Get them to the court on time: bumps in the road to justice

by Mugdha Mohapatra, Siddarth Raman and Susan Thomas.

India's district courts currently face a staggering backlog of 4.6 crore pending cases (as of May 2025): 3.5 crore criminal and 1.1 crore civil. Proposals to solve this are familiar: hire more judges, build special courts, adopt new technology. But before rushing to solutions, it is important to understand where cases get stuck in their journey through courts. We hand-collect and analyse the life-cycle of a sample of cases from district courts, with some surprising observations. First, between 50-70 percent of cases are disposed before they get to trial, which is before the judge hears the substantive matter of the dispute. The time spent waiting for parties to appear is over a year. While criminal cases necessarily require strict adherence to due process, even civil cases face delays. These findings challenge conventional wisdom about judicial delays and point to a unexpected bottleneck. If getting people to show up in court is the core source of delays and pendency, strengthening the administrative processes of the court rather than the size of the bench, could lead to more speedy justice delivery from our courts.

The objective of building judicial capacity to achieve judicial efficiency requires an understanding of how cases move through courts, not just tracking pendency rates. This is because the journey of a case moves through deterministic stages, which vary in duration, and imposes varying resource demands from judges and staff. There have been few systematic studies of how a case moves through court. While some studies examine the total time for case disposal, few break this down by stage.

This study analyses stages for two common types of cases that represent a significant portion of the workload of courts: cheque bouncing cases (criminal matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) and motor accident claims (civil matters under the Motor Vehicles Act).

Cheque bouncing cases account for 10-15% of criminal court workloads, while motor accident claims constitute over 10% of pending civil cases. Cheque bouncing cases happen when a cheque issued does not deliver payment as expected. Motor accident claims are filed to claim compensation for damages caused in the accident against the owner of the vehicle involved, with the vehicle insurance company as a co-respondent. Cheque bouncing cases are filed in a magistrate court, and the motor accident claims at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT). Across these two types of cases, there are differences in procedures: whether it is for criminal and civil cases, and for different types of courts.

We use this analysis to answer the following questions:

1. What fraction of the cases go through the whole life-cycle?
2. How much time is spent in different stages of the case life-cycle? Is this different for civil and for criminal cases?

Methodology

The analysis examined 200 disposed cases randomly sampled from from the e-courts database for district courts from courts across Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Telangana and Rajasthan, filed between 2018-2022. After excluding transfers and circumstances where cases never went a court process, the final sample included 147 cases - 77 cheque bouncing cases and 70 motor accident claims cases.

Each case was tracked through its entire journey by analysing court orders and hearings. Cases go through different stages - filing, admission, summons, warrants, bail, written statements, framing of issues, evidence and others. We classify these different stages of 'Pre-Trial' and 'Trial'. Trial begins after both parties appear before the judge - in cheque bouncing cases, after the accused files for bail; in motor accident claims, after written statements are filed and issues are framed.

Results

1. The first finding relates to the stage at which the cases are disposed. Table 1 shows the number of cases disposed at each stage.

Table 1: Where cases end their journey

Stage	Case type: MV		Case type: S138
	No. of cases	Percentage	No. of cases	Percentage
Pre-trial	38	54 %	55	71 %
Trial	32	46 %	22	29 %

More than half of the cases analysed never reached trial. This is higher for the (criminal) cheque bouncing cases, where 70% of cases are disposed before they reach trial. For the (civil) motor accident claims cases, 54% of the cases are disposed before reaching trial.

2. The second finding relates to the time spent in the two stages

Table 2: Time taken by stage

Case type	Total no. of cases	Pre-trial	Trial
MV	70 (32 reached trial)	9.5 months	4 months
S138	77 (22 reached trial)	12 months	3.5 months

Once all parties are in present in court, cases resolve quickly - usually in 3-4 months. Most of the delay in matters is in the pre-trial stage where the court is waiting for parties to appear (usually the respondent). This takes between 9 months to a year.

These findings align with broader patterns visible in the National Judicial Data Grid for district courts (NJDG). The data shows that 72% of pending cases are stuck before trial: 48% are at the appearance stage, 14% are awaiting service of summons, and 10% are awaiting service of warrants. While the data from the NJDG is useful to know where cases are placed within the judicial system, it does not provide insights on the time spent in different stages. Our analysis quantifies the extent of the bottleneck.

Discussion

The analysis points to two key observations: Most cases that are filed in court do not reach trial, where judicial mind is applied to decide issues of the case. Further, the bulk of the time is spent in getting the parties to court. Once all parties are present, the time to resolution is much lower. The puzzle is in understanding what shapes these features, and how this understanding can be used to improve court efficiency in dealing with case workload.

• Are the delays in court cases inevitable?

The analysis points to the paradox of procedural protections for some cases. Cheque bouncing cases and other criminal matters demand the presence of the accused. This creates an inherent tension between speedy resolution of the matter and judicial procedure. The accused, facing potential imprisonment, has every incentive to delay appearing in court until forced by warrant. The very protections meant to ensure fair process become tools for delay.

In India, these procedures continue to evolve. Under Section 223 of the newly introduced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, magistrates must now offer the the accused an opportunity to be heard before admitting a complaint as a criminal case. This involves sending a notice by post, a process not unlike the current summons process. While intended to enhance due process, this additional step could further extend the timeline for cheque bouncing cases. The new code also allows for trial 'in absentia' under Section 356. If a person is declared as a 'proclaimed offender', and if the judge thinks that they are absconding to evade trial, the court can proceed without the accused. How these practices are implemented remains to be seen.

• Administrative and judicial functions of the court

The findings expose a fundamental blind spot in how courts actually work. The popular image of justice - a judge hearing arguments, weighing evidence and delivering verdicts - represents only one aspect of the judicial system. Behind every courtroom drama lies an extensive administrative operation of filing documents, scheduling hearings, maintaining records, and getting parties to court. These two systems complement each other, but our understanding of the administrative aspects of the court system is limited, because it is behind the scenes.

