06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Backlog in courts; number of fast-track courts should be increased ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19205]

"According to the ACHR, as of December 2005, there were 34,481 cases pending in the Supreme Court, approximately 3.5 million cases pending in the High Court, and approximately 25.6 million cases pending in the subordinate courts.  The country had 1,734 operational fast-track courts, which provided some relief to the backlog and contributed to the growing consensus to increase the number of fast-track courts throughout the country."

Document(s): Open document

06.03.2007 - Source: US Department of State

Fast Track Courts ("Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2006") [ID 19222]

"Fast track courts concentrated on a specific type of case, allowing judges to develop expertise in a given area of law. These courts gave preference to cases pending for extended periods and often focused on civil issues. Court fees were generally lower for these courts, since trials were shorter. As of October there were 1,734 fast track courts. A total of 18 million cases were pending in courts across the country, of which 16 million were criminal cases. There were approximately 10 judges for every million people."

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Judiciary and administration of justice ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18218]

"India's judiciary remained more independent than its counterparts in South Asia. However, it continued to be plagued by judicial delay."

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Judicial delay ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18221]

"Judicial delay continued to plague India. The lack of judges continued to hamper delivery of justice.[77] According to a Supreme Court judge, six times more judges were needed for expediting the pending cases and supporting the present judicial system.[78] As of December 2005, there were four vacancies in the Supreme Court and as many as 141 vacancies in the 21 High Courts in the country with Calcutta (21), Madras (20), Allahabad (14), Punjab and Haryana (11) topping the list.[79] As on 31 December 2005, 34,481 cases were pending with the Supreme Court, 35,21,283 cases with the High Courts, and 2,56,54,251 cases with the subordinate courts.[80] In the Salem Advocate Bar Association of Tamil Nadu Vs Union of India (2003 1 SCC 49) challenging the 2002 Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code, the Supreme Court in its judgement in August 2005 directed the Central Government to conduct “judicial impact assessment” and provide finance and infrastructure to deal with additional cases every time a new law is enacted. In a case of judicial delay and gross negligence of the administration, in July 2005, the Kamrup Chief Judicial Magistrate released Machang Lalung Lalung on a token personal bond of Rupee 1 from LGB Regional Institute of Mental Health.[81] Lalung was an under-trial for 54 years and he was never produced before any court. The NHRC had intervened with regard to Lalung and four other under-trials at the LGB Regional Institute of Mental Health - Khalilur Rehman, an under trial for 35 years, Anil Kumar Burman, an under trial prisoner for 33 years, Sonamani Deb, an under-trial prisoners for 32 years, and Parbati Mallik for 32 years.[82] On 11 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued notices to the state government of Assam questioning the illegal detention of Lalung.[83] As many as 1,734 fast track courts (FTCs) have been operational across India since 1 April 2001. The incumbent Congress led UPA government did not pursue with the 12th Finance Commission to get the funds approved in 2005 and the tenure of FTCs expired on 31 March 2005. However, following the Supreme Court's extension of term of the FTCs till 30 April 2005, the Central government decided to continue the functioning of the FTCs across the country and the government sanctioned Rs.509 crores for another 5 years.[84] Besides this, in order to speed up delivery of justice, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in August 2005 also directed the High Courts to take prompt measures to speed up all cases, civil and criminal, within a specific time frame. The Supreme Court suggested that the cases should be graded as sprint; middle-distance and long-distance with a view to clear the burden of backlog of cases. The apex court segregated cases in different tracks on the basis of their nature, quantum of evidence and possible time the courts would take to clear them. For instance, civil suits covering maintenance, divorce, rent and eviction would be in Track-I. These cases should be cleared in nine months. Track-II, covering suits for money, would have a one-year limit and Track-III and Track-IV, covering suits for partition, property disputes, etc, would have a two-year limit. In the criminal side, the bench classified criminal cases in five segments. Cases of murder, rape and dowry deaths in Track-I and other non-bailable offences in Track-II would have deadlines of nine months and one year respectively. Economic offences in Track-III and offences tried by special courts under special laws like Prevention of Terrorism Act and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act in Track-IV would have deadlines of one year and 15 months respectively.[85]"

