. The
28
Committee suggests that delay in finalization of names recommended by
Collegium may be avoided at all stages.
3.14 A judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court on 17th
February, 2020 in the case M/s PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited &
others has been brought to the notice of the Committee. The apex court has observed
that the High Courts must make endeavours to recommend the names against the
vacancies as early as possible and High Courts should keep on recommending names
without waiting for the result of the earlier recommendations till all recommendations
are made. The Committee appreciates the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court and
expect that concerned High Courts should recommend the names well in advance so
that the appointees to the post of judges in the High Courts are available on the very
date of the retirement of the judges.
3.15. The Committee acknowledges apprehensions expressed by some High Courts
with regard to filling up of vacant positions of judges due to infrastructural constraints.
The Committee, accordingly, recommends the Department to request the State
Governments to create infrastructure facilities for High Courts so that infrastructural
constraints do not become a hindrance in the appointment of Judges.
Vacancy in District and Subordinate Courts
3.16. The Department in its written replies to the queries of the Committee about vacancy
of Judicial Officers in Subordinate Judiciary, has submitted that the sanctioned strength of
Judicial Officers of Subordinate Judiciary has increased from 19,518 as on 31st December,
2018 to 24,018 as on 20th
February, 2020. State-wise details of sanctioned strength vis-a-vis
working strength in Subordinate Judiciary is at Annexure-II.
3.17. It may be observed from the figures that there is still vacancy of 5,146 Judicial
Officers across various States as on 20th
February, 2020, which is almost 21 percent of the
sanctioned strength. The vacancy is highest in the States of Uttar Pradesh (1053), Bihar
(776), Madhya Pradesh (370), Gujarat (308) and Rajasthan (309). The Department further
submitted that the Union Government, on its part, has been taking up the matter of filling up
of vacant positions in District and Subordinate Courts with States and High Courts as per the
directions of the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr vs. UP Public Service
Commission (2007) case, but huge vacancy of more than 5,000 Judicial Officers only add to
the pendency of cases in Subordinate Courts.
3.18. The Committee is concerned with the large number of vacancies of Judicial
Officers in Subordinate Judiciary. As per the data made available to the Committee, as
on 20th
February, 2020, around 21 percent of sanctioned strength (24,018) of Judicial
Officers in Subordinate Courts are vacant in different States. Out of 5,146 vacancies a
large number of vacancies are in the States of Uttar Pradesh (1,053), Bihar (776),
Madhya Pradesh (370), Gujarat (308) and Rajasthan (309). Despite, the Supreme Court
monitoring vacancy positions of Judicial Officers in Subordinate judiciary through
29
hearings on Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr vs. UP Public Service Commission (2007) case,
a large number of vacancies of Judicial Officers are existing in various States. The
Committee, therefore, recommends the Department of Justice to impress upon the
State Governments/High Courts to expedite the process of filling up of the vacancy
positions of Judicial Officers in Subordinate Courts as per the directions of the
Supreme Court in the Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr vs. UP Public Service Commission
(2007) case.
Pendency in Courts
District and Subordinate Courts
3.19. The pendency of cases in District and Subordinate Courts has increased from 2.61
crore in the Year 2018 to 3.17 crore in January, 2020, which is an increase of 56 lakh cases
(21 percent approx.) comprising 2.28 crore Criminal Cases and 0.89 crore Civil Cases. In
Subordinate Courts, the pendency positions are highest in the States of Uttar Pradesh
(76,44,642), followed by Maharashtra (38,09,995), Bihar (28,62,829), West Bengal
(22,85,005) and Rajasthan (16,81,942). The details of pendency of cases in District and
Subordinate Courts is at Annexure – III.
3.20. The pendency in High Courts has increased from 34.27 lakh cases in the year 2018 to
45.62 lakh cases (13.01 lakh Criminal Cases, 19.30 lakh Civil Cases and 13.31 lakh Writ
Cases) as on 15th
January, 2020 which is an increase of 10 lakh (29 per cent approx). For the
same period, pendency in Supreme Court has increased from 55,495 to 59,859, which is an
increase of 4,364 (8 percent approx). The highest numbers of cases are pending in High
Courts of Allahabad (7,31,647), followed by Punjab and Haryana (5,34,524), Rajasthan
(4,68,402), Madras (4,03,407), Bombay (2,67,809) and Karnataka (2,47,812).
3.21. On the question of Case Clearance Rate in judiciary, the Department of Justice in its
replies to the Committee has submitted as under:-
Economic Survey 2018-19 defines Case Clearance Rate (CCR) “as
the ratio of the number of cases disposed of in a given year to the
number of cases instituted in that year”. Data relating to instituted or
disposed cases during a year is not made available on web portal
National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) in respect of High Courts and
District and Subordinate Courts. Hence, the Department is unable to
calculate Case Clearance Rate in the manner mentioned above. No
such data is available on the website of Supreme Court regarding
instituted and disposed cases during a year.
3.22 The Committee notes that pendency in courts is on the rise. It understands that
the cases instituted in particular year are not disposed in the same year leading to
addition of further pendency to the existing backlog. The pendency in Subordinate
Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court has increased by 21 percent, 29 percent and 8
percent, respectively. The Committee also takes into account the findings of the
30
Economic Survey (2018-19) about the national average of Case Clearance Rate (CCR)
of courts which is 87.5 percent However, District and Subordinate Courts in the
States of Gujarat, Odisha and Tamil Nadu have reportedly achieved 100 percent CCR
as per the India Justice Report (2019). Himachal Pradesh High Court has reportedly
the highest Case Clearance Rate at 109 percent.
3.23. The Committee also notes that working days in Supreme Court, High Courts and
Subordinate Courts are 190, 232 and 244 days, respectively. The Committee observes that in
Subordinate Courts both vacancy and pendency positions are hovering around 21 percent.
3.24. The Committee understands that administration of justice is a concurrent
constitutional obligation of both the Union and States, in view of Entry 11 A in Concurrent
List of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Pendency of cases from Apex to lower Courts
is a shared concern. The Committee was apprised that disposal of cases is within the domain
of the judiciary. It depends upon several factors i.e, category of the case (civil or criminal),
complexity of the facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of stake-holders viz. the
Bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants besides the availability of physical
infrastructure, supporting court staff and applicable rules of procedure. However, the Union
Government is committed to speedy disposal of cases and reduction in pendency of cases to
improve access to justice in line with the mandate under Article 39A of the Constitution.
3.25. The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms, established by the
Union Government, has adopted many strategic initiatives, including improving
infrastructure (court halls and residential units) for Judicial Officers of District and
Subordinate Courts, leveraging Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for better
justice delivery, filling up of vacant positions of Judges in High Courts and Supreme Court,
reduction in pendency through follow up by Arrears Committees at District, High court and
Supreme Court level, emphasis on Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) and initiatives to fast
track special type of cases.
3.26. The Committee observes that pendency of cases in Supreme Court, High Courts
and District and Subordinate Courts have increased by 8%, 29%, and 21%,
respectively, from the year 2018. The highest number of cases in Subordinate courts are
pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh (76,44,642), followed by Maharashtra (38,09,995)
Bihar (28,62,829), West Bengal (22,85,005) and Rajasthan (16,81,942). In the case of
High Courts the highest numbers of cases are pending in High Courts of Allahabad
(7,31,647), followed by Punjab and Haryana (5,34,524), Rajasthan (4,68,402), Madras
(4,03,407), Bombay(2,67,809) and Karnataka (2,47,812). The Committee is of the view
that pendency of cases and vacancy positions of judges are closely linked with each
other as some High Courts having high number of vacant positions of judges like High
Courts of Allahabad (52), Punjab and Haryana (30), Rajasthan (29) and Bombay (24)
are also having high number of pendency of cases. The Committee, accordingly, feels
that vacancy positions of judges needs to be filed up so that pendency may be reduced.
31
3.27. The Committee has noted that Department of Justice could not furnish Case
Clearance Rate of Courts to it as the institution and disposal of cases year-wise is not
maintained in the National Judicial Data Grid by the courts. The Committee, therefore,
desires that the registry of different courts may be requested to collate and maintain the
Case Clearance Rate of the Courts in order to assess the performance of the Courts in
dispensation of justice.
3.28. The Committee understands that judiciary is independent and integrated and
justice delivery depends upon the judiciary by getting timely support from police, legal
aid Institutions and the Bar in addition to financial support for infrastructure and
human resources from Government. All these institutions/ bodies need to act
harmoniously to reduce pendency of cases in various judicial forums. In the cooperative
and competitive federal scheme, the Union Government has been supplementing States
for creating physical and digital infrastructures for subordinate courts and Fast-Track
Courts on sharing basis under Centrally Sponsored Scheme. The digitalisation of court
system from lower to apex is being monitored by E-Committee of the Supreme Court.
3.29. The infrastructure for High Courts has to be met from the Budget of the State
Government. Some of the High Courts face infrastructural constraints which comes in
the way to fill up sanctioned strength in those High Courts. The Committee notes that
the expenditure of both the Union and States Governments on administration of justice
hovers around 0.08 to 0.09 percent of the GDP. The State Governments, may,
therefore, be impressed upon to spend the amount from the enhanced devolution of
fund from the Union to State Government upon recommendation by Fourteenth
Finance Commission, to support judiciary to increase its productivity. It not only
ensures the speedy justice to the people of the country, but also helps to enhance image
of our country in the Rule of Law matrix as well as ease of doing business matrix.
3.30. One of the recent initiatives of the Department is to engage retired judges as Nyaya
Mitra to render advice and assistance to serving judges in High Courts, District and
Subordinate Courts to expedite disposal of ten year’s old pending cases in particular. The
Government intends to engage Nyaya Mitras in 227 Districts in sixteen States for disposal of
more than ten year’s old cases. Allied to that two other initiatives are Nyaya Bandhu (Pro
bono Advocate) and Tele Law to provide legal advice through Common Service Centre.
3.31. The Committee understands that there are Constitutional provisions for
appointment of qualified Retired Judges under Article 128 in Supreme Court and 224
(A) in High Courts with the previous consent of the President of India but this provision
cannot be invoked to appoint Retired Judges to expedite pendency of cases as Supreme
Court Collegium is of the opinion that these provisions can be invoked only after filling
up of sanctioned strength of Judges. However, the Government has engaged 100 Retired
Judges called ‘Nyaya Mitra’ to render advice and assistance to the serving judges in
High Courts (7), District and Subordinate Courts (93) to expedite ten year’s old pending
cases. The Committee appreciates the initiative of the Government to take the service
32
of retired judges as Nyaya Mitra to clear pendency of cases in various courts. The
Committee desires that more Nyaya Mitras may be engaged in other courts where cases
are pending for more than ten years.
Fast Track Courts and Fast Track Special Courts
3.32. As on 31st December, 2019, 828 Fast Track Courts (FTCs) are functional in the
country. They are established by the State Governments as per their need and resources, in
consultation with the High Courts concerned to deal with cases of heinous nature against
women, children, senior citizen, other vulnerable sections of society, civil cases of long
pending property disputes, etc. At present those Fast Track Courts are functional in 17
States/UTs viz. Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Mizoram, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal,
Delhi, Haryana, Bihar, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura,
Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.
3.33. Fast Track Special Courts (FTSC) Scheme was approved in August 2019 by the
Government spreading over two financial years. The FSTCs scheme proposes for effective
implementation of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 by ensuring targeted disposal of
pending cases relating to rape and Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012. The FTSC scheme has a budget allocation of Rs.767.25 crore under Centrally
Sponsored Scheme under 60:40 and 90:10 funding pattern between Centre and State,
including Central support of Rs.474 crore for one year, which is to be funded from Nirbhaya
Fund. Till date, central share amounting to Rs.99.43 crore has been released to 27 States/UTs
for setting up of 649 FTSCs including 363 exclusive POCSO courts.
3.34. The POCSO Act, 2012 mandates that investigation of cases to be completed within
two months and trial by six months. However, having stringent provisions in the POCSO
Act, 2012 and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, cases relating to rape and POCSO
Act has increased to 2.59 lakhs from 1.66 lakhs. The Supreme Court in suo motu Writ
Petition (Criminal) No. 1/2019 has issued direction that every district where more than 100
cases under POCSO Act is registered, a Fast-Track Special Court may be set up to dispose of
these cases exclusively. As on today, 389 districts in the country are having more than 100
cases under POCSO Act. Therefore, out of 1023 Fast-Track Special Courts, 389 Fast Track
Special Courts would be set up to handle cases under POCSO Act.
3.35. The Committee appreciates the initiative of the Department for setting up Fast
Track Special Courts in the country for expeditious trial and disposal of cases relating
to rape and cases under POCSO Act, 2012 pending in various courts. The Committee is
of the view that adequate resources, both financial and human resources, may be
provided in a time bound manner to achieve the objectives of the FTSC scheme. The
Committee further recommends that the impact of the scheme may be evaluated after
the completion of one year of the scheme to identify the challenges and the same may be
apprised to the Committee in the Action Taken Replies of the Department.
33
Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for the
Judiciary
3.36. The Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) has been in operation since 1993-94 with a
funding pattern of 50:50 to States (changed to 60:40 with effect from 2015-16) and 90:10 in
respect of North -eastern and Himalayan States, for infrastructural development of
Subordinate Courts. Through this Scheme the Central Government augments the resources of
the State Governments by providing financial assistance for the development of infrastructure
facilities for Subordinate Judiciary. It covers the construction of court buildings and
residential accommodations of judicial officers of District and Subordinate Judiciary.
3.37. The Department in its written replies to the Committee submitted that the Government
has approved continuation of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for development of
infrastructure facilities for Judiciary beyond 31st March, 2017 upto 31
st March, 2020 with an
outlay of Rs. 3,320 crore to be implemented in Mission Mode through the National Mission
for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms. Since inception of the Scheme, the Central
Government has provided financial assistance of Rs. 7,453 crore to State Governments/
Union Territories. Out of this, an amount of Rs. 4,808 crore has been provided since the year
2014-15 till 31st December, 2019.The Central Government has released an amount of 702.86
crore to the State Governments and UTs during the Financial Year 2019-20.
3.38. The Department in its written replies submitted that as on 9th
January, 2020, there
were 19,593 court halls/rooms available in District and Subordinate Courts and 2,728 were
under construction. The reply stated that there were also 17,236 residential units available
and 1,854 are under construction. An online monitoring system through geo-tagging and
Nyaya Vikas web portal and mobile app have been developed with the technical assistance of
ISRO to monitor the construction work.