Current reform proposals focus heavily on expanding judicial capacity: hiring more judges, creating specialised courts, and implementing new technologies for case management. While these interventions have merit, they miss the core issue revealed by this analysis. The judicial system extends far beyond judges and courtrooms. Delivering summons and notices typically involves police officers, postal services, or process servers. When the simple act of getting parties to court becomes the biggest bottleneck, the solution requires rethinking the entire administrative infrastructure supporting the courts.

What does imply for potential solutions for institutional reforms of the judiciary? Some approaches that could address the summons/notices bottleneck include:

1. Digital service of summons and notices could reduce delays, though this requires updated legal frameworks and reliable technology infrastructure.
2. Police-court integration might improve warrant execution, though this raises questions about optimal resource allocation - should a capacity constrained police forces pursue cheque defaulters or focus on serious crimes?
3. Quicker escalation to warrants may secure attendance faster, but wielding state power to restrict liberty demands careful consideration. A judge's decision to issue an arrest warrant carries real consequences.
4. Penalties for non-appearance could be introduced to create stronger incentives for timely court attendance.
5. Private process servers, as used in U.S. courts, offer another model worth exploring.

Conclusion

The clamour for court reform has been dominated by traditional solutions: more judges, rewritten procedures, and new technology. But when the relatively simple task of getting parties to court becomes the system's biggest bottleneck, a more nuanced approach is essential. Court reform must recognise that efficient justice delivery requires strengthening both judicial and administrative capacity in parallel. Separating court administration from judicial functions, as some countries have done, could allow specialised focus on each component while maintaining their complementary relationship.

The invisible administrative machinery of courts deserves as much attention as the visible judicial functions. Until administrative capacity matches judicial capacity, Indian courts will continue struggling with delays that have less to do with complex legal reasoning and more to do with basic case management. The path to speedier justice may lie not in the courtroom, but in the clerk's office, the process server's route, and the administrative systems that bring cases to life. Only by addressing both aspects of the judicial system can India's courts deliver the swift justice that 4.6 crore pending cases demand.

Siddarth and Susan are senior research lead and senior research fellow at XKDR Forum. Mugdha was a research associate at XKDR Forum. We thank Pavithra Manivannan for insights, Shubho Roy for help with the interpretation, and Ajay Shah for inputs.

Balancing Power and Accountability: An Evaluation of SEBI's Adjudication of Insider Trading

by Natasha Aggarwal, Amol Kulkarni, Bhavin Patel, Sonam Patel, and Renuka Sane.

Insider trading is considered to undermine the fairness of the market and erode investor confidence. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has, in recent years, increased its focus on, and intensified its enforcement of, insider trading cases. Expanding enforcement actions should prompt a deeper examination of how effectively SEBI is performing this function vis-a-vis the "rule of law". Adherence to the rule of law by the regulator promotes transparency, creates a stable and predictable environment for businesses and individuals and builds public trust in the regulatory system. Regulatory actions need to be evaluated on benchmarks grounded in legal theory and the extant legal framework.

In a new working paper, Balancing Power and Accountability: An Evaluation of SEBI's adjudication of Insider Trading, we evaluate SEBI's orders on insider trading cases over a 15-year period (2009 - 23) as well as the performance on these orders in appeal before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). We develop an evaluation framework based on elements of the rule of law applicable to regulatory adjudication, with 56 indicators for SEBI orders, and 82 indicators for orders of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT).

This paper addresses three critical questions:

• What do SEBI's enforcement actions look like, and how have they evolved over the years?

  SEBI's annual reports provide some broad data about the total number of enforcement actions undertaken in a year, but do not provide details of the type of enforcement actions taken for each type of violation, the particular legal or regulatory provision alleged to have been violated, or the impact of successful enforcement actions in reducing instances of insider trading.

  Our dataset comprises 320 SEBI orders - 255 orders are by Adjudicating Officers (AOs) and 65 are by Whole-Time Members (WTMs). Each order can contain cases against multiple entities - we call them alleged violators. The 320 orders contain a total of 912 alleged violators. SEBI officers have imposed sanctions on 565 of the 912 alleged violators (62% of the alleged violators). AOs and WTMs have imposed penalties in 336 cases and 82 cases respectively. The median penalty amount for AOs is about Rs. 7.8 lakh, and for WTMs is about Rs. 15 lakh. Only WTMs, and not AOs, have the power to impose debarment and disgorgement. We observed that they have imposed disgorgement in 144 cases, and debarment in 192 cases. The average disgorgement amount is Rs. 46 crore, while the median is only Rs. 1 crore. The average period of debarment is 3 years, and a median of 1 year.

  Our paper illustrates the number of insider trading orders issued between 2010 and 2022. This shows that a spike in orders on insider trading from 2017, and then again in 2019. There has been a slight drop in the number of WTM orders in 2022. This is consistent with statements in the SEBI annual reports, which suggest that insider trading has been high on the regulator's agenda.

• Are SEBI's orders consistent with the requirements of procedural and substantive rule of law requirements?

  The procedural rule of law measures are based on administrative law and natural justice principles, and deal with how SEBI has been performing in terms of procedural fairness while adjudicating insider trading matters. One aspect of procedural fairness is that the orders should include certain basic information. We find several shortcomings in providing factual information on basic rule-of-law indicators. First, several orders do not mention basic facts about the case such as the date of show cause notice (7%), period of investigation (17%), period of UPSI (27%), and a description of UPSI (20%). Second, orders do not cite precedent. We find that about 87% of orders do not cite any previous AO or WTM order. Finally, the orders do not specify the full details of the sanctions imposed. In 12% of cases where disgorgement was ordered, the time period for payment was not specified. Similarly, for both penalties and disgorgement, interest rate was not specified in a large number of cases.