Document(s): Open document

13.12.2006 - Source: Asian Centre for Human Rights

Juvenile justice ("SAARC Human Rights Report 2006") [ID 18427]

"Despite the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act in 2000, by and large, the Act remained unimplemented. Many states did not establish adequate number of Juvenile Justice Boards as provided under the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000. Proceeding in a Public Interest Litigation petition on 15 July 2005, a division bench of the Jharkhand High Court directed the government to speed up the process of constituting the Juvenile Justice Boards to look after the welfare of juveniles lodged in the different remand homes of the state.[233] National Capital Territory of Delhi had only one Juvenile Justice Board at Kingsway Camp, North Delhi for all nine districts of the India's capital. The total number of pending juvenile cases stood at 3,050 at the end of August 2005.[234] The conditions of the juvenile homes remained wanting. In January 2005, as many as 50 inmates ran away from the two juvenile homes situated at Alipur and Kingsway Camp in Delhi because of the lack of basic provisions like food, clothes etc.[235] In January 2005, the NHRC also raised concerns about the protection of human rights of juveniles lodged in the observation homes in Karnataka. On 13 December 2004, 14-year-old Santosh, an inmate of the Observation Home in Madivala police limits in Bangalore, allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself by a rope from the ceiling of the toilet.[236] Apart from the denial of basic facilities, torture of inmates has been a part of administration of the juvenile homes. On 26 May 2005, a Juvenile Justice Board Principal Magistrate Santosh Snehi Mann issued bailable warrants against a former SHO of a North Delhi police station, three guards and some officials of the juvenile observation home in Majnu Ka Teela on charges of “brutally torturing” four boys after some other inmates escaped from there on 13 April 2005. The Principal Magistrate issued the warrants on a complaint by the counsel for the boys alleging that they were beaten up with iron rods and kicked after being made to lie on the floor by the guards and the Station House Officer of Timarpur Police Station jumped on their chests.[237] Juveniles were often found to be at the mercy of policemen. On 18 April 2005, a minor was arrested by two policemen from Najafgarh police Station in west Delhi while having food and subjected to torture which resulted into multiple injuries. When Juvenile Justice Board Principal Magistrate Santosh Snehi Mann ordered the SHO of Najafgarh Police Station, Shri Kailash Chandra, to produce the photographs of all the policemen posted there in order to help the victimised juvenile to identify the two accused policemen,[238] the SHO allegedly tried to influence the victim through threat and inducements.[239]"

Document(s): Open document

05.06.2006 - Source: BBC News

India court refuses film security ("India court refuses film security") [ID 15493]

Document(s): Open document

24.02.2006 - Source: BBC News

9 people sentenced to life imprisonment for participating in the 2002 riots in Gujarat when 12 Muslims and 2 others were burned to death during an attack by a Hindu mob ("Life sentences in India riot case") [#44959],  [ID 6281]

Document(s): Open document

02.02.2006 - Source: BBC News

Court in Delhi banned airport workers striking over job fears from coming within 500 metres of any airport in country ("Court bans India airport protests") [#43348],  [ID 6282]

Document(s): Open document

16.08.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

21 years after violence against Sikhs in Delhi in 1984, victims of riots face further delays to justice; similar pattern of delays to justice and impunity for perpetrators exists for other large scale incidents of human rights violations in the country ("Victims of anti-Sikh riots face further delays") [#35453],  [ID 6283]

Document(s): Open document

08.2005 - Source: Freedom House

Annual survey of political rights and civil liberties 2004 ("Freedom in the World 2005") [#41316],  [ID 6284]

"[...]The judiciary is independent of the executive. Judges have exercised unprecedented activism in response to public interest litigation over official corruption, environmental issues, and other matters. However, in recent years, courts have initiated several contempt-of-court cases against activists and journalists, raising questions about their misuse of the law to intimidate those who expose the behavior of corrupt judges or who question their verdicts. Corruption in the judiciary is reportedly rife, and access to justice by the socially and economically marginalized sections of society remains limited. The court system is severely backlogged and understaffed, which results in the detention of a large number of persons who are awaiting trial. In April 2003, the government-appointed Malimath Committee recommended an overhaul of the Indian criminal justice system. However, rights groups expressed concern that its proposals would weaken the rights of the accused and of women while increasing the power of judges and the police.[...]"