3.39. As per information furnished to the Committee, the sanctioned strength and
working strength of Subordinate Judiciary are 24,018 and 18,872, respectively and a
total of 22,321 court rooms/halls and 19,090 residential units would be available for the
Subordinate Judiciary. It means that the availability of court rooms/halls is eighteen
percent surplus as compared to working strength of Judicial Officers and there is a
seven percent deficit as compared to sanctioned strength of judicial officers. Similarly,
the residential units is one percent surplus as compared to working strength of the
Judicial Officers and twenty percent deficit as compared to sanctioned strength of
Judicial Officers. The Committee has been informed that during the period from 15th
January 2020 to 20th
February 2020, 236 posts of judicial officers have been created
leading the sanctioned strength to 24,018. The State Governments will be filling these
vacancies as per the direction of the Supreme Court of India on the Malik Mazhar
Sultan and Anr vs. UP Public Service Commission (2007) case in due course. Therefore,
the present situation of surplus of court rooms and residential quarters for Judicial
34
Officers would be deficit in future. The Committee accordingly, recommends the
Department to release funds and impress upon State Governments to construct courts
room and residential accommodation as per sanctioned strength so that there would be
100 percent satisfaction on both accounts.
e-Court Mission Mode Project (MMP)-Phase-II
3.40. The objective of e-Courts Integrated Mission Mode Project (e-Courts IMMP) is
universal computerization of all District and Subordinate Court complexes. Phase-I of e-
Courts IMMP concluded at a total cost of Rs 639.144 crores in 2015. Key features of the
Project include provisioning of basic infrastructure for Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) enablement of District and Subordinate courts, which consists of various
modules, including computer hardware, Local Area Network (LAN), internet connectivity
and installation of standard application software at District and Subordinate Courts. The
Department of Justice works in coordination with e-Committee of the Supreme Court of India
for implementing the Phase-II of the project. The time period for the implementation of the
project was four years (2015-19).
3.41. The Department of Justice in its written replies to the Committee apprised that
Computerization of 1685 District and Subordinate courts across the country under the
eCourts project has been completed, through provisioning of computer hardware, Local Area
Network (LAN), internet connectivity and installation of standard application software in
District and Subordinate Courts. Information in respect of 12.87 crore pending and decided
cases and more than 10.93 Court orders/judgments pertaining to these computerized courts
are made available through the portal of National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). Video
conferencing facilities have been operationailized in 3240 Court Complexes and
corresponding 1272 prisons. Further, facilities like e Courts Mobile App, Judicial Service
Centre, SMS Push/Pull, etc have been made operational. BSNL has been awarded work
order of Rs.169 crores for establishing Wide Area Network (WAN) connecting 2992 District
and Subordinate Courts Complexes across the country including 547 Court Complexes with
no connectivity. On the query of Committee on non-availability of pendency data in respect
of some States/Union Territories (Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Andaman & Nicobar
Islands, Lakshadweep, Puducherry), the Department submitted that pendency data of
Puducherry is displayed under Tamil Nadu the remaining data will be uploaded within a
month and observation of the Arrears Committee of Supreme Court on the non-availability of
pendency data will be submitted after obtaining from it.
3.42. As per Prison Statistics India 2018, published by National Crime Records Bureau
(New Delhi) as on 31st December, 2018, there are 1339 prisons in the country with 4,66,084
inmates. The national occupancy rate of jails is 117.6 % while the occupancy rate in District
Jail is 132.8%. The total number of under-trial prisoners in the country are 3,23,537 which is
69% of inmates of all jails. The State of Uttar Pradesh has reportedly highest number of
under-trails followed by Bihar and Maharashtra. One of the reasons for slow disposal of
criminal cases in particular is that accused or under-trial could not be produced in the court
35
for trial due to non-availability of requisite police officers for escorting the under-trail/
accused and the transportation facility for the same.
3.43. Video-conferencing is in vogue in almost all Central and District Jails and most of the
sub-jails. As per information submitted to the Committee by the Department of Justice, video
conferencing facility has been made operational between 3,240 court complexes and 1,272
corresponding jails. The video-conferencing facility is an effective alternative to physical
appearance of alleged accused/under-trial in the court for trial. Simultaneous video-
conferencing facility in the court complex and corresponding jails has several putative
advantages including saving of expenditure on account of logistics, deployment of police
officers as escort for taking the persons to the court, etc. Usually, relatives of the accused or
the under-trial visit the court premises to meet him/her. The escorting officers from jail as
well as relatives of the accused/under-trial increase footfall in the court premises. Such
facility eases the burden on the jail as well as on the court.
3.44. It is also used for interaction with under-trials in the prison with the Legal Aid
Counsels available in the courts. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, in the case of
Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan Vs State of Maharashtra on 14th
August, 2018 has directed all Legal
Aid Authorities and Committees in the States to use video conferencing for interaction with
under-trials.
3.45. The Committee has noted that 95% of the jails have been linked to the court
complex with video-conferencing facility. Only remaining 67 jails, which is 5% of the
total has to be linked. Simultaneous video-conferencing facility in the court complex
and corresponding jails, besides expediting trial of alleged accused also reduce footfalls
in court complex and expenditure on the part of State Government on account of
logistics and accompanying escorting officials. The Department of Justice has inter-alia
been providing grant-in-aid under E-court Mission Mode Project, Phase-II for the
purpose. However, State Government should take steps to utilise 10% enhanced funds
released as share of State Government as recommended by the Fourteenth Financial
Commission for such purposes, which would undoubtedly expedite the justice delivery
process.
3.46. Digitization of work in the portal of National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) will
help in avoiding duplicity of work by Government Departments/Institutions. The
pendency data of a few States and UTs are not available in NJDG. The Committee
recommends the Department to apprise it, of the observations of the Arrears
Committee of the Supreme Court on the non-availability of pendency data in respect of
Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and UTs of Lakshadweep, Puducherry and Andaman
and Nicobar Islands in NJDG, in its Action Taken Replies of the Department.
Gram Nyayalayas
3.47. The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 came into force w.e.f. 2nd
October, 2009. The Act
provides for establishment of Gram Nyayalayas at the grass root level with a view to
providing access to justice to citizens at their doorsteps. To encourage the States, the Central
36
Government formulated a scheme for providing financial assistance for non-recurring
expenses for setting up of Gram Nyayalayas @ Rs. 18.00 lakh per Gram Nyayalaya (Rs. 10
lakh for office building, Rs 5.00 lakh for vehicle and Rs. 3.00 lakh for furnishing the office).
In addition, a provision was made in the scheme for recurring assistance for 50 percent of
expenditure up to a ceiling of Rs. 3.20 lakh per annum per Gram Nyayalaya for the first three
years. The recurring and non-recurring assistance is subject to financial ceilings as provided
in the guidelines of the scheme. A sum of Rs.8. crore, which is same as the allocation in
current Financial Year (2019-20), has been allocated for Gram Nyayalayas for Financial
Year 2020-21 for establishing and operationalization of Gram Nyayalayas. So far 353 Gram
Nyayalayas have been notified in eleven States, however, only 221 Gram Nyayalayas are
operational in nine States. Those are in the States of Madhya Pradesh (89), Rajasthan (45),
Maharashtra (24), Jharkhand (1), Odisha (16), Haryana (2), Punjab (2) , Uttar Pradesh (14)
and Kerala (30).The notified vis-à-vis operationalistion of Gram Nyayalayas in eleven States
are presented in the table below:-
TABLE NO. 17
Notified/Operationalisation of Gram Nyayalayas in various States as
on 20th
February, 2020.
Sl No. Name of the State Gram
Nyayalyas
Notified
Gram
Nyayalayas
operational
1 Madhya Pradesh 89 87
2 Rajasthan 45 45
3 Karnataka 2 0
4 Odisha 22 16
5 Maharashtra 39 24
6 Jharkhand 6 1
7 Goa 2 0
8 Punjab 2 2
9 Haryana 3 2
10 UP 113 14
11 Kerala 30 30
Total 353 221
3.48. Gram Nyayalayas are 100 percent operational in the States of Punjab, Rajasthan and
Kerala whereas only 13 and 16 percent Gram Nayayalayas are operational in the States of
Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand, respectively. Further, no Gram Nyayalayas are operational in
the States of Karnataka and Goa. The Department in its written replies to the questionnaire of
the committee submitted that setting up of Gram Nyayalayas by State Governments are
optional and at the discretion of High Court of the State.
37
3.49. The Department has submitted that Indian Law Institute in its report on effectiveness
of Gram Nyayalayas in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan found that the major issues affecting
operationalization of the Gram Nyayalayas are overlapping jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalayas
with regular courts; shortage of First Class Judicial Magistrates to man the Gram Nyayalayas;
reluctance of police and other state functionaries to appear before them. The study concluded
that Gram Nyayalayas in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have not achieved the
objectives of either speedy disposal or inexpensive justice for the poor. The Study also made
suggestions on (i) Establishment of Permanent Gram Nyayalayas, (ii) Infrastructure and
Security, (iii) Creation of a regular cadre of Gram Nyayadhikaris, (iv)Training of
Nyayadhikaris, (v) Jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalayas (vi) Creating awareness among
various stakeholders. Another evaluation study was carried by the National Productivity
Council in (2017) on the effectiveness of the Scheme of the Gram Nyayalaya also
recommended for continuation of the Scheme from 2017-18 to 2019-20.
3.50. The pace of establishment of Gram Nyayalayas has been very slow as only 353
Gram Nyayalayas have been notified by eleven States so far and out of these only 211
are functional in nine States with cent percent operationalisation in the states of Punjab,
Rajasthan and Kerala. The Committee observes that Gram Nyayalayas are yet to made
operational is the States of Karnataka and Goa, even though they have notified the
Gram Nyayalayas. Further, the ratio of notification vis-à-vis operationalisation is very
poor in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, in particular. The Committee
recommends that for non-operationalisation of Gram Nyayalayas after their
notification, views of High Courts of those States may be solicited and submitted to the
Committee in the Action taken Replies to this Report by the Department. The
Committee, further, recommends the Department to apprise the Committee of the
actions taken by it on the Evaluation study conducted by Indian Law Institute.
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)
3.51. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) has been constituted under the
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to monitor and evaluate implementation of legal aid
programmes and to lay down policies and principles for making legal services available
under the Act. In every State, a State Legal Services Authority (SLSAs) and in every High
Court, a High Court Legal Services Committee has been constituted. District Legal Services
Authorities (DLSAs), Taluk Legal Services Committees have been constituted in the Districts
and most of the Taluks to give effect to the policies and directions of the NALSA and to
provide free legal services to the people and conduct Lok Adalats in the State. Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee has been constituted to administer and implement the legal
services programme in so far as it relates to the Supreme Court of India. Further, NALSA has
initiated Legal Aid Defense Counsel System (LADCS) where lawyers are engaged full-time
basis for conducting legal aid cases on Session Courts in 17 Districts on pilot basis for two
years. NALSA is also in the process of conducting impact evaluation study on its activities.
3.52. The Member-Secretary, NALSA during his deposition during the Demands for Grants
(2020-21) before the Committee submitted that there are 36 State Legal Services Authorities,
38
36 High Court Legal Services Committees, 665 District legal Services Authorities and 2254
Taluk legal Services Committees in the country. In year 2019, legal assistance was provided
to 1.75 lakh prisoners. For capacity building and to enhance the quality of panel lawyers,
NALSA is providing training. Legal Aid Clinics are functional in 1122 Jails in the Country.
Also 20,201 bail applications were filed and 67,948 prisoners were provided legal assistance
at the time of remand stage in the year 2019. Further, 47,00,664 cases in State Lok Adalats,
16,552,839 cases in National Lok Adalats were disposed of between the years 2016 to 2019.
Further 3,72, 823 cases were settled through mediation between the years 2016 to 2019.
3.53. Legal Aid Authorities appoint Para Legal Volunteers (PLVs). The PLVs are the
intermediaries between Legal Services Institutions and the common man. They are trained to
counsel and amicably settle simple disputes between the parties at the source. As per
NALSA Para Legal Volunteer Scheme, 2009, every Taluk Legal Service Committee (TLSC)
and District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) are required to have 25 and 50 PLVs on their
roll, respectively. PLVs can be recruited out of retired Government Servants, Senior citizens,
Self-Help Groups and law students till they enrolled as lawyer, educated prisoners serving
long-term imprisonment, etc. There is requirement of giving due representations to persons
belonging to SC, ST, OBC, minorities and woman while appointing PLVs. As per
information submitted by NALSA to the Committee 61, 090 PLVs are on the rolls of Legal
Service Authorities/Committees in the country. In India Justice Report, 2019, it was pointed
out that PLVs have been unevenly appointed by the Legal Service Authorities/ Committees.
3.54. The Committee was apprised that an impact assessment and evaluation studies
of Para Legal Volunteer Scheme of 2009, is underway, the findings of which would be
available by April, 2020. The Committee desires that findings of the study alongwith
observations of the Department of Justice may be submitted to it with Action Taken
Replies to the Committee. The Committee feels that PLVs are harbinger of legal
awareness and legal aid which cannot be undermined in the society. They reach to the
marginalised in the remote corner of the country and reduce the scope of cases reaching
the Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism or regular courts. The Committee desires
that the scheme of Para-legal volunteers need to be further strengthened for timely
justice delivery.
3.55. The Committee is happy to note that NALSA has provided legal assistance to
prisoners during remand stage and bail applications. However, as per prison statistics-
India (2018) published by National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB), New Delhi, the
average occupancy rate of prison in our country is 117.16 percent which is reportedly
due to presence of a large number of undertrials ( 69% of the Prison inmates) in the
prison. Legal Aid is a constitutional obligation under Article 39A of the Constitution
and NALSA has been created to fulfill this Constitutional mandate. However, only 1122
Legal Aid Clinics are functional in various prisons which means that 217 prisons are yet
to get a legal aid clinic. The Committee, accordingly, recommends NALSA to establish
Legal Aid Clinics in remaining prisons in the Country to fulfill the mandate for which it
is created. The Committee appreciates the initiative of NALSA to conduct impact
39
evaluation study on its activities in the coming Financial Year. The Committee feels that
there should be regular impact evaluation study of its programmes and activities to
identify shortcomings in the implementation of programmes and activities.
3.56. The Committee observes that the National Lok Adalat and State Lok Adalats
have disposed of 1.65 crore and 47 lakh cases, respectively, so far. Out of the total cases
decided by National Lok Adalat, 49% pertains to pending cases and out of total cases
decided by the State Lok Adalats, 55% pertains to pending cases. Those pending cases
relates to Negotiable Instrument Act, labour dispute, service matters, criminal
compoundable matter, etc. It implies that the pendency in the regular courts have been
reduced considerably by the Lok Adalats. The Committee is happy to note that lok
Adalats have played positive role in easing burden of regular courts.
Enforcement of Contracts
3.57. As per information shared in the Annual Report of Ministry of Law & Justice (2019-
20), the Department of Justice (Nyaya Vibhag) is the nodal Department for enforcing contract
parameter for improvement in the ranking of our country in the World Bank’s Doing
Business Report (DBR), published annually. The Department of Legal Affairs (Vidhi Karya
Vibhag) and Legislative Department (Vidhayee Vibhag) have associated roles for that
purpose. The Department of Justice has created a task force under Chairmanship of
Secretary, Department of Justice with the target to ensure that India’s ranking in these
parameters comes within the top 50 in the Doing Business Report of World Bank.
3.58. Contract enforcement is one of the ten parameters factored into, for deciding overall
ranking of countries for the purpose of ease of doing business by the World Bank. It has
direct bearing on investment and economic growth of the country. The ranking of our country
in all ten parameters from 2015 to 2020 is presented in the Table below.