  The substantive rule of law measures are based on the law relating to insider trading. These dive a bit deeper than the procedural requirements, and examine whether the orders satisfy the requirements of applicable law and regulation. For example, a key component of a good order on insider trading should be that SEBI has been able to clearly demonstrate that the violator is an insider. We find that SEBI has identified a clear insider relationship in only 335 (60%) of its orders. In the remaining 230 orders, it has described a connection in 152 (66%) orders. Describing a connection is not as clear as specifying the connection. If we were to give SEBI the benefit of the doubt and consider it as an acceptable description, even then, in 14% of the cases SEBI has failed to provide any explanation on how a person is an insider

• How do SEBI's insider trading orders stand up to challenge before the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT)?

  Our analysis resulted in a set of 119 cases in the SEBI and SAT datasets. These cases result in 183 appeals (32%) out of the total 565 cases with sanction. Out of these, 97 (53%) were allowed, partly allowed, or remanded, while 86 (47%) were dismissed. This suggests that once appealed there is a 50% chance that the SEBI order will not hold in appeal.

  We find that the higher the sanction, the higher the proportion of appeals. 38% of AO cases and 17% of WTM cases with a penalty amount higher than Rs. 10 lakhs resulted in an appeal, relative to 22% of AO cases and 5% of WTM cases below Rs. 10 lakh. This is more pronounced in the case of debarment and disgorgement, where appeals are present for more than half the cases with higher sanctions. We also find that it is less likely that an AO or WTM case with penalty above Rs. 10 lakh or debarment for more than one year will be modified in appeal. 79% of WTM cases involving higher disgorgement amounts and all WTM cases involving a penalty below Rs. 10 lakh were modified in appeal.

Regulatory enforcement actions are necessary to ensure that those who violate the law face consequences, and may also have a deterrent effect on others. However, there are adverse consequences if these actions emerge from a flawed process, or if the actions taken are arbitrary or disproportionate. SEBI is ahead of other Indian regulators such as the Reserve Bank of India in at least publishing its orders. An appeal rate of between 30-38%, and a win rate of 50% at the SAT could be further improved by investments in order writing, and by re-evaluating the regulations on insider trading.

The authors are researchers at the TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation.

A guide to writing good regulatory orders

by Natasha Aggarwal, Bhavin Patel and Karan Singh.

India has several regulators that are vested with quasi-judicial powers and that play a pivotal role in economic governance. In exercising their quasi-judicial functions, regulatory orders must: (i) demonstrate compliance with the principles of natural justice, (ii) establish legitimacy by showing how they are taken strictly in accordance with, and to the extent authorised by the governing law, and (iii) be accountable, by ensuring that all the information an appellate authority may require for its evaluation of the regulatory action is clearly documented.

Regulatory orders significantly impact market participants and public trust. In particular, four sets of stakeholders are impacted by regulatory orders: (i) parties involved in the enforcement proceedings, (ii) the regulator itself, (iii) appellate and review fora, and (iv) the market and the general public. However, deficiencies in reasoning, structure, and clarity in quasi-judicial orders often undermine regulatory legitimacy and efficiency, leading to diminished stakeholder confidence. Moreover, arbitrary orders that do not demonstrate application of mind can be challenged or overturned or remanded in appeal. Such challenges, overturns, and remands lengthen the enforcement process and increase costs for all those involved. They also take away from the certainty of regulatory orders and affect the predictability of the law. Regulatory certainty and predictability are important requirements of the rule of law and are critical for the smooth functioning of markets.

The need for regulatory orders to be well-reasoned is recognised in Indian law. In a recent paper, titled "A guide to writing good regulatory orders", we propose a method of structuring regulatory orders that would aid readability, strengthen the logical flow of arguments, and enhance the accessibility and transparency of regulatory orders. In particular, we identify four sets of requirements for better order writing: informational, structural, substantive, and stylistic. Broadly, the information requirements relate to identificatory and citatory information that should appear in orders, and to information that helps establish that procedural requirements have been complied with, such as dates of Show Cause Notices. Structural requirements relate to the logical arrangement of the contents of orders in a manner that aids reading and comprehension, and which strengthens regulatory arguments. The substantive requirements help establish that all the requirements of the substantive law applicable to the matter discussed in the order have been addressed. Finally, our suggestions on stylistic requirements include the use of plain language and writing styles that are accessible and comprehensible to all affected persons.

We propose to conduct further studies on how the suggestions in this paper may be implemented through tools and technologies that could augment regulatory capacity for order writing.

The authors are researchers at the TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation.

The Blind Spot in Indian Arbitration: Fees, Power, and Structural Oversights

by Prashant Narang and Vishnu Suresh.

In India, when parties fail to agree on the composition of an arbitral tribunal, courts intervene and appoint retired judges as arbitrators, who unilaterally determine their own fees-without the consent of both parties. This process, known as "ad hoc" arbitration, has led to concerns about excessive charges. While no comprehensive dataset proves a systemic pattern of exorbitant fees, recurring judicial and committee observations suggest that the issue is widespread enough to warrant closer scrutiny. The Indian policy response has been to implement some form of fee regulation for such arbitration.

This article presents a history of the Indian policy thinking on arbitrator fees and presents an argument about why fee regulation alone may not remedy the structural inefficiencies in ad hoc arbitrations dominated by retired judges. Judges who design (or are expected to design) and implement arbitration appointment rules often later serve as arbitrators themselves, benefiting from these same rules - or the lack thereof - post-retirement. Even when they do not directly benefit, enforcing such rules against fellow judges, particularly their seniors in the profession, is challenging given the inherently hierarchical nature of the legal fraternity.

The article argues that the current fee regulation approach further entrenches judicial control over arbitration rather than reducing it. By deepening the judicialisation of the arbitration process, it raises further concerns about perpetuating systemic inefficiencies. At the same time, we explore whether a more fundamental shift towards institutional arbitration - centred on dejudicialisation and the decoupling of the judiciary from arbitration - is necessary to create a cost-effective, competitive, and independent arbitration ecosystem in India.

The evolution of the debate on arbitration fees

Concerns about high fees in arbitration were explicitly raised by the Supreme Court in Union of India v M/s Singh Builders Syndicate (2009) 4 SCC 523. The Supreme Court reiterated its concerns in Sanjeev Kumar Jain v Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust (2012) 1 SCC 455, acknowledging that high arbitration costs discouraged parties from opting for arbitration.