Document(s): Open document

25.05.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

Supreme Court ordered the review of closed complaints and cases in connection with communal violence in Gujarat ("Annual Report 2005") [#32264],  [ID 6285]

"[...]In August the Supreme Court issued a key decision in connection with communal violence in Gujarat state in 2002. The violence followed a fire on a train in which 59 Hindus died in February 2002; right-wing Hindu groups blamed the fire on local Muslims. In the ensuing violence more than 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed. The Court directed that more than 2,000 complaints closed by the police and some 200 cases which had ended in acquittals be reviewed. [...]"

Document(s): Open document
Open document

24.03.2005 - Source: Amnesty International

There are concerns over the continuing failure of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to bring to justice those responsible for the death of human rights lawyer, Jalil Andrabi, 9 years ago ("Nine years after Jalil Andrabi's death perpetrators still free") [#30590],  [ID 6286]

Document(s): Open document

29.10.2004 - Source: South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre

Background article on Indian justice system, judicial delay and alternate dispute resolution (ADR) ("Access to Justice: Reform schemes must not wander off into ADR wilderness (HRF/107/04)") [#26676],  [ID 6287]

Document(s): Open document
Open document

10.2004 - Source: UK Home Office

Judiciary ("Country Report - October 2004") [#28325],  [ID 6288]

"[...]
5.19 As stated in the US State Department report 2003, “The judiciary is independent, however the judiciary was under funded, overburdened, and NGOs alleged that corruption influenced court decisions.” [2c](p1)

5.20 As reflected in the same report,
“The judiciary was backlogged and understaffed in most parts of the country, and in Jammu and Kashmir, the judiciary has long been subject to threats and intimidation by guerillas and by security forces to obey court orders. The judicial system is headed by a Supreme Court and includes the Court of Appeals and lower courts. The highest court is the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over constitutional issues. Lower courts hear criminal and civil cases and send appeals to the Court of Appeals. The President appoints judges, and they may serve until the age of 62 on state high courts and until the age of 65 on the Supreme Court.” [2c](p11)

5.21 The report continues, “In general, the judiciary enforced the right to a fair trial; however, there was a large backlog of cases, and as a result, some courts barely functioned….To remedy the severe overcrowding in the judicial system, the Government asked the government-appointed Malimath Committee to identify possible improvement. In April, AI [Amnesty International] reported that the recommendations of the Malimath Committee ‘represent an extremely narrow interpretation of the problems which ail the system and a set of solutions which ignore fundamental human rights safeguards.’ Further, AI believes ‘the reports recommendations will increase the risk of torture for those in police detention, severely weakening safeguards for fair trial and reduce legal protections for women.’” [2c](p11-12)

5.22 As indicated in The Europa World Year Book 2004, "The Supreme Court has advisory jurisdiction in respect of questions which may be referred to it by the President for opinion and is empowered to hear appeals against a sentence of death passed by a State High Court in reversal of an order of acquittal by a lower court….The President and the local government concerned exercise the prerogative of mercy." [1](p2089) [...]"