TABLE NO. 18
Ranking of India in Ten Parameters in World Bank’s
Doing Business Report (DBR)
40
3.59. It may be observed from the Table that over the last six years overall ranking of our
country amongst the 190 countries have remarkably improved from 142 in 2015 to 130 in
2016 and 2017, to 100 in 2018, to 77 in 2019 and to 63 in 2020. The improvement in overall
ranking is also represented in the graph presented below.
Overall Ranking of India in the World Bank’s Doing Business Report (DBR)
3.60. From the graph, it may be observed that during the last five years, ranking of our
country has improved by 79 position from 142 to 63 on the back of various task reforms
measures undertaken by the incumbent government.
3.61. Enforcing Contracts parameter from year 2014 onwards (DBR, 2015 to DBR, 2020)
vis-à-vis our neighboring countries are given in the table below:-
TABLE NO. 19
Year / Country DBR
2015
DBR
2016
DBR
2017 DBR 2018
DBR
2019
DBR
2020
India 186 178 172 164 163 163
China 35 7 5 5 6 5
Pakistan 161 151 157 156 156 156
Bangladesh 188 188 189 189 189 189
Sri Lanka 165 161 163 165 164 164
Nepal 134 152 152 153 154 151
Myanmar 185 187 188 188 188 187
Bhutan 74 50 47 25 28 29
3.62. As for enforcement of contract parameter the ranking has marginally improved from
186 in 2015 to 163 in 2020 by 23 rankings. The said ranking was constant during the years
2019 and 2020. Such a position is mainly due to delay in settlement of commercial disputes
which takes on an average of 1445 days (nearly four years) as compared to 164 days in
Singapore and 400 days in China, 496 days in Hongkong, 385 days in Malaysia, 425 days in
Indonesia, 403 days in Vietnam and 400 days in Thailand. Other neighbouring countries i.e.
41
Bhutan (225 days), Japan (360 days) and Korea (290 days) are better than India. India is at
par with Bangladesh 1441 (days) and ranks lowest amongst the South Asian Countries. The
delay in enforcement of contract as per World Bank Report also involves 30 per cent of claim
value as legal cost. Delay in adjudication or/and arbitration of commercial disputes not only
escalates cost over runs but also hurts investors’ sentiments and economic growth of the
country. The Economic Survey (2018-19) has also put forth that contract enforcement is the
biggest huddle in improving India’s Ease of Doing Business ranking.
3.63. To the queries of the Committee regarding steps taken to improve contract
enforcement parameters, the Department has enumerated the following initiatives taken
together for improvement in Enforcing Contracts:
Dedicated Commercial Courts have been setup in Delhi and
Mumbai;
Pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Commercial Court has been
reduced to Rupees 3 lakh;
News Section 12A – Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement of
cases. Rules implemented on 3.07.2018;
Facility of E-payment of Court Fees has been launched on
14.08.2018;
E-summons are given through SMS and Email in Delhi and
Mumbai;
Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018 enacted on 1st August,
2018: specific performance of contracts has been made the rule by
curbing the discretionary power of courts;
Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019: Enacted on
09.08.2019 so as to:-
Establish an independent body called the Arbitration Council of
India (ACI) for promotion of arbitration, mediation, conciliation
and other alternative dispute redressal mechanisms.
Empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to designate
arbitral institutions
Written claim and the defence to the claim in an arbitration
proceeding should be completed within six months from the date
the arbitrator receives the notice of appointment
New Delhi International Arbitration Act, 2019 has been enacted
on 2nd
March, 2019.
3.64. The Committee observes that District and Subordinate Judiciary are clogged
with 3.17 crore cases. Delay, pendency and backlog of cases in Subordinate Courts in
particular has a major reason of slow progress in the enforcement of contract
parameters. The Committee notes the findings in India Justice Report, 2019 according
to which the Judicial delay costs around 0.5% of GDP of our country annually.
Disposal of cases is within the exclusive domain of the Judiciary. However, the
42
Executive has been constantly trying to take reformative measures in the nature of
bringing amendments to legislations i.e. the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Divisions of
High Court Acts, 2015, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, etc. But, such measures have not
shown any perceptible improvement in the reduction of pendency.
3.65. The Union Government has been releasing grant under centrally Sponsored
Scheme for Court rooms, residence for judicial officers and computerisation of
Subordinate Judiciary to increase its productivity. In this connection the Committee
feels that there is requirement of collaborative approach between the Judiciary and the
Executive to improve pendency position in various judicial forums. The importance of
effective, efficient and expeditious contract enforcement has direct bearing on economic
growth and development. Therefore, the legal ecosystem needs to be transformed for
timely contract enforcement and resolution of commercial dispute to achieve aspiration
of our country to become a five-trillion dollar economy.
Supreme Court of India
3.66. The Committee in its Ninety-sixth Report on Demands for Grants (2018-19) of the
Ministry of Law and Justice has recommended for publication of reports of the Supreme
Court in Hindi, as per the Official Languages Act, 1963. The Supreme Court in its written
replies to the Committee submitted that at present, certain judgments in twelve (12),
languages, namely, Assamese, Bengali, Hindi, Kannada, Marathi, Odia, Tamil, Telugu, Urdu,
Nepali, Malyalam and Punjabi, are being translated and uploaded on the website of the
Supreme Court of India. The translation of judgments related to cases arising under the
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India in relation to the following subject
categories:
Labour matters;
Rent Act matters;’
Land Acquisition and Requisition matters;
Service matters;
Compensation matters;
Criminal matters;
Family Law matters;
Ordinary Civil matters;
Personal Law matters;
Religious and Charitable Endowments matters;
Simple Money and Mortgage matters;
Matters relating to Eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction) Act;
Matters relating to Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancies; and
Matters relating Consumer Protection.
3.67. The Committee appreciates the initiatives of the Supreme Court of India to
translate certain judgments in some of the Scheduled Languages. The Committee
43
desires that, the Department may apprise the modalities/mechanisms adopted by the
Supreme Court of India to translate its judgment in some of the Scheduled Languages
and its outcome in terms of its outreach amongst the common people in the country.
3.68. The Committee further recommends that translation of judgments in remaining
Scheduled languages may also be undertaken and any challenges, including financial, in
this regard may be communicated to the Committee through the Action Taken Replies.
44
CHAPTER - IV
DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
The Department of Legal Affairs is a service-oriented Department and the Budget of
the Department is mainly salary-based. As per the Government of India {Allocation of
Business} Rules, 1961, it has been entrusted with the work of providing advice to Ministries
on legal matters including interpretation of the Constitution and the laws, conveyancing and
engagement of counsel to appear on behalf of the Union of India in High Courts and
Subordinate Courts where the Union of India is a party. The Department is also associated
with the appointment of Law Officers of the Government in the Supreme Court and
empanelment of Government Counsels in High Courts, Tribunals and District and
Subordinate Courts. The Department is also concerned with appointment of Notaries and
renewal of Notary certificates. The budgetary allocations include expenditure for Branch
Secretariats of the Department, Central Agency Section, Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal
(ITAT), Law Commission of India (LCI), payment to Legal Advisers and Counsels and
Grants-in-aid to the Indian Law Institute (ILI).
Streamlining of Appointment Procedure and Filling up of Vacancies of Notaries
4.1. The administration of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Notaries Rules, 1956 are within
the purview of the Notary Cell of the Department of Legal Affairs. As per the Schedule
under Rule 8(4A) of the Notaries Rules, 1956, Central Government has fixed the quota of
maximum number of Notaries to be appointed by the Central Government as well as
maximum number of Notaries to be appointed by State/UT Government. Under Section 3 of
the Notaries Act, 1952, the Union Government has power to appoint notaries for whole or
any part of India while the State Government has the power to appoint notaries for the whole
or any part of that State. Under Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government and other
State Government shall publish in Official Gazette a list of notaries appointed by that
Government and those already in practice at the beginning of that year during the month of
January each year.
4.2. Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952 provides for entry of names in the Register as
prescribed under Section 4 and issue or renewal of Certificates of Practice for a period of five
years at a time to be renewed after every five years. Rule 9 of the Notary Rules, 1956
provides for fees for issuance and renewal of certificates of practice and extension of area,
which is as under:-
(a) issue of certificate of practice-Rs.2,000;
(b) extension of area of practice-Rs.1500;
(c) renewal of certificate of practice-Rs.1000; and
(d ) issue of a duplicate certificate of practice –Rs.750
4.3. Form-1 is the application devised under Rule 4 (2) of Notaries Rules, 1956 for issue
of notary certificate. There is requirement for the applicant to furnish his/her social category
and the area where he/she intends to practise as a notary.
45
4.4. A Member representing Lakshadweep had pointed out discrepancy in vacancy
position of notaries shown under central quota in his constituency during the meeting. The
Law Secretary clarified that three appointments have been made recently therein which needs
to be reflected. He assured the Committee to submit updated information about the vacancy
position of Central quota of Notary across the States and UTs. He also assured the
Committee to fill up the entire vacancies within four to six weeks’ time.
4.5. The Central quota of Notaries along with vacancy position as furnished by the
Department to the Committee as on 28th
February, 2020, is presented in the Table below.
TABLE NO.20
Sanctioned Quotas, In-Positions and Vacancy Positions of Notaries
S.No. State / UT Quota of Notaries No. of Notaries
appointed
Available
Vacancies
1 Andaman & Nicobar 50 0 50
2 Andhra Pradesh 865 584 281
3 Arunachal Pradesh 325 0 325
4 Assam 575 15 560
5 Bihar 925 178 747
6 Chandigarh 200 127 73
7 Chhattisgarh 400 194 206
8 Delhi 1600 872 728
9 Dadra & Nagar Haveli 25 0 25
10 Daman & Diu 50 0 50
11 Goa 63 32 31
12 Gujarat 5000 3578 1422
13 Himachal Pradesh 300 99 201
14 Haryana 1500 1244 256
15 Jharkhand 450 80 370
16 Jammu & Kashmir 350 0 350
17 Kerala 1250 1076 174
18 Karnataka 2000 1367 633
46
19 Lakshadweep 25 03 25
20 Meghalaya 175 1 174
21 Maharashtra 4200 4165 35
22 Manipur 225 0 225
23 Mizoram 200 0 200
24 Madhya Pradesh 1125 267 858
25 Nagaland 200 0 200
26 Odisha 750 90 660
27 Punjab 1300 1174 126
28 Puducherry 150 122 28
29 Rajasthan 2000 1999 1
30 Sikkim 100 0 100
31 Tamil Nadu 1700 1631 69
32 Tripura 100 19 81
33 Telangana 800 0 800
34 Uttar Pradesh 2650 1940 710
35 Uttarakhand 325 53 272
36 West Bengal 450 267 183
Total 32,403 21177 11226
4.6. As per data furnished to the Committee in the aforesaid Table, hundred percent
vacancies exist in the States/UTs of Telangana, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, Jammu and
Kashmir, Ladakh, Daman Diu and Andaman Nicobar Islands. Large number of vacancies
also exist in the States of Gujarat (1,422), Madhya Pradesh (858), Telangana (800), Bihar
(747) and Uttar Pradesh (710). The Secretary during his deposition before the Committee
submitted that during the year 2019, 1,062 notaries certificates were renewed and 21,177
Notaries were appointed by the Central Government as on 1st January, 2020.
4.7. It was pointed out that there are instances where candidate has submitted online
applications submitted by candidates were not received by the Law Ministry. Since there is
no facility of online tracking of application by the candidate, the candidate remains in dark
about the fate of his/her application. In that context it was felt that the online system of
application for notary-ship may be streamlined. The certificate of notary-ship enables the
candidate to earn his/her livelihood by making attestation of document. It was suggested that
47
the existing period of five years for renewal of notary certificate may be extended to ten years
as in the case of passport. It was also pointed out that the practice of notaries is not evenly
distributed within the State; it is concentrated in the cities while in the Taluk areas the
presence of notary is low.
4.8. The Department of Legal Affairs in its written replies to the questionnaire submitted
that the Notaries Act, 1952 and Rules framed thereunder does not provide for tracking of
online application/renewal/procedure and provision for Digital Signature for Notaries.
However, the Department started online application system for appointment of Notaries in
the year 2016; but owing to infrastructural constraints online renewal/ tracking facilities of
applications are yet to be functional .The Department expressed their apprehension for the
introduction of Digital Signature for certifying authority on the lines of Chartered
Accountants ,for Notaries.
4.9. To the query of the Committee about details of SC, ST, OBC and woman notaries vis-
a-vis total number of notaries under central quota, State/UT-wise, the Department of Legal
Affairs has submitted that notary-ship is not a civil posts or any kind of employment under
the Central Government and does not attract Govt. policy of reservation in any manner. The
Committee was not supplied with the information about the notaries pertaining to different
categories which is supposedly available with the Department as the candidate has to declare
his/her category i.e. SC, ST, OBC, General, etc. in the Form devised under Rule 4 (2) of the
Notaries Rule, 1956.
4.10. The Committee appreciates the initiatives of Department of Legal Affairs to
invite online application for appointment of notaries. However, the Department has
expressed its difficulty in providing online tracking of fresh and renewal of application
for notary-ship certificate due to infrastructural constraints. Instances of online
applications not being received and acknowledged by the Department have come to the
notice of the Committee. The Committee, therefore, desires that the infrastructural
capacity of the Department may be overhauled for streamlining issuance and renewal of
certificate of notary. The applicant should be given an opportunity to track his/her
application and there should be a moratorium period for the applications received after
which the applicants may be required to file fresh applications.
4.11. It was also pointed out that notaries appointed under Central quota are not
evenly distributed in the State. Some of the districts are over- represented while some
of the districts are under- represented. The Committee, therefore, desires that while
making appointment, focus should be given to appoint notaries in those districts of the
State, which are under represented or not represented.
4.12. The Committee, therefore, strongly recommends that digital initiative may be
resorted to minimise human intervention in the appointment/ renewal process of
notaries. The Committee also desires that option of introducing digital signature for
notaries on the lines of facility provided to Chartered Accountants may be introduced to
rule out the scope of using seal of notary by any person on behalf of the notary
48
certificate holder. Further, it would also completely eliminate the malpractice of anti-
dating or/and attestation of blank document, etc.
4.13. The Committee, therefore, desires that while making appointment due
consideration should be given to inclusiveness of the notaries and desires that the
Department should furnish the data of social category of notaries to the Committee
while submitting its Action Taken Replies.
4.14. The Committee is concerned that 35% (11,226) out of 32,403 notaries are lying
vacant in various States/UTs. There are hundred percent vacancies in the States/UTs of
Telangana, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Daman Diu
and Andaman Nicobar Islands. Large number of vacancies also exist in the States of
Gujarat (1,422), Madhya Pradesh (858), Telangana (800), Bihar (747) and Uttar
Pradesh (710). The Committee in its 96th
Report on Demands for Grants (2018-19) of
the Ministry of Law and Justice had discussed the said issue in detail and recommended
the Department to streamline appointment procedure of notaries as well as fill up
vacancy positions of notaries in various States. Despite its recommendation, the
Department could not come up with concrete proposal to fill up vacancy positions of
notary till now. However, the Law Secretary during his deposition before the
Committee on 20th
February, 2020 has assured the Committee to fill up existing
vacancies within a period of four to six weeks. The Committee also desires that due
consideration should be given to the candidates belonging to the category of SC, ST,
OBC while making fresh appointment of notary in order to ensure that the notary
appointment is inclusive and reflects the social composition of our society.