This focus on high fees has meant that Indian policy response has also relied on mandating "fee schedules" for tackling the problem. This is consistent with other jurisdictions as well. For example, Germany prohibits arbitrators from unilaterally deciding their own fees on the ground that it violates the prohibition on in rem suam decisions (i.e., ruling in one's own cause). Austria and Switzerland likewise disallow arbitrators to issue binding and enforceable orders regarding their own remuneration. Italy permits arbitrators to fix fees in the absence of explicit party agreement, but these fees only become binding after the parties themselves consent. Singapore, lacking a written fee agreement, lets a disputant seek assessment of fees by the Registrar of the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1969.

The Indian policy response

The key elements of the Indian response are as follows:

1. The Fourth Schedule under the 2015 Amendment: The 246th Report of the Law Commission of India (2014) recommended a structured fee schedule to bring uniformity to arbitration costs. This led to the introduction of the Fourth Schedule under the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015, which provided a model fee framework for arbitrators in ad hoc arbitrations. In addition, it also inserted a provision empowering high courts to make rules for fee determination in case of domestic ad hoc arbitration.
2. Shifting towards institutional arbitration under the 2019 Amendment: The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 introduced a framework that shifted appointment powers from courts to arbitral institutions. The amendment required the Supreme Court and High Courts to designate arbitral institutions for making appointments under Section 11, rather than appointing arbitrators directly. The amendment goes a step further and creates a fallback mechanism for jurisdictions where graded arbitral institutions are not available. In such cases, the High Court Chief Justice can maintain a panel of arbitrators who effectively function as an arbitral institution. These empanelled arbitrators must follow the Fourth Schedule's fee structure, creating a hybrid between institutional and ad hoc arbitration. However, this part of the 2019 amendment is not notified yet.
3. Alternative fee arrangements by the TKV Report, 2024: In June 2023, the Ministry of Law and Justice constituted an expert committee, chaired by former Law Secretary T.K. Vishwanathan, to review arbitration costs and propose amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The T.K. Vishwanathan Committee Report, 2024 identified multiple shortcomings in the existing Fourth-Schedule fee framework, most notably the reliance on "claim quantum" as the primary basis for calculating arbitrator fees. Such a simplistic approach, the Report argued, neglected case complexity and procedural variations: for instance, an ostensibly small claim requiring extensive oral evidence or expert testimony can command more arbitrator time than a large claim resolved on documents alone. In response, the TKV Report advocated Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFA), emphasising value-based pricing that accounts for factors like complexity, time, and potential cost savings. Most notably, the TKV Report suggested eliminating Section 11A and the Fourth Schedule entirely, replacing them with a more flexible framework in which the Central Government would prescribe fee structures through rules.
4. The Draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024: This draft bill empowers the Arbitration Council of India (ACI) as a proxy for the Union Government to specify arbitrator fees. Under the Bill, the Fourth Schedule would be deleted, and Section 11A would be revised so that the ACI could determine fees, except where parties have explicitly negotiated their own fee arrangement or are using an arbitral institution with its own fee rules. Another significant change is the removal of the Chief Justice's consultative power in the appointment of ACI's governing board, shifting oversight from judicial control to greater executive control of the arbitration regulatory body.

Why the fee regulation approach has fallen short

Before we analyse the reasons for the failure of the 2015 amendment and the Fourth Schedule, it is useful to describe the political economy that confronts any policy change on arbitration: namely, the near-monopolistic environment created by a small group of retired judges who often command premium fees and face minimal accountability. Courts retain the ultimate power to appoint arbitrators under Section 11, and this process frequently involves the same cadre of retired judges who benefit from the laxity of fee caps. The entire appointment and fee determination process is still largely vested in the judiciary. Given that many judges become arbitrators upon retirement, they have little incentive to enforce rigorous fee caps that might constrain their own future earnings. This fundamental public choice problem has been frequently documented, including by the Vice-President's observation that "nowhere in the world is arbitration in such tight fist control as in our country".

The ONGC v Afcons Gunanusa JV (2022) provides a telling example of how court-appointed arbitrators can exploit their position. Despite initially accepting a contractual fee cap of Rs. 10 lakh per arbitrator, the tribunal - composed of retired Supreme Court and High Court judges - unilaterally enhanced their fees multiple times. They first sought adoption of the Fourth Schedule's more generous framework, then further increased their fees citing case complexity, and even attempted to apply these increases retrospectively. When ONGC, a public sector enterprise subject to audit scrutiny, refused to pay the enhanced fees, the arbitrators recused themselves, forcing the matter back to court. The Supreme Court ultimately had to terminate the tribunal's mandate, highlighting how the current system enables arbitrators to leverage their position to demand higher fees with limited accountability.

This reality was not addressed by the 2015 amendment. While the Fourth Schedule was introduced precisely to limit excessive fees, it was neither made mandatory nor accompanied by a robust enforcement mechanism. As a result, it did little to disrupt the underlying political economy that sustains high-cost ad hoc arbitration. In fact, it risked consolidating judicial influence rather than attenuating it, especially since it granted High Courts the discretion to frame their own fee rules, ultimately placing regulatory power over arbitrator remuneration in the hands of those who may later serve as arbitrators themselves.

Moreover, this one-size-fits-all imposition overlooked regional variations and pre-existing institutional successes. The Karnataka Arbitration Centre, for instance, already offered a more economical schedule capped at around Rs. 12 lakhs for disputes above Rs. 20 crores, whereas the Fourth Schedule ceiling reaches Rs. 30 lakhs based on the thresholds set by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. Rather than drawing on such local expertise and diversity to foster competitive discipline, the reforms proceeded on a centralised model that did little to leverage market discovery or locally tailored fee structures. The Law Commission's proposals were more concerned with containing arbitrator fees than with dismantling the structural conditions (judicial appointments, confined arbitrator pools, discretionary rule-making by courts) that perpetuate high costs.

