The narrative on the lack of infrastructure for public services generally boils down to issues like lack of funding from the government. However, an exception to this is the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for the Judiciary, a scheme that began in 1993.
Between 1993 and 2020, the union government would have released Rs 7,460.24 crore for infrastructure, primarily for the district-level judiciary. And yet, the district judiciary, which is often the first point of contact that the public has with the justice system, has only 17,817 courtrooms for a sanctioned strength of 22,750 judges, as of March 2018.
This means that there is a shortage of approximately 5,000 courtrooms. There are also only 13,790 residential units available for the judiciary when there should be 9,000 more. This, and more have been found in a study by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, an independent legal think-tank, which critically evaluated the CSS.
Chitrakshi Jain, a research fellow at Vidhi and one of the authors of the study, explained to TNM that the lacuna in infrastructure at the district level significantly adds to the high number of pending cases.
“For example, last year, 32,96,242 civil cases and 1,16,23,439 criminal cases were instituted before the District Judiciary putting the pendency numbers at 3.04 crore cases as of December 2018,” the study says.
While CSS was started in 1993, the funding was not always adequate. Till 2011, the yearly release from the union government averaged only Rs 69.18 crore per year for all States and Union Territories. It was only in 2011-12 that funds were substantially hiked to Rs 595.74 crore.
As of 2018, Rs 6,100.24 crore had been released by the union government to the states under CSS. Rs 650 crore was released in 2018-19 and Rs 710 crore is expected to be released for 2019-20.
Even so, the implementation of CSS has been marred by problems such as lack of accountability, delays, lack of coordination between state agencies and the lack of decentralisation to name a few.
Delays, lack of understanding
To access funds under CSS, states have to file with the union government a Utilisation Certificate (UC) - that specifies expenditure of the previous grants - within 12 months of the date when the funds were allocated. States also have to file an Action Plan on the proposal for receiving funds under the Scheme by June 30 every year. However, these are marred by procedural delays at different stages, which hinders the development of infrastructures such as courtrooms and residential units.
Further, the researchers also noticed a lack of understanding among states about the expenditure sharing between the union and the state under the Scheme. In its guidelines for the CSS, the Department of Justice (DoJ) has said that the “central assistance to states/UTs will be provided in a ratio of either 75:25 or 60:40 in different years”. From 2015 onwards, the prescribed sharing arrangement has been 60:40, with a larger share to be borne by the union government.
However, the states assume that this means that the union government will bear 60% of the amount that they have asked for. In reality, though, the union government has limited funds, and the amount allocated to each state has to be from that sum. So, the state is supposed to match with 40% of the amount that the union government ultimately disburses. However, states have instead been assuming that they will be reimbursed by the centre for the leftover amount from their proposal.
This is evident in Karnataka’s case “where the projection of the requirement of funds by the State has regularly been significantly higher than the amount it received. It then spends this projected amount in anticipation of eventually receiving the share from the Union government. In this way, it recorded an amount of Rs 667.89 crore as the balance owed to it by the Central Government” between 2012 and 2018.
Courtesy: Budgeting Better for Courts/Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
There is also a lack of coordination on the state level between Law department, PWD (Public Works Department), District Judges, High Court and Finance Department, which affects the drafting of proposals, and, in turn, “makes it difficult to fix responsibility for the gaps in implementation,” the study says.
No transparency
Recently, a Nyaya Vikas Portal developed jointly by the Department of Justice and ISRO was set up to allow geotagging of under-construction works under CSS and to create a database of courtrooms. However, the study says that this has not been successful in increasing transparency because it does not have details about the courtrooms built under CSS; but just ones that are ‘available’.
The study notes that the union government allocates funds to states under the Scheme arbitrarily. It appears that the states are awarded assistance based on the number of judges they have, instead of the shortage of court halls.
“The union government has not revealed the formula used to allocate the funds. And while it asks for UCs and Action Plans, there is no proof that it even takes them into account,” Chitrakshi says.
For instance, states like Karnataka, Punjab and Gujarat were found to have been granted a standard amount of Rs 50 crore per year from 2015 to 2018, Goa, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha did not have any central assistance under CSS from 2014 to 2018, although the reason was not cited.
Recommendations
In addition to the need to decentralise procedures under the Scheme, the researchers also made the following recommendations:
- A periodic survey to identify shortage in the number of courtrooms and residential units, and using this data to decide the amounts to be disbursed to states.
- A thorough audit by the CAG to review the financial and material performance of the Scheme, if it is to be continued beyond 2020.
- Customise the format of the UCs to include details of the projects on which the funds were spent, and not just the expenditure; along with the progress of constructions to the track how many courtrooms and residential units are being built under CSS.