Appointment of Law Officers
4.15. There are three categories of Law Officers appointed by this Department, i.e.,
Attorney General for India (01), Solicitor General of India (01), and Additional Solicitors
General of India (23). There are no separate rules/ guidelines for the appointment of Law
Officers and their service conditions are governed by the Law Officers (Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1987 as amended from time to time.
4.16. The Department of legal Affairs in its written replies to the questionnaire of the
Committee submitted that there is no difficulty in present methodology for appointment of
Law Officers. However, six posts of Additional Solicitors General of India are vacant in
Supreme Court India (3) and one for each of the High Courts at Calcutta (W.B.), Ranchi
(Jharkhand) and Ahmedabad (Gujarat). So far there 684 Panel Counsels for the Supreme
Court of India and 1146 Advocates empanelled across the country for Central Government
litigation. The methodology for selection for Law Officers enumerated under the Transaction
of Business Rules, 1961 is given in the Table below.
49
TABLE NO.21
Methodology of Selection of Law Officers
Sl. No. Category Methodology of selection
1. Attorney General
for India
A Senior Advocate designated so by the Supreme Court of India
or a High Court having eligibility of becoming a Judge of
Supreme Court as prescribed in Articles 76 (1) and 124 (2)(A)
of the Constitution of India. Name of such a suitable Senior
Advocate is recommended by Ministry of Law & Justice and
proposal for his/her appointment is sent for approval of the
Hon’ble Prime Minister and the President of India as prescribed
under the Third Schedule of Rule 8 of the Transaction of
Business Rules, 1961. After the aforesaid approvals notification
in this regard is published in the official Gazette of India.
2. Solicitor General
of India and
Additional
Solicitors General
of India
A Senior Advocate designated so by the Supreme Court or a
High Court and, preferably, a good number of Judgements in
cases dealt by him/her have been reported in reputed legal
journals. Name of such a suitable Senior Advocate is
recommended by the Ministry of Law & Justice and proposal
for his/her appointment is sent for the approval of the
Appointments Committee of the Cabinet as prescribed in
Annexure I of the First Schedule of the Transaction of Business
Rules, 1961. After which a notification in this regard is issued in
the official Gazette of India.
4.17. The Committee is happy to note that positions of Attorney General for India and
Solicitor General of India are filled up. However, six positions of Additional Solicitors
General of India are vacant. The Committee is of the view that when there is no
difficulty in the existing rules and procedures for appointment of Law Officers, there
should not be any vacant positions. The Committee accordingly, recommends the
Department to expedite the process of filling up vacancies of Law Officers.
4.18. The Department submitted that Panel Counsels for the Supreme Court of India
is 684, while only 1146 Advocates are empanelled to appear on behalf of Union of India
in different Courts across the country. The Committee feels that the figure is highly
disproportionate and the Committee desires that it requires re-evaluation by the
Department. The Committee would like to know the rationale behind discrepancies in
appointment of panel counsels and advocates in different High Courts and accordingly,
recommends the Department to furnish High Court wise panel of counsels and
advocates appointed in Action Taken Replies of the Department.
50
Bar Council of India
4.19. The query of the Committee to furnish State/UT wise total number of advocates
enrolled as on 31st December, 2019, the BCI submitted in writing that there are
approximately 19 lakh lawyers enrolled in Bar Councils of States/UTs. The State/UT wise
figure may be furnished once it is prepared by the BCI. Further, on the query of percentage
growth of lawyer per year during the last five years, the BCI has submitted that data will be
furnished after collecting it from Bar Councils of States/UTs.
4.20. The Committee desires that the Department of Legal Affair may collate the
information from the Bar Council of India and furnish the same in Action Taken
Replies of the Department.
Litigation Policy and Expenses
4.21. Approximately 46 percent1
of the total pending cases in courts pertain to the
government. This includes cases relating to Public Sector Undertakings and other
autonomous bodies. Government litigation includes cases relating to service matters, disputes
with private entities as well as inter-se disputes between two government departments and
disputes between two PSUs. The Ministries with highest number of pendecies are Railway,
Finance, Communications, Home Affairs and Defence.
4.22. The Department in its written replies to the Committee submitted that the National
Litigation Policy is being formulated with a view to avoid unwarranted litigation and to check
burden on the judicial system as well as on the public exchequer. However, the Policy is yet
to be finalised. The Department also submitted that it does not have State/UT wise data of
Government cases in the country. Further, there is no data with the Department relating to
percentage of Government cases going for appeal. However, as per the Legal Information
Management & Briefing System (LIMBS), a web based portal developed by Department of
Legal Affairs for monitoring and handling of various court cases of Govt. Departments and
Ministries, the total pending cases relating to Government in the Country are 4,32,000.
4.23. The expenses of Ministry during the last few Years (2009-10 to 2019-20) towards
payment of fees to all categories of Government Advocates/Panel counsels in various High
Courts and Tribunals has risen sharply from Rs. 14.68 crore in 2009-10 to Rs. 52.82 crore in
2019-20 (upto 9th
January, 2020). Year-wise expenditure for the last eleven financial years of
the Ministry of Law and Justice is given below:-
https://doj.gov.in/page/action-plan-reduce-government-litigation
51
4.24. The Committee observes that there is a 260 percent approx. increase in payment
of fees to the legal counsels/advisers by the Ministry in the last eleven years and around
4,32,000 cases relating to government are pending. Further, the National Litigation
Policy is yet to be finalised by the Government and there is no concrete roadmap from
the Department to check pendency of cases and increasing expenditure. The National
Litigation Policy was drafted in 2010 and the Department during the Demand for
Grants (2018-19) had submitted that it is under active consideration of the Government.
The Committee, accordingly recommends the Department to expedite the formulation
of National Litigation Policy.
4.25. The Committee is of the view that the Department of Legal Affairs cannot afford
to remain data deficient in a data driven economy and therefore, the Committee
recommends the Department to collect regular data relating to Government cases from
various States/UTs as these data may help the Department while projecting number of
Government Advocate/Panel counsel required for a particular State/UT, which in turn
may save government resources.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)
4.26. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is a quasi judicial body set up in January, 1941
and specialises in dealing with appeals under the Income Tax act, 1961. It has 63 Benches
which are spread across 28 cities, and two New Circuit Benches at Varanasi and Dehradun.
Also Seven (07) new Benches have been proposed by the ITAT which is under consideration
of Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice. The orders passed by the ITAT
are final; an appeal lies to the High Court only if a substantial question of law arises for
determination. ITAT is headed by a President and assisted by 10 Vice-Presidents.
4.27. The ITAT in its replies to the Committee on strength of Members submitted that out
of total 126 sanctioned posts of, both Accountant and Judicial Members; only 85 are in
position, which accounts for only 67 percent approx. The vacancy positions include 3 posts of
Vice-Presidents and 38 posts of Members. The recruitment process for 37 Members (21
52
Judicial and 16 Accountant) were initiated in July, 2018 and is still under process. At present
the sanctioned staff posts in ITAT are 281. As against 7 sanctioned posts of Deputy
Registrars, 2 are lying vacant. Out of 38 posts of Assistant Registrar, 17 are lying vacant.
Further, out of 126 sanctioned posts of Senior Private Secretaries, 35 are lying vacant and out
of 47 sanctioned posts of Private Secretaries, 30 are lying vacant. Besides this, there are also
vacancies of other posts.
4.28. The Committee was informed that the pendency of appeals has been reduced to
89,398, as on 1st February, 2020, from 92,205 in April, 2019. The Income-Tax Appellate
Tribunal has informed that they have prepared an Action Plan to clear pendencies by 50% by
the end of the year of 2022. They have fixed target of disposal of 63,300, 67,800 and 70,200
appeals in the years 2020, 2021 and 2022, respectively.
4.29. The Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs suggested that mediation at the ITAT
level is under consideration to reduce pendency, which may require amendment to certain
Statues. In their written replies to the Committee, the ITAT submitted that to reduce the
pendency of cases, all ITAT Benches have been instructed to scrutinise, identify and
priorities cases covered by decisions of ITAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court of India,
including cases relating to small and group matters. Appeals against denial of registration to
charitable institutions and appeals of senior citizens are being taken up on priority basis.
More and more use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are being
undertaken. A bilingual a web-based application and website has been launched. The web
application can be accessed from anywhere and anytime and all Benches of ITAT have been
connected to the ITAT Online database and activities like registration, data updation,
Tribunal order uploading, etc., are being carried out through this web application. Also
eCourts have been set-up in several Benches, including Rajkot, Guwahati, Ranchi, Nagpur,
Ahmedabad, etc. and a total of 1198 appeals were heard through eCourts. ITAT has
purchased land for Office-cum-residential accommodation at Pune, Bengaluru, Jaipur,
Lucknow and Guwahati. The Odisha Government has allotted land at Cuttack for Office-
cum-residential. Further, purchase of land at Kolkata and Office space in New Delhi are
under process.
4.30. The Government has introduced the Direct Tax Vivaad se Vishwas Bill, 2020.
Around Rs.9.32 lakh crores is locked up in cases relating to taxation in various judicial
forums which the said Bill intends to realise. To the query of the Committee about the
readiness of ITAT being first appellate authority, the ITAT Authorities replied that they are
ready but infrastructural constraints and vacancy positions of Members, may affect disposal
rate of the pendency of cases. They have submitted that President of ITAT has kept a target
of 50 cases per Member per month for disposal. The ITAT also submitted that major reasons
of pendency are infrastructural constraints, vacancy as well as vexed litigation by the shell
Companies. ITAT Authority clarified that they would not be able to calculate amount of
money locked-in, in the appeals pending before them, as it is in the domain of the tax-
assessing authorities.
53
4.31. To the query of the Committee whether pre-litigation mediation as provided in the
Commercial Court Act, 2015 for settlement of commercial disputes can be replicated for
disposal of tax-related disputes, the ITAT authority agreed in positive for which amendment
to Income Tax Act, 1961 may be necessary. The Law Secretary submitted that the proposal
for introduction of mediation in taxation matters has already been sent to the Ministry of
Finance.
4.32. The Committee is concerned about the pendency of 89,398 appeals in ITAT as on
1st February, 2020. The Committee was apprised that president of ITAT has set a target
of disposal of 50 cases per Member per month. The tribunal has also prepared action
plan to clear pendencies by 50 percent by the end of the year 2022, with a target of
63,300 (in 2020), 67,800 (in 2021) and 70,200 (in 2022). The Committee observes that
there is still 41 vacancy positions of members pending out of total strength of 126. The
Ministry has initiated action plan to fill-up 37 vacancies in the coming financial year.
However, the Committee feels that even if these vacancies are filled up, still there will be
large number of pendencies. The Committee notes that 9.32 crore lakh crore amount is
locked in dispute respecting direct taxation. The Committee appreciates tax amnesty
proposal of the Government under Direct Tax Vivaad se Vishwas Bill, 2020. The
Committee recommends the Government to introduce pre-mediation provisions in
direct tax disputes in the provisions of relevant Acts to settle tax disputes, on the lines of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Indian Law Institute
4.33. The Indian Law Institute (ILI) is a premier legal research institute set up in 1956 and
registered as an autonomous body under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to promote and
conduct legal research. Hon'ble Chief Justice of India is the ex-officio President of the
Institute. The Union Minister of Law and Justice is its Ex-officio Vice-President. The
Attorney General for India, some Judges of the Supreme Courts and High Courts, Solicitor
General of India, Chairman, Law Commission and University Grant Commission and other
prominent lawyers and law professors ,etc. are the members of the Governing Council. The
Institute conducts PhD, LLM and Diploma programme and was awarded the accreditation
rating of ‘A Grade’ by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in
March, 2017. The academic findings of research work carried out by the Institute have been
beneficial for the society at large and various Ministries/Departments have also allocated
research projects to the Institute.
4.34. The Department of Legal affairs in its written submission to the questionnaire of the
Committee submitted that as against the sanctioned strength of 100 (19 teaching posts and 81
non-teaching posts), the existing strength is only 48 (9 teaching posts and 39 non-teaching
posts). The Institute had started the process of filling-up various vacancies in the year 2018
itself, however it is still under process.
4.35. The Director, Indian Law Institute during the meeting of the Committee on Demands
for Grants (2020-21) apprised the Committee of the financial constraints faced by the ILI and
requested for enhancement for allocations. He also requested for grant of status of Institute of
54
National Importance to ILI. On the query about delay in recruitment process, the Director
ILI, submitted as under :
“.....Subsequently, UGC temporarily put a ban on faculty
recruitment in all Central Educational Institutes in July, 2018, as the
matter of reservation roster for faculty position was pending in
Supreme Court of India in the case of WA No. 43260 of 2016 filed by
Shri Vivekanand Tewari vs. Union of India and Ors. Supreme Court of
India vacated the stay on recruitment in March, 2019.
After that the Institute initiated the process of scrutiny and
shortlisting of applications and placed before the Shortlisting
Committee. However, the shortlisting Committee was of unanimous
opinion in June, 2019, that as the UGC guidelines for recruitment of
faculties have changed in July, 2018, the Institute must re-advertise
the positions. Accordingly the Institute re-advertised in December,
2019, for the faculty positions after following due approval process
from the Institutional authorities”
4.36. The Committee in its previous Reports had recommended that ILI should move
towards making itself financially independent from Government grants and again of the
considered opinion that ILI needs to generate its own resources from research and
consultancy for its functioning. The Committee also feels that instead of concentrating
its core activities in Delhi, ILI need to expand itself to other parts of the country also by
establishing extension centers in cities like Chennai, Mumbai, Guwahati, etc. On the
issue of grant of Institute of National Importance status to ILI, the Committee
recommends the Department to make a cost benefit analysis and submit a report to the
Committee in its Action Taken Replies. The Committee also recommends the
Department to look into the demand of ILI for enhanced allocations, as the Committee
feels that shortage financial resources should not hamper the functioning of the
Institute.
55
CHAPTER – V
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Legislative Department acts mainly as a service provider in so far as the legislative
business of the Union Government is concerned. It ensures timely processing of legislative
proposals of various Ministries/Departments. It has two wings under it, namely, the Official
Languages Wing and Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan. The Legislative Department has been
allocated Rs. 684 crore for the Financial Year 2020-21, which accounts for 31 percent of the
total allocations under the Demand No. 64 of the Ministry of Law of Law and Justice.