The subsequent 2019 amendment intends to reduce judicial intervention and promote institutional arbitration. It revised Section 11 so that courts could "designate" arbitral institutions for appointments. "Fallback" arrangements enable High Court panels of arbitrators - often the same retired judges or those close to the judiciary - to retain effective control over the process, with fee structures mandated by the Fourth Schedule.

Recent developments, including the constitution of a new committee chaired by T.K. Vishwanathan in 2023, reflect growing discontent with the rigid claim-quantum basis that underlies the Fourth Schedule. The TKV Report contends that arbitrator fees should account more flexibly for complexity, time, and the overall resources required. While the proposed reforms contemplate eliminating the Fourth Schedule, transferring fee-setting authority to the Arbitration Council of India, and moving towards executive rather than judicial oversight of arbitration rule-making, they too risk replicating hierarchical models unless accompanied by genuine plurality and transparency in the appointment of arbitrators and the choice of fee structures.

Ultimately, each successive round of reform, from the 2015 amendment and the introduction of the Fourth Schedule to the latest proposals from the TKV Report, has prioritised adjusting fee schedules over reducing systemic reliance on a narrow circle of retired judges. The 2019 amendment and its stillborn promise of institutional appointments is an exception. As a result, what begins as a nominal attempt at "dejudicialisation" typically ends in reaffirming the dominance of court-nominated arbitrators, with little recourse for parties subjected to escalating costs. The persistent gap between nominal regulatory interventions and the practical realities of enforcement serves as a stark reminder that fee caps and model schedules, however laudable, are unlikely to produce fundamental change unless the structural incentives and entrenched hierarchies that govern Indian arbitration are addressed in earnest. Indeed, the recurring inclination to concentrate power - first in the High Courts, now potentially in the central government which is also the largest litigant - overlooks the fundamentally decentralised ethos of arbitration, which thrives on party autonomy and market-driven checks.

The next chapter in arbitration reform: Evidence-based vs. assumption-driven reforms

India's ongoing journey toward arbitration reform reveals a classic illustration of the "knowledge problem" that arises when policymakers attempt top-down interventions without robust, localised information. Observations from courts and committees certainly highlight inefficiencies - especially in court-appointed arbitrations that often lean on retired judges. Yet the absence of systematic, comparative data on whether these inefficiencies truly amount to a widespread market failure should give us pause before imposing sweeping fee controls or rigid schedules.

We must ask: do we need price caps because parties stuck in deadlock are unable to negotiate with court-appointed arbitrators? Or because retirees form a monopoly and pose barriers to entry? Excessive or poorly calibrated regulation can distort incentives and stifle innovation in arbitration services - problems that often follow when market-based processes are replaced by bureaucratic mandates. Fee ceilings, in particular, risk becoming a blunt tool that overrides local knowledge and decentralised experimentation. If parties truly had meaningful alternatives - like institutional forums or specialised arbitrators - they would naturally gravitate toward more cost-effective options, compelling fee discipline through competition rather than imposed caps.

Likewise, the unilateral fee determination by certain court-appointed arbitrators raises critical questions about capture - what might be called a narrowly "clubby" arrangement favouring a select group. But imposing top-down reforms in the absence of clear data on how widespread or severe this dynamic is invites "presumptive regulation". Such policy-by-assumption can inadvertently lead to higher costs, reduced choice, and entrenched favouritism - precisely the path we want to avoid.

By contrast, implementing the 2019 amendments and cultivating robust institutional arbitration offers a more polycentric and evidence-driven approach. This would expand the pool of competent arbitrators, reduce dependence on judge-led ad hoc appointments, and ultimately let competition, reputation, and local knowledge discipline fees. Notably, India's largest litigant - its own government - has already started shifting away from ad hoc arbitration, indicating that when parties sense an overcharge or imbalance, they do respond by seeking out better alternatives.

Before erecting rigid structures such as a universal Fourth Schedule, policymakers should verify that the alleged market failures cannot be resolved through the competitive process. Empirical, comparative research - analysing cost differentials between judge-led ad hoc arbitration and institutional arbitration - would illuminate whether exorbitant fees reflect a systemic shortcoming or isolated pockets of inefficiency. Only when we ground policy in such evidence can we ensure that reforms address real problems and do not accidentally lock in the very system they aim to correct.

Prashant Narang and Vishnu Suresh are researchers at the TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation. We thank our colleagues Renuka Sane, Bhavin Patel, as well as two anonymous reviewers, for their comments.

Judicial overreach: Bypassing expert tribunals in the electricity sector

by Natasha Aggarwal and Bhavin Patel.

A 2023 decision of the Supreme Court (The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State v. Agarwal Foundaries Private Limited and Another, SLP (C) No. 14047-14066/2019) underscored the importance of judicial deference to expert bodies, stating that the High Court should have remanded a technical matter to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) instead of adjudicating it itself.

The Electricity Act, 2003 establishes a framework under which appeals from orders of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERCs) may be filed before the APTEL. In 2021-22, only 12 appeals from the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission (TSERC) were filed before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), while 85 appeals were filed before the Telangana High Court (that is, more than seven times the number of appeals before the APTEL). Therefore, a large number of challenges to the TSERC's orders were filed before the High Court, and not the APTEL, a sector-specific expert body. Notably, this problem is not unique to Telangana and exists in other states from time to time. For example, in 2019-20, 21 appeals from the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission were filed before the APTEL while 34 writ petitions were filed before the High Court.

The trajectory of the TSERC's orders, from the TSERC to the Telangana High Court, raises questions on the grounds and scope of judicial review of these orders and their adherence to well-established principles of administrative law. These principles caution against judicial overreach in reviewing regulatory decisions. Over time, the Supreme Court of India has established the circumstances in which judicial review is permitted as well as the considerations that may be relevant in deciding to exercise judicial review.

In a recent paper, Bypassing expert tribunals through writs: Judicial overreach in review of the Telangana State Electricity Regulatory Commission's orders, we study 179 writ petitions and 181 writ appeals involving the TSERC before the Telangana High Court between 2014-2022 and examine whether judicial review of the TSERC's orders by the High Court is within the permitted limits in administrative law.