Document(s): Open document

04.08.2004 - Source: BBC News

Lawyers at the High Court in Madras have begun an indefinite strike to press for the withdrawal of a new set of rules governing their conduct ("Madras lawyers go on strike") [#24516],  [ID 6289]

Document(s): Open document

25.02.2004 - Source: US Department of State

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003 ("Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2003") [#19765],  [ID 6290]

"The court system was extremely overloaded, resulting in the detention of thousands of persons awaiting trial for periods longer than they would receive if convicted. Prisoners were held for months or even years before obtaining a trial date. As of July 2002, there reportedly was a backlog of over 13 million cases in the lower courts, while high courts had a backlog of 3.5 million cases. The Supreme Court had 23,000 pending cases. The NHRC reported that 75 percent of the country's total inmates were unconvicted prisoners awaiting completion of trial. [...]

In 2000, the Government announced that it would fund the creation of 1,734 additional courts during 2000-2005. At year's end, 1,205 of these courts had been set up. [...]

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, and the Government generally respected this provision in practice; however, serious problems remained. The judiciary was backlogged and understaffed in most parts of the country, and in Jammu and Kashmir, the judiciary has long been subject to threats and intimidation by guerillas and by security forces to obey court orders. The judicial system is headed by a Supreme Court and includes the Court of Appeals and lower courts. The highest court is the Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over constitutional issues. Lower courts hear criminal and civil cases and send appeals to the Court of Appeals. The President appoints judges, and they may serve until the age of 62 on state high courts and until the age of 65 on the Supreme Court.

The judicial system was extremely overburdened. In general, the judiciary enforced the right to a fair trail; however, there was a large backlog of cases, and as a result, some courts barely functioned. The Criminal Procedure Code provides that trials be conducted publicly in most cases, but it allows exceptions in proceedings involving official secrets, trials in which statements prejudicial to the safety of the State might be made, or under provisions of special security legislation. Sentences must be announced publicly. Defendants have the right to choose counsel independent of the Government. There were effective channels for appeal at most levels of the judicial system, and the State provides free legal counsel to indigent defendants.

Muslim personal status law governs many noncriminal matters involving Muslims, including family law, inheritance, and divorce. The Government does not interfere in the personal status laws of the minority communities, including those that discriminate against women. [...]

To remedy the severe overcrowding in the judicial system, the Government asked the government-appointed Malimath Committee to identify possible improvement. In April, AI reported that the recommendations of the Malimath Committee "represent an extremely narrow interpretation of the problems which ail the system and a set of solutions which ignore fundamental human rights safeguards." Further, AI believes "the reports recommendations will increase the risk of torture for those in police detention, severely weakening safeguards for fair trial and reduce legal protections for women."

The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary was not invited to visit the country during the year.

There were no reports of political prisoners."

Document(s): Open document

19.09.2003 - Source: Amnesty International

Report commenting on the report of the Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System ("Report of the Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System: Some observations") [#16255],  [ID 6291]

"The Criminalisation of Poverty, the Poor and Legal Aid
The criminalisation of poverty coupled with the complete inability of the poor to negotiate the criminal justice system is a major human rights crisis. For instance, the laws relating to beggary and vagrancy and the bias against the poor render at least 200 million people across India, a large number of them being homeless or destitute, vulnerable to threats, harassment and outright criminalisation.(17)

Once the poor enter the criminal justice system the severe crisis in India's legal aid system ensures that they stay in there despite the right to legal aid enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution. Even though the judiciary has read the right to legal aid as forming part of the fundamental right to life and used Article 39A to define its scope and content,(18) the access to quality legal aid has by and large remained a pipe dream for the poor and marginalised who enter the criminal justice system in large numbers.

Legal aid is a severely underdeveloped component of the Indian legal system and in dire need of reform. There is no system of legal counselling in police stations or prisons and the rules do not give the accused the choice of a lawyer or provide for a change of lawyer if the accused is not satisfied.(19) The fees provided for by most states are extremely low and never attract competent lawyers to offer their services.(20)

It also needs to be stressed that legal aid is an issue of extreme importance not just to the poor but also for other groups who are vulnerable such as undertrials, those in preventive detention, sex workers and the mentally ill, just to name a few. [...]