5.1 The Secretary, Legislative Department during his presentation on the Demand for
Grants (2020-21) submitted that the total strength of the Legislative Department is 463 and
out of these only 44 are draft persons. Out of the 463 sanctioned positions, 237 are for the
main Secretariat, 151 for Official Language Wing and 75 for Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan. There
are total 48 posts (30 posts of Group ‘A’ and 18 posts of Group ‘B’) of regional languages
officers belonging to 15 regional languages, namely, Assamese, Telugu, Urdu, Punjabi,
Kannada, Gujarati, Bengali, Tamil, Malayalam, Marathi, Konkani, Manipuri, Nepali, Odia
and Santhali in Official languages Wing of this Department. These officers belong to
different posts of Official Language Wing, namely-Additional Legislative Counsel-2, Deputy
Legislative Counsel-14, Assistant Legislative Consel-14 and Personal Assistant (Regional
Languages)-18 posts.
5.2 While elaborating role of the Department, Secretary pointed out that ambiguity in any
Act give the scope for litigation and it takes time for interpretation of the provisions of the
Law. To that query the Department has replied:
“Bills are drafted on the basis of the policy contained in the Draft Note
for the Cabinet. If the policy is not clear, it may create vagueness or
ambiguity. It is the administrative Ministry which is required to hold
wide consultations with all stakeholders and formulate clear policy.
The draft person’s role is to translate the intent of the policy into
Legislative drafting.
A draft person has to understand the proposal, intent behind legislative
proposals, examine it from drafting and legal angel to use simple
precise words to translate the intent into legislative proposal and this
requires sufficiently long time. But many a time, the proposals are sent
by the administrative Ministry to this Department very late, giving little
or no room to examine it from legal and drafting angle, in view of
urgency and there is a demand for immediate action. Only in such
cases, there may be instances where the Bills are not up to the mark”.
56
Pre and Post Legislative Scrutiny of Laws
5.3 The Committee is apprised that the Institute of Legislative Drafting and
Research (ILDR) of the Department trains draftsmen from Union and State
Governments to improve quality of legislative drafting. However, the Committee
observes that there is real dearth of good quality draftmen in the Country. The
Committee desires that drafting errors and ambiguity in the law may be avoided by
making effective pre-legislative consultation with stakeholders. For that purpose, the
Bills should be available in regional languages for wider consultation with stakeholders.
The Committee also desires that Acts allocated to the Department under the Allocation
of Business Rules, 1961 may be periodically reviewed on the basis of its use as part of
post legislative scrutiny. The loopholes and infirmities pointed to the Department by
the stakeholders of the law may be submitted to the Committee in its action taken
replies.
5.4 The Committee also observes that out of 463 sanctioned positions in the
Department, the post related to drafting officers are only 44. The sanctioned strength of
Secretariat of the Department, Official Language Wing and Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan is
237, 151 and 75, respectively. The committee expresses its concern as the Department
has given incomplete information with regard to vacancy positions in the Secretariat.
The Committee recommends the Department to furnish complete data of sanctioned
positions in the Department vis-à-vis vacancy positions in Action Taken Replies of the
Department.
5.5 The Legislative Department in its written replies to the questionnaire of the
Committee on the Demands for Grants (2020-21) submitted that it has published the
Constitution of India in seventeen languages, out of the twenty two languages under the
Eighth Schedule of the Constitution viz Hindi, Assamese, Bengali, Gujarati, Kannada,
Konkani, Malayalam, Marathi, Manipuri in Bengali script, Nepali, Odia, Punjabi, Sanskrit,
Sindhi,Tamil, Telugu and Urdu. The publication work of Constitution of India in Dogri
language is under process. Further, various Central Acts have been translated and published
in eleven regional languages. Details of Central Acts translanted and published in eleven
regional languages are as under:-
Table NO. 22
Sr.No.
Name of Regional Language Number of Central Acts
translated and published
1. Assamese 78
2. Bengali 55
3. Gujarati 105
4. Kannada 296
5. Malayalam 92
6. Marathi 196
7. Odia 88
57
8. Punjabi 124
9. Tamil 211
10. Telugu 167
11. Urdu 60
5.6 The Committee in its Ninety-sixth report on the Demands for Grants (2018-19)
has recommended for bringing out authoritative text of the Constitution of India and
other Central Acts in all the language mentioned under the Eighth Schedule of the
Constitution. The Committee observes that the Department has not been able to bring
authoritative text of the Constitution of India and other Central Acts in all Scheduled
languages of the Constitution. The Committee, accordingly, recommends to the
Department to expedite the translations work of Constitution/Acts/Subordinate
Legislations in remaining scheduled languages.
Election Commission of India
5.7 The Election Commission of India (ECI) is a permanent independent constitutional
body created under Article 324 of the Indian Constitution. The Commission was set up on
25th
January, 1950. It prepares, maintains and periodically updates (new registration,
modification and deletion as per guidelines) the electoral rolls, registers political
parties/candidates, supervises the whole process of conducting election, monitors the election
campaigns, including funding and expenditure of candidates, maintaining Model Code of
Conduct (MCC) to make the entire electoral process free, fair, democratic and accessible for
all its stakeholders. The Representation of People Act, 1950 guides the ECI about preparation
of electoral roll. All citizens of Indian republic above 18 years age except those who are
mentally unsound and otherwise declared ineligible by law has right to vote.
5.8 Political party and eligible citizens need to register themselves to contest election and
vote for the candidate in the election, respectively. Any eligible citizen can register either
online or offline by filling up a specific forms available free of cost with the Officers of
Election Commission of India. The said Form duly filled in accompanied with certain
supporting documents for residence and identity proof is submitted to Election Commission
Officer for enrolment in the voter list where the voter is ordinarily residing, which may be
same as permanent residence or residence at the place of work. Ordinary residence may
change with shifting from one place to another because of change of job. Therefore, voter list
is continuously updated except the period between the last date of filing of nominations and
declaration of results in a particular election. Photo Electoral Rolls (PERs) were first
introduced in General Elections 2009 is now available in all the States and UTs elections.
Braille Photo Voter Slips to Persons with Disabilities (visually impaired) (PwDs) was also
issued to facilitate equal access.
5.9 The commission has conducted 17 General Elections to the Lok Sabha and more than
388 General Elections to State Legislative Assemblies, apart from thousands of bye-elections,
thus facilitating peaceful, orderly and democratic transfer of power. Total electorate in the
electoral roll for General Election to Seventeenth Lok Sabha was 91.83 crore and 10.38 lakhs
58
polling stations was created for smooth pooling of votes. Conducting a countrywide General
Election to Seventeeth Lok Sabha at about 10.38 Lakhs polling stations was the onerous
responsibility upon the Election Commission of India. Free and fair election by Election
Commission of India for General Elections to Seventeenth Lok Sabha and Assemblies was
meticulously planned and executed with the help of the officers taken from State
Governments on deputations during the period of enforcement of Model Code of Conduct
with the help of paramilitary forces and, with Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) and Voter
Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPATs) which were used for all pooling stations for
transparency. Total number of male, female and transgender electors in all States and UTs as
on 19th
February, 2019 is provided at Annexure IV.
5.10 The ECI has submitted that Assured Minimum Facilities (AMFs) in the form of
separate queue, wheel-chair, ramps to and fro conveyance and assistance through Matdata
Mitra (MM) (volunteers from NCC/NSS/Scouts and Guides) was provided in the polling
booths for senior citizens and PWD electors during General Election to seventeenth Lok
Sabha in 2019. Such measures made the Election, voters’ friendly and convenient. All
women polling stations exclusively manned by women pool officers and security personnel
was also launched in the aforesaid election. 6,88,943 electoral literacy clubs including
Chunav Pathshala were created to augment electoral literacy and sensitize people especially
new voters about the use of EVM and VVPAT. Election to Seventeenth Lok Sabha was
termed as Festival of Democracy (Desh ka Maha Tyohar).
Seeding of Aadhar with Electors’ Photo Identity Card (EPIC)
5.11 Entry in the electoral roll of the constituency is essential for entitling a person to vote
in that constituency. Voters Identity Card issued by the ECI is otherwise known as Electors
Photo Identity Card or EPIC. Issuance of Elector’s Photo Identity Cards (EPICs) to all
electors commenced in the year 1993 with the intent of eliminating impersonation at polls. As
per information furnished in the Annual Report of the Ministry of Law and Justice 2019-20,
EPICs have been issued to all registered electors in all States and UTs except in the
States/UTs of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Goa, Gujarat, Jammu and Kashmir, Maharashtra,
Nagaland, Odisha, Uttar Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The
current national figure of issuance of EPIC thus stands at 99.36 percent.
5.12 Electors' Photo Identity Card has become a valid ID card–cum–address proof in
addition to being a valid identity card at elections. The Election Commission of India has
permitted the following twelve documents as proof of identity at Polling Booth in General
Elections to Seventeenth Lok Sabha:
(i) Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC);
(ii) Passport;
(iii) Driving Licence;
(iv) Service Identity Card issued by Central Govt./ State Govt./ PSUs and Public
Limited Companies;
(v) Pass-book issued by Bank and Post-office with photo;
(vi) Pan Card ;
(vii) Smart Card issued by Ministry of Labour;
59
(viii) MGNREGA Job Card;
(ix) Health Insurance Smart Card issued under Ministry of Labour
(x) Pension Documents with photo;
(xi) Official Identity Card issued to MPs /MLAs/MLCs and
(xii) Aadhaar Card
As per instructions of Election Commission of India, photo voter slip issued by it cannot be
used as identity proof at polling stations. However, it can be used as guidance. It means that
without one of the aforesaid identity proofs, a voter cannot cast his vote in a particular
constituency even if his name is enrolled in the voter list of that constituency.
5.13 The Election Commission of India launched a pilot project called National Electoral
Roll Purification and Authentication Programme (NERPAP) in February, 2015 to weed out
bogus voters by using unique ID Aadhaar Number which has to be suspended in August 2015
by the ECI because of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Redt.) & Another Vs Union of India case in
Supreme Court challenging validity of Aadhar scheme and Aadhar Act, 2016. However,
during that short spell, the ECI could collect and feed Aadhar Numbers voluntarily submitted
by 32 Crore electors approximately. As per information submitted to the Committee, 99.36%
electors have been supplied with EPICs. Similarly, 99% of adult citizen have their Aadhaar
Numbers. Election Commission has now come out with a proposal to link Unique ID
Number provided by Aadhaar with voter identity card for cleaning electoral roll and de-
duplicating multiple entries in the electoral roll. The Commission has approached the Law
Ministry for appropriate legislative back-up for which amendment to the Representation of
People Act, 1950 and Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies Benefit
and Services) Act, 2016, is necessary. By this process there would be an intrusion to the
privacy of the individual but the objective of purifying electoral roll will serve the public
interest. It was, therefore, pleaded that the purported invasion of privacy may be permitted
for linking voter ID Card with Aadhaar number.
5.14 The Committee understands that free and fair elections is the bedrock of
democracy and the latter is a Basic Feature of the Constitution. An error-free Electoral
Roll is sine qua non of free and fair election. The Committee has been advocating
linkage of unique Aadhaar ID Card number with voter I-card which would streamline
alterations in EPIC during change of ordinary residence by the electors. The incidence
of multiple entry could also be eliminated which is required in participative democracy.
The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government may undertake
appropriate actions for the purpose of linking unique Aadhaar Card number with
Voter ID Card to purify the electoral roll which is in larger interest of democratic
polity.
Paperless Election for Local Bodies
5.15 The Representation of People Act, 1951 was amended in the year 1989 to enable the
ECI to use EVMs in election to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. The Conduct
60
of Election Rules, 1961 was also amended in the year 2013 enabling the ECI to use the
VVPAT with EVMs.
5.16 The Committee was informed about the procedures of election associated with EVM
according to which once the voter presses the blue button on the EVM against the candidate
and symbol of his choice, the lamp against it turns red and a long beep is heard. Therefore,
there is an audio and visual indication to the elector that the vote has been recorded. The
VVPAT also plays an important role in providing a visual indication in the form of paper slip
to ensure that the voter has cast the vote of his choice which remains on that window for
seven seconds. In case of any dispute regarding the vote cast at a polling booth, the printed
slip contained in the box can be counted for verification and reconciliation with the vote
recorded in the Control Unit of the Electronic Voting Machine. Moreover, the Supreme
Court has given direction that VVPAT slips of only five polling stations per Assembly
Constituencies can be counted to see the authentication of vote cast by the EVM.
5.17 Since the year 2000, EVMs have been used for four General Elections to Lok Sabha
held in the years 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2019 and 122 General Elections to State Legislative
Assemblies as per the information submitted to the Committee by the Election Commission
of India. In General Election to Seventeenth Lok Sabha in the year 2019, Electronic Voting
Machine alongwith VVPAT have been used in all 10.36 lakh polling booths across the
country.
5.18 The ECI has submitted that several countries including USA, Canada, Australia,
Belgium, Bulgaria, Italy, Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Armenia,
Namibia, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh have been using fully or partially Electronic Voting
Machines. Some of the countries also have started electronic counting by using technology.
Those are Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Belgium,
Australia, South Korea, Philippines, Mangolia, Bhutan, Namibia.
5.19 The Election Commission has also submitted that it is exploring the possibility of
using block chain technology in the election process which would enhance the credibility of
electoral system in our country.
5.20 The Committee observes that the EVMs has eliminated the possibility of casting
invalid votes, as only one button can be pressed to register a vote, ruling out manual
errors of the kind prevalent during the paper ballot days. Furthermore, it has reduced
the delays and errors in counting of ballot papers. The Voter Verifiable Paper Audit
Trail (VVPAT) to the EVM has strengthened the voters’ trust and transparency of the
electoral process. The Committee also observes that the Supreme Court has also upheld
the election conducted by EVM and VVPAT by dismissing a petition requesting for
return to ballot paper system. Electronic Voting Machines have not only simplified the
election process, but also quickened the pace of counting and ensured convenience for
the voters.
5.21 The ECI has also unequivocally been reiterating that EVMs are tamper proof
and integrity of electoral process is well preserved with its use accompanied with
61
VVPATs in the participatory democracy. Booth capturing and casting of invalid votes
have become the thing of the past with the aforesaid digital revolution. In this regard,
the Committee points out that in most of the States, election to Panchayati Raj
Institutions and Municipal Bodies are still being held through ballot papers. The
advancement of technology in election process needs to percolate to local bodies. The
Committee is of the view that election to local bodies should also be held through
Electronic Voting Machine accompanied by VVPAT. The Committee, therefore,
recommends the Election Commission of India to impress upon the State Election
Commissions for use of EVMs and VVPATs available with ECI for paperless election to
local bodies for ease of the electors.
One Nation One Electoral Roll
5.22 The Committee understands that after every census the territorial constituency for Lok
Sabha and Legislative Assembly is re-aligned with delimitation exercise as per Articles 82
and 170 of the Constitution coupled with Section 13 of the Representation of People Act,
1950. At that time the Electoral Roll is prepared de novo. Thereafter, it is continually
updated through out the year except for the period between the last date of filing nomination
and declaration of result in that constituency. Every eligible citizen can register her/his vote
at any place of her/his choice at any time of the year and cast her/his vote on the date of
polling in that constituency.
5.23 The Election Commission of India under Article 324 is vested with the power of
conducting election and preparation of Electoral Roll for the election to Lok Sabha and State
Legislative Assembly while State Election Commissions under Article 243 K and 243 Z(A) is
vested with power of conducting election and preparation of Electoral Roll for election to
Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and Municipal Bodies. While some of the State Election
Commissions use Electoral Roll available with ECI for conducting election to PRIs and
Municipal Bodies in the respective States, other States prepare their Electoral Roll de novo.