Our study reveals that 52.5% of the writ petitions in our subset and 58% of the writ appeals in our subset fall squarely within the scope of the matters for which the Electricity Act provides an appellate mechanism through the APTEL. Therefore, the largest number of writ petitions and writ appeals relate to 'substantive matters', which we identify as those that the Electricity Act contemplates as falling within the scope of TSERC's quasi-judicial powers and APTEL's appellate jurisdiction.

The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, such as an appeal before the APTEL is not a complete bar on judicial review. However, well-established principles of administrative law limit the situations in which courts should entertain matters when such an alternative remedy exists, particularly because specialised tribunals and appellate authorities have the technical expertise to examine the facts and merits of a case. Moreover, the rationale for providing such an appellate mechanism is the requirement of technical expertise, and the APTEL has such expertise while the High Courts may not, and therefore the exercise of judicial review in such situations undermines the objectives of the Electricity Act.

The authors are researchers at TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation.

Do court vacations matter: evidence from the Bombay High Court

by Tushar Anand, Pavithra Manivannan, and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah.

Introduction

Court vacations are often invoked as a problematic feature of the Indian judiciary. The discourse on this includes blaming court vacations for case delays, petitions to reduce the length of court vacations, and substituting them with staggered leave for judges. This discourse is characterised by the classic divide that cuts across most Indian discourse on court reforms. Lawyers and judges emphasize the importance of court vacations for overall judge productivity. Often, they perceive the criticism of court vacations as being politically motivated or as an attack on judicial integrity. Other stakeholders underscore the problems of delays and pendency, and compare the courts' calendar with that of other public organisations. In the event, neither side is able to support their argument by demonstrating the extent of delays attributable to court vacations. The puzzle on how much do court vacations actually affect case durations and disposal continues to remain unanswered. This article presents some first estimates on the impact of court vacations on these outputs.

During the vacation period, courts function with minimal capacity. This allows us to compare the functioning of a court during its vacation and non-vacation periods. Using a dataset of civil and commercial cases filed over about six years at the Bombay High Court, we evaluate the extent to which vacations at the court affected its productivity, measured in terms of case disposal rates and the lifecycle of cases.

Unsurprisingly, we find that there is a significant drop in the daily number of cases filed and disposed by the Bombay High Court during vacations, compared to the non-vacation periods of the year. However, this gap shrinks over time. Second, the fact that a case is filed during the vacation period affects its initial phases, but does not affect the duration within which it will get disposed of. In sum, while court vacations affect the initial phase of a case schedule, dispensing with court vacations will not make a significant difference to the disposal rates or the disposal duration of cases at the Bombay High Court.

Court vacations

Indian courts, such as the supreme court, high courts and district courts, and most tribunals, are scheduled to take three vacations - summer, festive, winter - each year. The summer vacation lasts for a little more than a month and the festive and winter vacations last for a little more than week. While the concept of court vacations is traceable to the colonial origins of the Indian judicial system, they eventually became a part of the rules governing the functioning of the Supreme Court and High Courts. The practice is not unique to India and is followed in several developed countries, such as the United States, Australia and Singapore.

During vacations, Indian courts function with vacation benches of judges to hear urgent matters that come up during this time, and a lower staff at the court registry. A comparison of the sitting list of judges for the Bombay High Court shows that, on a non-vacation day, 27 courtrooms are functional. On the other hand, on vacation days, not more than four courtrooms are functional. A reduced number of judges will likely affect the scheduling and eventual disposal of cases filed during vacations. A reduced registry capacity will likely affect the filing of new cases and scheduling of proceedings for existing cases. To be sure, court vacations affect not only the working hours of courts, but also the entire ecosystem around it. For instance, it is generally hard to find lawyers to appear for litigants before vacation benches during this time, further slowing down proceedings. Since these changes are endogeneous to court vacations, it is hard to isolate the impact of lower judges from that of the absence of lawyers willing to work during the vacation period, on the lifecycle of a case. Finally, what cases are construed as 'urgent' varies across judges' interpretation of urgency.

In this institutional setting, we ask the following questions to evaluate the impact of court vacations on overall case durations at the Bombay High Court:

1. Do case filings and disposals drop during vacation periods?
2. Do cases filed during court vacations take longer to get their first hearing?
3. Do cases filed during court vacations take longer to get disposed of?

Data and Methodology

We collect and analyse the data of cases involving all civil suits and commercial suits, which were filed at the Bombay High Court during the seven year period from January 2017 to December 2023 (Study Period). For each of these cases, our dataset captures information on the entire life-cycle of the case available on the respective courts' websites. This includes the date of filing, the dates on which hearings were conducted, and the date of disposal. Table 1 shows the total number of cases in our dataset and their status, that is, whether the cases were pending or disposed, at the time of data collection. We then count the number of days on which these courts were on vacation during our Study Period, using the vacation dates published on their websites. On an average, the Bombay High Court has 52 days of vacation per year and the average number of working days is 235.

Table 1: Data description

Cases
Disposed	1379
Pending	2529
Total	3908

One caveat. Our results account for select case-types (civil suits and commercial suits), as our dataset comprises such cases. Given that criminal cases or writ petitions, particularly those pertaining to questions of liberty or reliefs pre-empting State actions, have a higher element of urgency, it is possible that the findings for these case types will differ from our findings for civil and commercial cases.

Impact of court vacations on case filing and disposal

We begin by comparing the daily average number of cases filed and disposed before the Bombay High Court during the vacation and non-vacation period (Table 2). At the Bombay High Court, on an average, the number of cases filed during non-vacation days is thrice the number of cases filed during vacation days. Further, the Bombay High Court is able to dispose four times the number of cases on non-vacation days, compared to the vacation days.