The approach of the Committee and the premises and assumptions it rests on are not only faulty but also appear exclusionary and biased in nature. The nature of discussions on the problems facing the criminal justice system and the direction and content of the reforms recommended and, equally importantly, the silences in the Report suggest that the Committee is actually attempting to undermine the entire normative framework of the criminal justice system rather than address the real systemic problems facing the criminal justice system today.

What the Committee ends up doing is projecting the criminal justice system today as being too 'soft' and making several prescriptions to render it 'hard'. In doing so the Committee seems to endorse specific political views rather than advance human rights standards. Amnesty International India believes that irrespective of the nature of specific recommendations, these grounds alone are sufficient for the human rights community to reject the Malimath Committee report."

Document(s): Open document
Open document

08.2002 - Source: European Reintegration Networking

Background information on India (including procedures for entrance, supply and care, health, education, work opportunies,...) ("Background information on India (including procedures for entrance, supply and care, health, education, work opportunies,...)") [#28646],  [ID 6292]

"[...]Supreme Court
Der Oberste Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) steht an der Spitze der Judikative. Er ist für die endgültige Auslegung der Verfassung und der Gesetze zuständig. Er ist somit letzte Berufungsinstanz für bestimmte Kategorien von Urteilen (zivilrechtliche und strafrechtliche Urteile, die eine Auslegung der Verfassung verlangen) der nächst niedrigeren Instanzen, der Obergerichte (High Courts). Er urteilt bei Streitigkeiten zwischen der Zentralregierung und den Staatenregierungen sowie der Staaten untereinander, erteilt nach Aufforderung durch den Präsidenten Rat zu bestimmten Themen und überwacht die Arbeit der Obergerichte.

Die 25 Mitglieder des Obersten Gerichtshofes sowie sein Vorsitzender, der Chief Justice, werden vom Präsidenten ernannt und können bei grobem Fehlverhalten unter bestimmten Bedingungen vom Parlament abgesetzt werden.

High Courts
Für die Staaten und Unionsterritorien gibt es 18 High Courts. Einige High Courts sind für mehrere Einzelstaaten zuständig. Die Chief Justice der High Courts werden vom Präsidenten nach Beratung mit dem jeweiligen Gouverneur sowie dem Chief Justice des Obersten Gerichts ernannt. Der Präsident hat auch die Möglichkeit, diese Chief Justice zu versetzen. Abgesetzt werden können sie jedoch nur von einer Zweidrittelmehrheit des Parlaments.

Aufgabe der High Courts ist es, die Gesetze des jeweiligen Staates auf ihre Verfassungsmäßigkeit zu überprüfen; für Urteile der nächst niedrigeren Instanzen, der Untergerichte (Lower Courts), fungieren sie (je nach Kategorie) als letzte oder vorletzte Berufungsinstanz. In der primären Rechtsprechung in Strafsachen verhandeln sie – wie der Oberste Gerichtshof – als Schwurgericht.

Lower Courts
Zu den Untergerichten gehören die Courts of Session und die Courts of Magistrates und auf der Dorfebene die Panchayat-Gerichte. Im Ersten werden die Kriminalfälle, im Zweiten die Zivilfälle verhandelt. Da 90 % der Rechtssprechungen auf den Untergerichten lastet, sind diese stark überlastet und Urteile werden teilweise nach Jahrzehnten gefällt. Zur ihrer Entlastung gibt es jedoch die Lok Adalats (People's Court), die eine schnelle Rechtsprechung zu Minimalkosten in Zivilfällen ermöglichen sollen. Zum einen entstanden die Lok Adalats, um Altfälle zu entsorgen, zum anderen können die Untergerichte ihnen Fälle zuweisen, um Gerichtsverhandlungen von vornherein zu vermeiden und außergerichtliche Einigungen zu ermöglichen. Wenn beide Streitparteien der Teilnahme an einem solchen Lok Adalat zustimmen, können beispielsweise geringe Streitigkeiten schnell und einfach gelöst werden.

Quellen:
India, a Country Study: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/intoc.html
Südasien Online: http://www.suedasien-online.de
[...]"

Document(s): Open document