5.24 As submitted by the ECI, the Representation of People Act, 1950 originally envisaged
preparation of Electoral Roll separately for Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies.
Such duplication was done away with the amendment to Representation of People Act,
19502. Henceforth, the Electoral Roll for an Assembly Constituency is the basic roll to
constitute the Electoral Roll of a Parliamentary Constituency. Two Electoral Rolls created by
different Constitutional Bodies i.e. the Election Commission of India and State Election
Commissions leads to duplication of same exercise which also entails some expenditure and
efforts.
5.25 The Committee notes that the National Commission to Review the Working of the
Constitution under the chairmanship of Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah in 2002 has
recommended for a common Electoral Roll for elections to Panchayati Raj Institutions, State
Legislative Assembly and Parliament.
2 My Vote Matters, Election Commission of India, New Delhi. (January, 2020, Vo. 1, Issue, 4), p.55.
62
5.26 The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (October, 2007) in its Sixth Report
on Local Governance has inter-alia held a view that local government laws should provide
for adoption of Assembly Electoral Roll for local government without any revision of names
by the State Election Commissions. For such a process to be effective, it is also necessary to
ensure that the voter registration and preparation of electoral rolls by the EC is based on
geographic contiguity.
5.27 Further, the Law Commission of India in its 255th
Report on Electoral Reform (2015)
has also endorsed introduction of common Electoral Roll for Parliament, Assembly and local
body elections. Introduction of common Electoral Roll may require amendment to State
Laws pertaining to conduct of local body election. It has suggested the Central Government
to write to various States in this regard.
5.28 The Committee observes that there is a lot of commonalities between the
elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies on the one hand and that of to
local bodies on the other. The eligibility criterion of the elector for all three aforesaid
elections is the same. It is the same individual who is called upon by two different
Constitutional authorities to cast his/her vote at different point of time for different
bodies in the same territorial constituencies in which his/her name is registered in the
Electoral Roll. Furthermore, the First- Past- the- Post system is followed to declare the
winner in all three elections. Even the wordings used about Electoral Roll in Articles
324 and 243(K) and 243 Z (A) of the Constitution are identical. The Committee has
been recommending time and again in its 88th, 91st and 96th Reports for Common
Electoral Roll from local body to Lok Sabha Elections. It would not only save time,
energy and resources of concerned State Government but also obviate confusion in the
mind of voters. The data of electors available in National Voters Service Portal (NVSP)
maintained by the Election Commission of India could be readily used by the State
Election Commissions without any hassle. Electronic Voting Machine and VVPAT
which are available with the Election Commission of India can also be utilised by the
State Election Commissions for election to local bodies having Common Electoral Roll.
The Committee, therefore, again recommends for common electoral roll for local body
to Lok Sabha Election.
Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation Programme (SVEEP)
5.29 The SVEEP is a multi-intervention programme that reaches out through different
modes and media to educate citizens, electors and voters about the electoral process in order
to increase their awareness and participation. The theme of the NVD 2020 is – Electoral
Literacy for Stronger Democracy’. Some landmark SVEEP interventions by the ECI over a
decade are given below:-
i) National Voter’s Day
ii) Identification of Regional and National Icons
iii) Interactive School Engagement Programme
iv) Matdata Mahotsav
v) Republic Day Tableau
63
vi) India Votes- Online campaign for Overseas Electors
vii) Teri Awaaz bhi Zaruri, Tera Vote bhi Zaruri- Outreach Campaign
for Service Electors
viii) Millennial Voters
ix) National Elections Quiz- TV Programme
x) Chunav Ki Kahaniyan – Radio docu- drama
xi) Electoral Literacy Clubs
xii) Mx. Democracy – Ditigal Game for Voter Education
xiii) Har Mat Ho Shamil – Accessible Elections campaign
xiv) Dynamic Online Portal for Voter Awareness resources
xv) Desh ka Mahatyohar- Branded 360 degree campaign Lok Sabha
Election, 2019
xvi) Democracy on wheels – outreach through messages on Indian
Railways
xvii) Outreach through Community Radio stations
xviii) Numerous publications and documentation of best practices
5.30 The Systemic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation Programme of the
Election Commission of India was launched in 2017 to enhance electoral participation
and ethical voting. Door to door information and motivation through Aaganwadi
Workers, ASHA, Sikhya Mitras, Self Help Groups, etc. 360 degree campaign through
print media, electronic media, digital media, hand-outs, pamphlets, banners, brochures
and booklets to increase voters awareness and education was made by the Commission.
Forms 6, 7, 8 and 8 (A) for registration and alteration in voters list were made available
in Post Office, banks, hospitals for revision in the Electoral Roll. The ECI has also
introduced electronically transmitted postal ballot for convenience of certain absentee
voters. These are the praiseworthy measures taken by the ECI to increase voters’
participation and eventual turnout on the Election Day. The Committee appreciates
innovative measures taken by ECI for the purpose under the said programme, and
recommends the Government should provide appropriate budgetary support to the
Election Commission of India.
64
RECOMMENDATIONS/OBSERVATIONS - AT A GLANCE
1. The Committee observes that out of the total allocation of Rs. 3055.11 crore in
the current Financial Year, the Ministry has been able to utilise Rs. 2307.77 crore (75.53
percent) of the total allocations. Further allocations to the Ministry has reduced by
27.99 percent in BE 2020-21 over BE 2019-20. The allocations under Legislative
Department and Department of Legal Affairs have been reduced by 54.42 percent and
10.86 percent, respectively, whereas, the allocation for Department of Justice has
increased by 0.08 percent. (Para 2.11.)
2. The allocations for the Legislative Department has been reduced under the Head
‘Elections (Reimbursement to States/UTs)’ from Rs. 1429.5 crore in BE 2019-20 to Rs
437 crore in BE 2020-21. Out of Rs. 1429.5 crore under the Head ‘Elections
(Reimbursement to States/UTs), only Rs. 1099.27 crore has been reimbursed to
States/UTs till 31st December, 2019. An allocation of Rs. 437 crore has been proposed
for the next Financial Year for the same purpose as bulk of payments for the General
Election to the Seventeenth Lok Sabha and General Elections to certain Legislative
Assemblies has been made to States/UTs for reimbursement in the current Financial
Year. The Committee is satisfied with the rationale given for reduction by the Ministry.
(Para 2.12.)
3. The Committee observes that an allocation of Department of Legal Affairs was
reduced under the head ‘Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) (Capital Outlay)’ due
to non-utiisation of allocations. Further, the Committee is satisfied with the justification
given for underutilization of allocations. The Committee also observes that
purchase/construction of office complex/building in New Delhi, Cuttack, Pune and
Ahmedabad may be expedited in the coming Financial Year and if need arises,
additional funds may be sought during RE stage. The Committee also recommends that
the funds allocated to ITAT may be utilized optimally in the coming Financial Year.
(Para 2.19.)
4. The Committee observes that in the last few years, there have been wide
variations in allocations to the Indian Law Institute. It was allocated Rs. 5.31 crore in
Financial Year 2015-16, Rs. 1 crore in Financial Year 2016-17, Rs 2 crore in Financial
Year 2017-18 and Rs. 3 crore each in Financial Year 2018-19, Financial Year 2019-20
and Financial Year 2020-21. The ILI has been requesting for more allocations year after
year, whereas the allocations was first reduced after the Financial Year 2015-16, and
from the Financial Year 2018-19 to 2020-21, allocations to the Institute has been kept at
Rs 3 crore. The Institute has been allocated Rs 3 crore in BE 2020-21 as Grants-in –aid
and its total earning is Rs. 4 crore. The Institute had projected Rs 10 crore as tentative
expenditure for the Financial Year 2020-21, therefore, again there will be a deficit of Rs.
3 crore. The Committee, recommends the Department to take into account the
requirement as proposed by ILI so that its research and teaching activities are not
affected. The Committee also suggests the ILI to generate funds for itself by taking up
65
more and more research/consultancy activities and opening extension centres in major
cities for imparting affordable quality legal education. (Para 2.23.)
5. While observing the pattern of expenditure and allocations to the Legislative
Department from the above mentioned table, the Committee observes that the major
portion of the allocations to the Legislative Department is for secretariat expenditure.
The Committee further observes that, except election related expenses in both revenue
and capital head, expenditure trends of the Legislative Department is satisfactory. The
variations in allocations between RE 2019-20 and BE 2020-21 under the Heads
Elections (Reimbursement to State/UTs), EVMs professional service and EVMs for
Election Commission (Capital) is primarily due to the General Election to Seventeenth
Lok Sabha in 2019, because of which substantive amount was already released to States
/UTs as advance to meet electoral expenses and further allocations depends on the
receipt of valid audit certificates. (Para 2.28.)
6. The Committee observes that both actual requirements and expenses of NJA are
more than allocations for the last few years. The Committee notes that the NJA is a
premier institution of the country for the training of judges of Higher Judiciary, judges
of neighboring countries, /District Courts and Tribunals etc. and plays an important
role in leveraging soft power of the country in the field of judicial training and research.
The Committee, accordingly, recommends the Department to approach Ministry of
Finance for enhanced allocations to NJA as approved by it at RE stage during the
Financial Year 2020-21, so that on-going training and research activities of the
Academy are not hampered due to financial constraints. The action taken on the
recommendations of the Committee may be apprised by the Department in its Action
Taken Replies. (Para 2.36.)
7. The Committee notes that there is no under utilization in the current Financial
Year. The Committee is also of the view that NALSA needs to rationalise its expenses
relating to Legal Counsel Fee by engaging more and more Senior Lawyers on pro-bono
basis. Further, expenses relating to Mass Awareness Programme needs to be
rationalized to eliminate wasteful expenditure, if any. (Para 2.39.)
8. The Committee observes that as against the projection of Rs. 1490 crore for CSS
Scheme for Infrastructure Development of Subordinate Judiciary, only Rs 754 crore
was allocated, which is a telling reduction of 50 percent approx. over the projections
made to Ministry of Finance and 23 percent approx. over RE 2019-20. The Committee
feels that reduction of funds may adversely affect optimal execution of schemes and the
shortfall of 50 percent approx. over projections is too large to be ignored. The
Committee, accordingly, recommends that the funds allocated may be reconsidered
during the RE 2020-21, depending upon the progress of the work. (Para 2.42.)
9. The Committee observes that allocations for eCourts Project Phase-II in BE
2020-21 has increased by 39 percent approx. over RE 2019-20. Further, as compared to
projections made to the Finance Ministry for Financial Year 2020-21, the allocations
66
have decreased by 10.17 percent. However, the Committee is pained to note that out of
Rs. 180 crore allocations in RE 2019-20, only Rs. 37.31 crore was spent by the
Department as on 31st January, 2020. Thus, despite under utilisation of allocations, the
Departments made projection for higher allocations for the next Financial Year. The
Committee, therefore, recommends the Department to improve the ratio of funds
allocations vis-à-vis utilisations as under utilisation implies under performance of the
project. (Para 2.44.)
10. The Committee observes that the expenditure of the Commission till 31st
December, 2019 was only Rs. 191.24 crore, out of allocations of Rs. 286.68 crore in the
current Financial Year. Further, out of the total allocations of Rs. 25 crore for
advertisement and publicity, only Rs 11.7 crore was spent by the Commission despite
the year 2019 being year of General Election for Seventeenth Lok Sabha. (Para 2.51.)
11. The Committee observes that the allocations to the Election Commission of India
in BE 2020-21 is not as per the projection made to the Ministry for Finance. The
allocations have been reduced under the Head Voters Awareness Programme, which
may affect the digital outreach and awareness programmes of the Commission.
However, the Committee also observes that ECI has not been able to utilise its funds
under the Heads ‘Voters Awareness’ during current Financial Year despite the year
being year of General Election to the Seventeenth Lok Sabha. The Committee,
accordingly, recommends the ECI to improve its funds utilisation ratio under the Heads
where under utilisation persists. The Committee also recommends the Ministry to
enhance the allocations for construction of additional office buildings and Voters
Awareness programmes at RE stage, so that the activities and programmes of
Commission do not suffer. (Para 2.53.)
12. While observing the pattern of expenditure and allocations of the Supreme
Court from the above mentioned table, the Committee observes that the Supreme Court
of India has been making optimum utilization of allocations made to it under various
Heads. The Committee appreciates the Supreme Court for proactively utilizing
allocations made to it. (Para 2.59.)
13. The Committee feels that there should not be inordinate delay in filling up of
vacancies of judges in High Courts. As on 20th
February, 2020, 37 percent appx. (397)
of the sanctioned strength of judges (1079) in High courts are lying vacant. The
Committee has expressed its concern in the past in its Eighty-seventh, Ninety-first and
Ninety-sixth Reports on the issue. Every year approximately 35 to 40 percent of posts of
High Court Judges remains unfilled, which is a shared concern. Except High Court of
Sikkim, all 24 High Courts have number of vacancies. The vacancy position of judges is
very high in High Courts of Allahabad (55), Calcutta (32), Punjab and Haryana (30),
Rajasthan (29), Gujarat (25), Delhi (25) and Bombay (23). It is understood that
initiation of process of appointment should commence six months prior to the
occurrence of vacancy by the concerned High Court as per the Memorandum of
Procedure (MoP). Even though dates of the retirement of judges are well known in
67
advance to the Registry of the High Court, the recommendation by High Court
collegium generally takes six to fifty two months, which result in eventual delay in the
issuance of warrant of appointment by the President of India, as the Department of
Justice is required to consult the Governor and the Chief Minister of the concerned
State and verify antecedents of the proposed candidates before sending the name along
with intelligence inputs to the Supreme Court Collegium for consideration. There are
also instances of high rate of rejection by the Supreme Court Collegium. (Para 3.13.)
14. A judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court on 17th
February, 2020 in the case M/s PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited &
others has been brought to the notice of the Committee. The apex court has observed
that the High Courts must make endeavours to recommend the names against the
vacancies as early as possible and High Courts should keep on recommending names
without waiting for the result of the earlier recommendations till all recommendations
are made. The Committee appreciates the aforesaid judgement of the Apex Court and
expect that concerned High Courts should recommend the names well in advance so
that the appointees to the post of judges in the High Courts are available on the very
date of the retirement of the judges. (Para 3.14.)
15. The Committee acknowledges apprehensions expressed by some High Courts
with regard to filling up of vacant positions of judges due to infrastructural constraints.
The Committee, accordingly, recommends the Department to request the State
Governments to create infrastructure facilities for High Courts so that infrastructural
constraints do not become a hindrance in the appointment of Judges. (Para 3.15.)