Table 2: Average number of cases filed and disposed per day

	Vacation days	Non-vacation days
Cases filed	0.67	2.23
Cases disposed of	0.21	0.88

We examine whether the difference between the number of cases filed during vacation and non-vacation periods or between the number of cases disposed of during these two periods, is statistically significant. The standard t-test and z-test used for determining statistical significance assume a normal distribution of the underlying data. However, our data is not amenable to this test for two reasons. One, the number of observed cases in non-vacation period is five times than that in the vacation period. Second, the distribution of the per day number of cases filed and disposed of is right-biased, with a long tail. We used a two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to confirm that the two samples come from different distributions. In the absence of the standard tests (t-test and z-test), we use a bootstrapped sampling method to estimate the statistical significance of the difference in means of the two sets (vacation and non-vacation) of our data. This method allows us to create a normal distribution of the data by repeatedly drawing random samples from each of the two sets. This approach shows that the difference in means for the number of cases filed and disposed during vacation and non-vacation days is statistically significant at the five percent level.

At first glance, these findings might suggest that had the court not been on vacation, case disposals would have increased by a factor of four. However, this disposal rate is likely not linear. For instance, a quarter-wise analysis of cases filed and disposed of shows that these differences reduce (Table 3). That is, the difference in the number of filings and disposals in Quarters 2 and 4 that are affected by vacation days (Apr-Jun and Oct-Dec) and Quarters 1 and 3 that are not affected by vacation days (Jan-Mar and Jul-Sep), are much smaller.

Table 3: Quarter-wise average of cases filed and disposed

	Q1	Q2*	Q3	Q4*
Cases filed	162.57	128.29	134.86	132.58
Cases disposed of	51.29	38.71	58.43	46.00

^{*Denotes quarters affected by vacation days.}

Impact of vacations on case timelines

The analysis in the previous section would reflect the impact of court vacation on the overall productivity of the court. However, what is the impact of court vacations for an individual litigant? In this section, we examine whether the timelines for important milestones in a case vary for a litigant who filed her case during the vacation period, compared to a litigant who filed her case during the non-vacation days.

We estimate the time taken for cases to be scheduled for its first hearing and time taken for them to be disposed of. These estimations are made using the survival analysis approach used by Manivannan et al, 2023. This approach is a useful measure of individual case life cycles. It shows the likelihood of a case awaiting an important milestone, such as a first hearing or disposal, at different points in time.

Table 4: Probability of first hearing

	Vacation days	Non-vacation days
1 month	6.47%	7.24%
3 months	25.10%	23.35%
6 months	49.39%	47.20%

Table 4 shows the probability of a case getting its first hearing within one month, three months and six months of filing. The table compares these probabilities for cases filed during vacation days and non-vacation days. The probability of a case filed during the non-vacation period getting its first hearing within one month of filing is only slightly higher than the corresponding probability of a case filed during the non-vacation period. As time progresses, this difference disappears. In fact, after the first month of filing, cases filed during the vacation period have a marginally higher probability of getting their first hearing than cases filed during the non-vacation period. In sum, our analysis suggests that the "vacation effect" on case scheduling persists for not more than a month.

Similarly, we estimate the probability of a case getting disposed of within one to two years of its filing. Table 5 compares these probabilities for cases filed during vacation days and non-vacation days. At the Bombay High Court, there is about 5-6% higher disposal probability for cases filed during the non-vacation days. Overall, the "vacation effect" is marginal and temporary, and does not seem to affect the case duration for a litigant.

Table 5: Probability of disposal

	Cases filed on
	Vacation days	Non-vacation days
6 months	6.95%	11.03%
1 year	11.62%	17.95%
2 years	22.59%	27.11%

Conclusion

Our analysis provides the first estimates on the impact of Indian court vacations on some measurable elements of a court's functioning. Historical data from the Bombay High Court for civil and commercial cases shows that court vacations have a statistically significant impact on the number of cases filed and disposed of on a daily basis. While this finding is perhaps unsurprising, these differences disappear over time. Further, they do not substantially affect the overall duration of the case, even as they have a small effect on the initial phases of cases filed during court vacations.

A key limitation of our analysis is that it does not account for the impact, if any, of court vacations on a judge at the individual level. That is, it does not capture the possible intangible productivity gains that accrue from a holiday. It is possible, for instance, that when a judge goes on a vacation, she writes more judgements, reads more jurisprudence or returns with boosted productivity. The data available in the public domain does not allow us to measure these impacts on judge productivity. Besides, if there were such impacts on a judge, they are not a powerful explanation for a court vacation where all the judges go on vacation simultaneously. These benefits would accrue even where judges take leave as per their own convenience during the calendar year. Therefore, while measuring such impacts is important for its own sake, it does not add to the vacation-related discourse which our analysis speaks to.

Finally, several scholars have started adopting the empirical approach in evaluating Indian courts and tribunals, using a variety of tools ranging from simple summary statistics to more advanced analyses grounded in statistics, and using the tools of natural language processing and artificial intelligence. We provide yet another demonstration that questions pertaining to the impact of interventions in the Indian court system are amenable to empirical research. Expanding such analyses to other courts will strengthen the discourse on court vacations by shifting from pure normative perspectives to empirically grounded questions on whether vacations actually increase the productivity of a court.

References

Pavithra Manivannan, Susan Thomas and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah (2023), Helping litigants make informed choices in resolving debt disputes, The Leap Blog, 15 June 2023.

Law Commission of India (2009), Reforms in the Judiciary: Some suggestions, Report No. 230, August 2009.

Alex Tsun (2020), Chapter 9, Applications to Computing, Probability & Statistics with Applications to Computing, 2020.

Tushar Anand and Pavithra Manivannan are researchers at XKDR Forum and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah is a doctoral candidate at the National University of Singapore. The authors thank Susan Thomas and Geetika Palta for useful discussions.

Assessing regulatory capability in Tamil Nadu electricity regulation: Evidence from appeals

by Bhavin Patel and Renuka Sane.

The Indian journey to decarbonisation faces the roadblocks of electricity policy. One of the critical impediments faced is that of state capability in electricity regulation. There is a new body of knowledge in India, in regulatory theory, that can usefully be brought to bear on the problem of improving electricity regulation. One element of this field is the question of assessing the state of regulatory capability. At any point in time, how would we judge the extent to which electricity regulation in a certain state is working well?