16. The Committee is concerned with the large number of vacancies of Judicial
Officers in Subordinate Judiciary. As per the data made available to the Committee, as
on 20th
February, 2020, around 21 percent of sanctioned strength (24,018) of Judicial
Officers in Subordinate Courts are vacant in different States. Out of 5,146 vacancies a
large number of vacancies are in the States of Uttar Pradesh (1,053), Bihar (776),
Madhya Pradesh (370), Gujarat (308) and Rajasthan (309). Despite, the Supreme Court
monitoring vacancy positions of Judicial Officers in Subordinate judiciary through
hearings on Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr vs. UP Public Service Commission (2007) case,
a large number of vacancies of Judicial Officers are existing in various States. The
Committee, therefore, recommends the Department of Justice to impress upon the
State Governments/High Courts to expedite the process of filling up of the vacancy
positions of Judicial Officers in Subordinate Courts as per the directions of the
Supreme Court in the Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anr vs. UP Public Service Commission
(2007) case. (Para 3.18.)
17. The Committee notes that pendency in courts is on the rise. It understands that
the cases instituted in particular year are not disposed in the same year leading to
addition of further pendency to the existing backlog. The pendency in Subordinate
Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court has increased by 21 percent, 29 percent and 8
percent, respectively. The Committee also takes into account the findings of the
68
Economic Survey (2018-19) about the national average of Case Clearance Rate (CCR)
of courts which is 87.5 percent However, District and Subordinate Courts in the
States of Gujarat, Odisha and Tamil Nadu have reportedly achieved 100 percent CCR
as per the India Justice Report (2019). Himachal Pradesh High Court has reportedly
the highest Case Clearance Rate at 109 percent. (Para 3.22.)
18. The Committee observes that pendency of cases in Supreme Court, High Courts
and District and Subordinate Courts have increased by 8%, 29%, and 21%,
respectively, from the year 2018. The highest number of cases in Subordinate courts are
pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh (76,44,642), followed by Maharashtra (38,09,995)
Bihar (28,62,829), West Bengal (22,85,005) and Rajasthan (16,81,942). In the case of
High Courts the highest numbers of cases are pending in High Courts of Allahabad
(7,31,647), followed by Punjab and Haryana (5,34,524), Rajasthan (4,68,402), Madras
(4,03,407), Bombay(2,67,809) and Karnataka (2,47,812). The Committee is of the view
that pendency of cases and vacancy positions of judges are closely linked with each
other as some High Courts having high number of vacant positions of judges like High
Courts of Allahabad (52), Punjab and Haryana (30), Rajasthan (29) and Bombay (24)
are also having high number of pendency of cases. The Committee, accordingly, feels
that vacancy positions of judges needs to be filed up so that pendency may be reduced.
(Para 3.26.)
19. The Committee has noted that Department of Justice could not furnish Case
Clearance Rate of Courts to it as the institution and disposal of cases year-wise is not
maintained in the National Judicial Data Grid by the courts. The Committee, therefore,
desires that the registry of different courts may be requested to collate and maintain the
Case Clearance Rate of the Courts in order to assess the performance of the Courts in
dispensation of justice. (Para 3.27.)
20. The Committee understands that judiciary is independent and integrated and
justice delivery depends upon the judiciary by getting timely support from police, legal
aid Institutions and the Bar in addition to financial support for infrastructure and
human resources from Government. All these institutions/ bodies need to act
harmoniously to reduce pendency of cases in various judicial forums. In the cooperative
and competitive federal scheme, the Union Government has been supplementing States
for creating physical and digital infrastructures for subordinate courts and Fast-Track
Courts on sharing basis under Centrally Sponsored Scheme. The digitalisation of court
system from lower to apex is being monitored by E-Committee of the Supreme Court.
(Para 3.28.)
21. The infrastructure for High Courts has to be met from the Budget of the State
Government. Some of the High Courts face infrastructural constraints which comes in
the way to fill up sanctioned strength in those High Courts. The Committee notes that
the expenditure of both the Union and States Governments on administration of justice
hovers around 0.08 to 0.09 percent of the GDP. The State Governments, may,
therefore, be impressed upon to spend the amount from the enhanced devolution of
69
fund from the Union to State Government upon recommendation by Fourteenth
Finance Commission, to support judiciary to increase its productivity. It not only
ensures the speedy justice to the people of the country, but also helps to enhance image
of our country in the Rule of Law matrix as well as ease of doing business matrix.
(Para 3.29.)
22. The Committee understands that there are Constitutional provisions for
appointment of qualified Retired Judges under Article 128 in Supreme Court and 224
(A) in High Courts with the previous consent of the President of India but this provision
cannot be invoked to appoint Retired Judges to expedite pendency of cases as Supreme
Court Collegium is of the opinion that these provisions can be invoked only after filling
up of sanctioned strength of Judges. However, the Government has engaged 100 Retired
Judges called ‘Nyaya Mitra’ to render advice and assistance to the serving judges in
High Courts (7), District and Subordinate Courts (93) to expedite ten year’s old pending
cases. The Committee appreciates the initiative of the Government to take the service
of retired judges as Nyaya Mitra to clear pendency of cases in various courts. The
Committee desires that more Nyaya Mitras may be engaged in other courts where cases
are pending for more than ten years. (Para 3.31.)
23. The Committee appreciates the initiative of the Department for setting up Fast
Track Special Courts in the country for expeditious trial and disposal of cases relating
to rape and cases under POCSO Act, 2012 pending in various courts. The Committee is
of the view that adequate resources, both financial and human resources, may be
provided in a time bound manner to achieve the objectives of the FTSC scheme. The
Committee further recommends that the impact of the scheme may be evaluated after
the completion of one year of the scheme to identify the challenges and the same may be
apprised to the Committee in the Action Taken Replies of the Department.
(Para 3.35.)
24. As per information furnished to the Committee, the sanctioned strength and
working strength of Subordinate Judiciary are 24,018 and 18,872, respectively and a
total of 22,321 court rooms/halls and 19,090 residential units would be available for the
Subordinate Judiciary. It means that the availability of court rooms/halls is eighteen
percent surplus as compared to working strength of Judicial Officers and there is a
seven percent deficit as compared to sanctioned strength of judicial officers. Similarly,
the residential units is one percent surplus as compared to working strength of the
Judicial Officers and twenty percent deficit as compared to sanctioned strength of
Judicial Officers. The Committee has been informed that during the period from 15th
January 2020 to 20th
February 2020, 236 posts of judicial officers have been created
leading the sanctioned strength to 24,018. The State Governments will be filling these
vacancies as per the direction of the Supreme Court of India on the Malik Mazhar
Sultan and Anr vs. UP Public Service Commission (2007) case in due course. Therefore,
the present situation of surplus of court rooms and residential quarters for Judicial
Officers would be deficit in future. The Committee accordingly, recommends the
70
Department to release funds and impress upon State Governments to construct courts
room and residential accommodation as per sanctioned strength so that there would be
100 percent satisfaction on both accounts. (Para 3.39.)
25. The Committee has noted that 95% of the jails have been linked to the court
complex with video-conferencing facility. Only remaining 67 jails, which is 5% of the
total has to be linked. Simultaneous video-conferencing facility in the court complex
and corresponding jails, besides expediting trial of alleged accused also reduce footfalls
in court complex and expenditure on the part of State Government on account of
logistics and accompanying escorting officials. The Department of Justice has inter-alia
been providing grant-in-aid under E-court Mission Mode Project, Phase-II for the
purpose. However, State Government should take steps to utilise 10% enhanced funds
released as share of State Government as recommended by the Fourteenth Financial
Commission for such purposes, which would undoubtedly expedite the justice delivery
process. (Para 3.45.)
26. Digitization of work in the portal of National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) will
help in avoiding duplicity of work by Government Departments/Institutions. The
pendency data of a few States and UTs are not available in NJDG. The Committee
recommends the Department to apprise it, of the observations of the Arrears
Committee of the Supreme Court on the non-availability of pendency data in respect of
Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and UTs of Lakshadweep, Puducherry and Andaman
and Nicobar Islands in NJDG, in its Action Taken Replies of the Department.
(Para 3.46.)
27. The pace of establishment of Gram Nyayalayas has been very slow as only 353
Gram Nyayalayas have been notified by eleven States so far and out of these only 211
are functional in nine States with cent percent operationalisation in the states of Punjab,
Rajasthan and Kerala. The Committee observes that Gram Nyayalayas are yet to made
operational is the States of Karnataka and Goa, even though they have notified the
Gram Nyayalayas. Further, the ratio of notification vis-à-vis operationalisation is very
poor in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, in particular. The Committee
recommends that for non-operationalisation of Gram Nyayalayas after their
notification, views of High Courts of those States may be solicited and submitted to the
Committee in the Action taken Replies to this Report by the Department. The
Committee, further, recommends the Department to apprise the Committee of the
actions taken by it on the Evaluation study conducted by Indian Law Institute.
(Para 3.50.)
28. The Committee was apprised that an impact assessment and evaluation studies
of Para Legal Volunteer Scheme of 2009, is underway, the findings of which would be
available by April, 2020. The Committee desires that findings of the study alongwith
observations of the Department of Justice may be submitted to it with Action Taken
Replies to the Committee. The Committee feels that PLVs are harbinger of legal
awareness and legal aid which cannot be undermined in the society. They reach to the
71
marginalised in the remote corner of the country and reduce the scope of cases reaching
the Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism or regular courts. The Committee desires
that the scheme of Para-legal volunteers need to be further strengthened for timely
justice delivery. (Para 3.54.)
29. The Committee is happy to note that NALSA has provided legal assistance to
prisoners during remand stage and bail applications. However, as per prison statistics-
India (2018) published by National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB), New Delhi, the
average occupancy rate of prison in our country is 117.16 percent which is reportedly
due to presence of a large number of undertrials ( 69% of the Prison inmates) in the
prison. Legal Aid is a constitutional obligation under Article 39A of the Constitution
and NALSA has been created to fulfill this Constitutional mandate. However, only 1122
Legal Aid Clinics are functional in various prisons which means that 217 prisons are yet
to get a legal aid clinic. The Committee, accordingly, recommends NALSA to establish
Legal Aid Clinics in remaining prisons in the Country to fulfill the mandate for which it
is created. The Committee appreciates the initiative of NALSA to conduct impact
evaluation study on its activities in the coming Financial Year. The Committee feels that
there should be regular impact evaluation study of its programmes and activities to
identify shortcomings in the implementation of programmes and activities.
(Para 3.55.)
30. The Committee observes that the National Lok Adalat and State Lok Adalats
have disposed of 1.65 crore and 47 lakh cases, respectively, so far. Out of the total cases
decided by National Lok Adalat, 49% pertains to pending cases and out of total cases
decided by the State Lok Adalats, 55% pertains to pending cases. Those pending cases
relates to Negotiable Instrument Act, labour dispute, service matters, criminal
compoundable matter, etc. It implies that the pendency in the regular courts have been
reduced considerably by the Lok Adalats. The Committee is happy to note that lok
Adalats have played positive role in easing burden of regular courts. (Para 3.56.)
31. The Committee observes that District and Subordinate Judiciary are clogged
with 3.17 crore cases. Delay, pendency and backlog of cases in Subordinate Courts in
particular has a major reason of slow progress in the enforcement of contract
parameters. The Committee notes the findings in India Justice Report, 2019 according
to which the Judicial delay costs around 0.5% of GDP of our country annually.
Disposal of cases is within the exclusive domain of the Judiciary. However, the
Executive has been constantly trying to take reformative measures in the nature of
bringing amendments to legislations i.e. the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division And Commercial Appellate Divisions of
High Court Acts, 2015, the Specific Relief Act, 1963, etc. But, such measures have not
shown any perceptible improvement in the reduction of pendency. (Para 3.64.)
32. The Union Government has been releasing grant under centrally Sponsored
Scheme for Court rooms, residence for judicial officers and computerisation of
Subordinate Judiciary to increase its productivity. In this connection the Committee
72
feels that there is requirement of collaborative approach between the Judiciary and the
Executive to improve pendency position in various judicial forums. The importance of
effective, efficient and expeditious contract enforcement has direct bearing on economic
growth and development. Therefore, the legal ecosystem needs to be transformed for
timely contract enforcement and resolution of commercial dispute to achieve aspiration
of our country to become a five-trillion dollar economy. (Para 3.65.)
33. The Committee appreciates the initiatives of the Supreme Court of India to
translate certain judgments in some of the Scheduled Languages. The Committee
desires that, the Department may apprise the modalities/mechanisms adopted by the
Supreme Court of India to translate its judgment in some of the Scheduled Languages
and its outcome in terms of its outreach amongst the common people in the country.
(Para 3.67.)
34. The Committee further recommends that translation of judgments in remaining
Scheduled languages may also be undertaken and any challenges, including financial, in
this regard may be communicated to the Committee through the Action Taken Replies.
(Para 3.68.)
35. The Committee appreciates the initiatives of Department of Legal Affairs to
invite online application for appointment of notaries. However, the Department has
expressed its difficulty in providing online tracking of fresh and renewal of application
for notary-ship certificate due to infrastructural constraints. Instances of online
applications not being received and acknowledged by the Department have come to the
notice of the Committee. The Committee, therefore, desires that the infrastructural
capacity of the Department may be overhauled for streamlining issuance and renewal of
certificate of notary. The applicant should be given an opportunity to track his/her
application and there should be a moratorium period for the applications received after
which the applicants may be required to file fresh applications. (Para 4.10.)
36. It was also pointed out that notaries appointed under Central quota are not
evenly distributed in the State. Some of the districts are over- represented while some
of the districts are under- represented. The Committee, therefore, desires that while
making appointment, focus should be given to appoint notaries in those districts of the
State, which are under represented or not represented. (Para 4.11.)
37. The Committee, therefore, strongly recommends that digital initiative may be
resorted to minimise human intervention in the appointment/ renewal process of
notaries. The Committee also desires that option of introducing digital signature for
notaries on the lines of facility provided to Chartered Accountants may be introduced to
rule out the scope of using seal of notary by any person on behalf of the notary
certificate holder. Further, it would also completely eliminate the malpractice of anti-
dating or/and attestation of blank document, etc. (Para 4.12.)
73
38. The Committee, therefore, desires that while making appointment due
consideration should be given to inclusiveness of the notaries and desires that the
Department should furnish the data of social category of notaries to the Committee
while submitting its Action Taken Replies. (Para 4.13.)
39. The Committee is concerned that 35% (11,226) out of 32,403 notaries are lying
vacant in various States/UTs. There are hundred percent vacancies in the States/UTs of
Telangana, Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Daman Diu
and Andaman Nicobar Islands. Large number of vacancies also exist in the States of
Gujarat (1,422), Madhya Pradesh (858), Telangana (800), Bihar (747) and Uttar
Pradesh (710). The Committee in its 96th
Report on Demands for Grants (2018-19) of
the Ministry of Law and Justice had discussed the said issue in detail and recommended
the Department to streamline appointment procedure of notaries as well as fill up
vacancy positions of notaries in various States. Despite its recommendation, the
Department could not come up with concrete proposal to fill up vacancy positions of
notary till now. However, the Law Secretary during his deposition before the
Committee on 20th
February, 2020 has assured the Committee to fill up existing
vacancies within a period of four to six weeks. The Committee also desires that due
consideration should be given to the candidates belonging to the category of SC, ST,
OBC while making fresh appointment of notary in order to ensure that the notary
appointment is inclusive and reflects the social composition of our society.
(Para 4.14.)
40. The Committee is happy to note that positions of Attorney General for India and
Solicitor General of India are filled up. However, six positions of Additional Solicitors
General of India are vacant. The Committee is of the view that when there is no
difficulty in the existing rules and procedures for appointment of Law Officers, there
should not be any vacant positions. The Committee accordingly, recommends the
Department to expedite the process of filling up vacancies of Law Officers.
(Para 4.17)
41. The Department submitted that Panel Counsels for the Supreme Court of India
is 684, while only 1146 Advocates are empanelled to appear on behalf of Union of India
in different Courts across the country. The Committee feels that the figure is highly
disproportionate and the Committee desires that it requires re-evaluation by the
Department. The Committee would like to know the rationale behind discrepancies in
appointment of panel counsels and advocates in different High Courts and accordingly,
recommends the Department to furnish High Court wise panel of counsels and
advocates appointed in Action Taken Replies of the Department. (Para 4.18)
42. The Committee desires that the Department of Legal Affair may collate the
information from the Bar Council of India and furnish the same in Action Taken
Replies of the Department. (Para 4.20.)
43. The Committee observes that there is a 260 percent approx. increase in payment
74
of fees to the legal counsels/advisers by the Ministry in the last eleven years and around
4,32,000 cases relating to government are pending. Further, the National Litigation
Policy is yet to be finalised by the Government and there is no concrete roadmap from
the Department to check pendency of cases and increasing expenditure. The National
Litigation Policy was drafted in 2010 and the Department during the Demand for
Grants (2018-19) had submitted that it is under active consideration of the Government.
The Committee, accordingly recommends the Department to expedite the formulation
of National Litigation Policy. (Para 4.24.)
44. The Committee is of the view that the Department of Legal Affairs cannot afford
to remain data deficient in a data driven economy and therefore, the Committee
recommends the Department to collect regular data relating to Government cases from
various States/UTs as these data may help the Department while projecting number of
Government Advocate/Panel counsel required for a particular State/UT, which in turn
may save government resources. (Para 4.25.)
45. The Committee is concerned about the pendency of 89,398 appeals in ITAT as on
1st February, 2020. The Committee was apprised that president of ITAT has set a target
of disposal of 50 cases per Member per month. The tribunal has also prepared action
plan to clear pendencies by 50 percent by the end of the year 2022, with a target of
63,300 (in 2020), 67,800 (in 2021) and 70,200 (in 2022). The Committee observes that
there is still 41 vacancy positions of members pending out of total strength of 126. The
Ministry has initiated action plan to fill-up 37 vacancies in the coming financial year.
However, the Committee feels that even if these vacancies are filled up, still there will be
large number of pendencies. The Committee notes that 9.32 crore lakh crore amount is
locked in dispute respecting direct taxation. The Committee appreciates tax amnesty
proposal of the Government under Direct Tax Vivaad se Vishwas Bill, 2020. The
Committee recommends the Government to introduce pre-mediation provisions in
direct tax disputes in the provisions of relevant Acts to settle tax disputes, on the lines of
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (Para 4.32.)
46. The Committee in its previous Reports had recommended that ILI should move
towards making itself financially independent from Government grants and again of the
considered opinion that ILI needs to generate its own resources from research and
consultancy for its functioning. The Committee also feels that instead of concentrating
its core activities in Delhi, ILI need to expand itself to other parts of the country also by
establishing extension centers in cities like Chennai, Mumbai, Guwahati, etc. On the
issue of grant of Institute of National Importance status to ILI, the Committee
recommends the Department to make a cost benefit analysis and submit a report to the
Committee in its Action Taken Replies. The Committee also recommends the
Department to look into the demand of ILI for enhanced allocations, as the Committee
feels that shortage financial resources should not hamper the functioning of the
Institute. (Para 4.36.)
75
47. The Committee is apprised that the Institute of Legislative Drafting and
Research (ILDR) of the Department trains draftsmen from Union and State
Governments to improve quality of legislative drafting. However, the Committee
observes that there is real dearth of good quality draftmen in the Country. The
Committee desires that drafting errors and ambiguity in the law may be avoided by
making effective pre-legislative consultation with stakeholders. For that purpose, the
Bills should be available in regional languages for wider consultation with stakeholders.
The Committee also desires that Acts allocated to the Department under the Allocation
of Business Rules, 1961 may be periodically reviewed on the basis of its use as part of
post legislative scrutiny. The loopholes and infirmities pointed to the Department by
the stakeholders of the law may be submitted to the Committee in its action taken
replies. (Para 5.3.)
48. The Committee also observes that out of 463 sanctioned positions in the
Department, the post related to drafting officers are only 44. The sanctioned strength of
Secretariat of the Department, Official Language Wing and Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan is
237, 151 and 75, respectively. The committee expresses its concern as the Department
has given incomplete information with regard to vacancy positions in the Secretariat.
The Committee recommends the Department to furnish complete data of sanctioned
positions in the Department vis-à-vis vacancy positions in Action Taken Replies of the
Department. (Para 5.4.)
49. The Committee in its Ninety-sixth report on the Demands for Grants (2018-19)
has recommended for bringing out authoritative text of the Constitution of India and
other Central Acts in all the language mentioned under the Eighth Schedule of the
Constitution. The Committee observes that the Department has not been able to bring
authoritative text of the Constitution of India and other Central Acts in all Scheduled
languages of the Constitution. The Committee, accordingly, recommends to the
Department to expedite the translations work of Constitution/Acts/Subordinate
Legislations in remaining scheduled languages. (Para 5.6.)
50. The Committee understands that free and fair elections is the bedrock of
democracy and the latter is a Basic Feature of the Constitution. An error-free Electoral
Roll is sine qua non of free and fair election. The Committee has been advocating
linkage of unique Aadhaar ID Card number with voter I-card which would streamline
alterations in EPIC during change of ordinary residence by the electors. The incidence
of multiple entry could also be eliminated which is required in participative democracy.
The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government may undertake
appropriate actions for the purpose of linking unique Aadhaar Card number with
Voter ID Card to purify the electoral roll which is in larger interest of democratic
polity. (Para 5.14.)
51. The Committee observes that the EVMs has eliminated the possibility of casting
invalid votes, as only one button can be pressed to register a vote, ruling out manual
errors of the kind prevalent during the paper ballot days. Furthermore, it has reduced
76
the delays and errors in counting of ballot papers. The Voter Verifiable Paper Audit
Trail (VVPAT) to the EVM has strengthened the voters’ trust and transparency of the
electoral process. The Committee also observes that the Supreme Court has also upheld
the election conducted by EVM and VVPAT by dismissing a petition requesting for
return to ballot paper system. Electronic Voting Machines have not only simplified the
election process, but also quickened the pace of counting and ensured convenience for
the voters. (Para 5.20.)
52. The ECI has also unequivocally been reiterating that EVMs are tamper proof
and integrity of electoral process is well preserved with its use accompanied with
VVPATs in the participatory democracy. Booth capturing and casting of invalid votes
have become the thing of the past with the aforesaid digital revolution. In this regard,
the Committee points out that in most of the States, election to Panchayati Raj
Institutions and Municipal Bodies are still being held through ballot papers. The
advancement of technology in election process needs to percolate to local bodies. The
Committee is of the view that election to local bodies should also be held through
Electronic Voting Machine accompanied by VVPAT. The Committee, therefore,
recommends the Election Commission of India to impress upon the State Election
Commissions for use of EVMs and VVPATs available with ECI for paperless election to
local bodies for ease of the electors. (Para 5.21.)
53. The Committee observes that there is a lot of commonalities between the
elections to Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies on the one hand and that of to
local bodies on the other. The eligibility criterion of the elector for all three aforesaid
elections is the same. It is the same individual who is called upon by two different
Constitutional authorities to cast his/her vote at different point of time for different
bodies in the same territorial constituencies in which his/her name is registered in the
Electoral Roll. Furthermore, the First- Past- the- Post system is followed to declare the
winner in all three elections. Even the wordings used about Electoral Roll in Articles
324 and 243(K) and 243 Z (A) of the Constitution are identical. The Committee has
been recommending time and again in its 88th, 91st and 96th Reports for Common
Electoral Roll from local body to Lok Sabha Elections. It would not only save time,
energy and resources of concerned State Government but also obviate confusion in the
mind of voters. The data of electors available in National Voters Service Portal (NVSP)
maintained by the Election Commission of India could be readily used by the State
Election Commissions without any hassle. Electronic Voting Machine and VVPAT
which are available with the Election Commission of India can also be utilised by the
State Election Commissions for election to local bodies having Common Electoral Roll.
The Committee, therefore, again recommends for common electoral roll for local body
to Lok Sabha Election. (Para 5.28.)
54. The Systemic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation Programme of the
Election Commission of India was launched in 2017 to enhance electoral participation
and ethical voting. Door to door information and motivation through Aaganwadi
77
Workers, ASHA, Sikhya Mitras, Self Help Groups, etc. 360 degree campaign through
print media, electronic media, digital media, hand-outs, pamphlets, banners, brochures
and booklets to increase voters awareness and education was made by the Commission.
Forms 6, 7, 8 and 8 (A) for registration and alteration in voters list were made available
in Post Office, banks, hospitals for revision in the Electoral Roll. The ECI has also
introduced electronically transmitted postal ballot for convenience of certain absentee
voters. These are the praiseworthy measures taken by the ECI to increase voters’
participation and eventual turnout on the Election Day. The Committee appreciates
innovative measures taken by ECI for the purpose under the said programme, and
recommends the Government should provide appropriate budgetary support to the
Election Commission of India. (Para 5.30.)
78
Annexure-I
Delay in recommending names for unfilled vacancies from Bar and Service- High Court-wise as on 14.02.2020
Sl. No.
Name of the High Court
Vacancies for which recommendations are to be made
Date of Occurrence of First unfilled vacancy for which recommendation yet to be made
Bar Service
Bar Service Total Date of Occurrence of First unfilled vacancy from Bar
Delay in
months
Date of Occurrence of First unfilled vacancy from Service
Delay in
months
1 Allahabad 25 2 27 01-07-2015 56 06-08-2019 6
2 Andhra Pradesh
7 2 9 22-01-2016 49 03-02-2019 12
3 Bombay 19 4 23 01-04-2015 59 05-07-2019 7
4 Calcutta 3 9 12 18-11-2018 15 10-05-2016 46
5 Chhattisgarh 5 0 5 18-03-2015 60
6 Delhi 6 4 10 21-09-2016 41 06-08-2019 6
7 Gauhati 1 2 3 23-09-2019 5 28-10-2016 40
8 Gujarat 3 0 3 16-09-2019 5
9 Himachal Pradesh
0 -1 -1
10 Jammu & Kashmir*
1 2 3 01-07-2014 68 27-05-2019 9
11 Jharkhand 4 4 8 01-07-2014 68 20-10-2016 40
12 Karnataka 8 1 9 30-04-2017 34 02-08-2019 6
13 Kerala 1 2 3 06-11-2019 3 25-10-2019 4
14 Madhya Pradesh
12 6 18 01-07-2014 68 06-03-2018 24
15 Madras 1 0 1 27-10-2019 4
16 Manipur 0 1 1 26-10-2015 52
17 Meghalaya 2 0 2 26-10-2015 52
18 Orissa 9 3 12 14-10-2014 65 01-02-2018 25
19 Patna 0 2 2 03-09-2019 5
20 Punjab& Haryana
8 13 21 04-01-2015 62 11-11-2015 52
21 Rajasthan 14 4 18 02-08-2017 31 18-05-2017 33
22 Sikkim 1 0 1 24-10-2015 52
23 Telangana 2 5 7 04-12-2018 15 22-01-2016 49
24 Tripura 1 0 1 24-08-2016 42
25 Uttarakhand 1 0 1 16-09-2019 5 13-09-2018 17
Total 134 65 199 * High Court for UTs of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
79
* Includes UTs of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Annexure-II
State/UTs wise Vacancy of Judicial Officers as on 20-02-2020
Sl. No. States & UTs
Total Sanctioned Strength
Total Working Strength Total Vacancy
1 Andaman and Nicobar 13 13 0
2 Andhra Pradesh 599 526 73
3 Arunachal Pradesh 41 27 14
4 Assam 441 409 32
5 Bihar 1925 1149 776
6 Chandigarh 30 29 1
7 Chhattisgarh 480 393 87
8 D & N Haveli 3 3 0
9 Daman & Diu 4 3 1
10 Delhi 799 678 121
11 Goa 50 40 10
12 Gujarat 1521 1183 338
13 Haryana 772 475 297
14 Himachal Pradesh 175 163 12
15 Jammu and Kashmir* 290 232 58
16 Jharkhand 677 458 219
17 Karnataka 1346 1098 248
18 Kerala 536 456 80
19 Lakshadweep 3 3 0
20 Madhya Pradesh 2021 1651 370
21 Maharashtra 2189 1940 249
22 Manipur 55 41 14
23 Meghalaya 97 49 48
24 Mizoram 64 45 19
25 Nagaland 33 26 7
26 Odisha 920 771 149
27 Puducherry 26 11 15
28 Punjab 675 577 98
29 Rajasthan 1428 1119 309
30 Sikkim 25 19 6
31 Tamil Nadu 1257 1080 177
32 Telangana 474 383 91
33 Tripura 120 95 25
34 Uttar Pradesh 3634 2581 1053
35 Uttarakhand 294 228 66
36 West Bengal 1001 918 83
TOTAL 24018 18872 5146
80
Annexure - III
Details of Pending Cases in the Country State / UT-wise
Sl. No Name of States/UTs Number of Cases pending in
District and Subordinate
Courts as on 15.01.2020$$
1 A & N Island 0
2 Andhra Pradesh 559824
3 Telangana 563177
4 Arunachal Pradesh -----------
5 Assam 295988
6 Bihar 2862829
7 Chandigarh 47504
8 Chhattisgarh 279665
9 D & N Haveli 3091
10 Daman & Diu 2203
11 Delhi 859675
12 Goa 47773
13 Gujarat 1592317
14 Haryana 862469
15 Himachal Pradesh 289878
16 Jammu & Kashmir 177077
17 Jharkhand 385163
18 Karnataka 1538148
19 Kerala 1288426
20 Lakshadweep ------------
21 Madhya Pradesh 1446151
22 Maharashtra 3809995
23 Manipur 9859
24 Meghalaya 8800
25 Mizoram 2544
26 Nagaland ------------
27 Orissa 1239183
28 Punjab 635176
29 Rajasthan 1681942
30 Sikkim 1245
31 Tamil Nadu 1147219
32 Pondicherry ------------
33 Tripura 24875
34 Uttar Pradesh 7644642
35 Uttarakhand 206346
36 West Bengal 2285005
Total 31798189
Note: Data on District and Subordinate Courts in the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Union Territories of
Lakshadweep and Puducherry are not available on the web-portal of NJDG. Data in respect of Andaman & Nicobar Islands is not available on NJDG Portal
81
Annexure-IV
Total number electors in all States and UTs as on 19th
February, 2019