Electricity is regulated by the Central and State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs), which perform legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial functions. The concentration of power and the lack of democratic accountability in the new administrative state raise concerns about their functioning in modern economies. In India, the ERCs have quasi-judicial powers that are even broader than those of other regulators such as the SEBI. With one electricity regulator -- the TNERC -- in focus, we took up the research strategy of assessing regulatory capability through the analysis of regulatory orders that go to appeal. A key metric of the quality of orders the regulator passes is how well its orders fare at an appellate forum. If the regulator succeeds in defending its decisions, it signifies that the orders are well-reasoned and have followed the procedures required by the applicable law (whatever they be).

In a recent paper, Performance at the Appellate Tribunal as an indicator of regulatory capacity: The case of TNERC at APTEL, we study the overturn rate of the orders of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) at the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) between 2013 and 2023.

We find that TNERC failed to hold its ground in 52% of appeals. Of these, about half were remanded back to the TNERC, suggesting that it did not do an adequate job of bringing the evidence necessary to decide a matter, despite being conferred the powers of a Civil Court for such purposes under Section 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further, the TNERC lost 86% of matters that involved issues related to how it uses its regulatory powers.

These results raise concerns about the exercise of quasi-judicial authority by the TNERC. There is considerable knowledge in the field of regulation in India, on how such deficiencies can be addressed. If policy makers were to take up such strategies, it would help improve private sector confidence for electricity investment in Tamil Nadu.

Our work is limited to orders that were appealed. There is a selection bias, in that regulated persons make rational choices when deciding to appeal. In the extreme, it is possible to argue that all sound orders are not appealed, and only defective orders are appealed, so the defect rate is just the appeal rate (which is about 8% with appeals to APTEL that we measure, and some appeals that go to the High Court under writ jurisdiction which we do not measure). We suspect the defect rate is higher. Considerations in appealing include issues such as errors in the regulatory order which create a high chance of winning, the expense in appealing, the rupee value at stake multiplied by the probability of winning, and the non-rule-of-law pressures from TNEB in favour of not appealing. The appealed orders, that are studied by us, offer valuable insights into the limitations of state capability in regulation in TN electricity. Such measurement should motivate regulatory reform, and it should be used in measuring the extent of progress in regulatory reform.

Our approach can be usefully applied in analysing and improving electricity regulation in other states. To assist this process, we have also released a detailed Manual For Reviewing Regulatory Orders: Orders of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission at the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity. This will enable replication of our results for Tamil Nadu, and porting these methods to other states.

The authors are researchers at TrustBridge.

The consequences of criminalising cheque bouncing

by Shubho Roy and Ajay Shah

Many countries (e.g. New Zealand, Poland, Germany, Norway) have discontinued paper cheques. In other countries (e.g. the U.K., the U.S.), the use of cheques is declining. But in India, the use of paper cheques in India has stabilised in terms of value and number over the last five years. This is despite the extent to which digital and instantaneous payments are now feasible. Why might this be the case?

Prior to 1988, cheques were primarily used as a tool of payment. In that age, there were delays in clearing. Paper cheques had to be transported to the bank branch where the cheque issuer had an account. In that branch, the issuer's signature would be verified against a sample. If the signatures matched, the balance would be cleared (assuming the issuer had adequate funds). This process took seven working days, even when the issuer and recipient had banks in the same city. If the parties were in different cities, the process would take 15 working days, on average.

Today, a cheque issuer can send a secure document showing that the issuer's bank account has adequate funds to honour the cheque. However, in 1988, there was no such system, and the cheque recipient faced the risk that the issuer was writing a cheque that her account could not honour.

Some technical mistakes can always happen, where a person fails to anticipate the date on which funds are required and there are unpredictable delays in the money moving in and out of the account. Alongside this, many unscrupulous people knowingly wrote bad cheques. This made sellers mistrust cheques and prefer cash. While cash as a payment mechanism has the virtues of instantaneity and privacy, it comes with difficulties on physical security.

The 1988 change of the law

In this setting, the Parliament criminalised the bouncing of cheques in 1988. Now, the cheque writer could be sent to jail if the cheque did not clear. The law also stated that every cheque is presumed to be written to clear a debt. This change helped the recipient of cheques because the recipients did not have to prove any underlying transaction. The recipient only had to demonstrate that the cheque was not honoured.

In 2016, the Supreme Court ratified the practice of using cheques as collateral in the case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited. Sampelly Satyanarana Rao (Mr. Rao) had written post-dated cheques as security for a loan from the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA). Mr. Rao did not take the loan personally but wrote the cheques as a director in the company that borrowed the money. The borrower company failed to pay the instalments when they became due. In response, IREDA (the creditor) initiated criminal proceedings against Mr. Rao under the 1988 law. Mr. Rao defended the claim by stating that the cheques were written before the creditor (IRDEA) disbursed the loan amount. IREDA pointed out that the cheques were deposited after the borrower (the company) had failed to pay the instalments, and therefore, the penal provisions of the 1988 Act applied. The Supreme Court agreed with the creditor and allowed for the criminal prosecution of Mr. Rao. This judgement provides legal certainty to the use of post-dated cheques as security. This date, i.e. 2016, is an important milestone in the journey, over and beyond the amendment of the N. I. Act in 1988.

The role of cheques in India today

The threat of imprisonment restored some faith in cheques. Anecdotally, it seems to have worked well in the initial years after the amendment. Cheques became more acceptable in commercial transactions and helped reduce frictions in economic activity. Many a cheque recipient was willing to take the risk of delivering goods without waiting one or two weeks for a cheque to clear.

These considerations do not exist in the present landscape. Instantaneous payment systems are ubiquitous in India, ranging from small value payments to the largest amounts possible. Any problem of trust between buyers and sellers can be readily solved by resorting to NEFT or RTGS. By this reasoning, the number of cheques written in India should have declined sharply. It has not.

People responded to incentives

Alongide this, the rest of the Indian legal system which enforces contracts works poorly. Ordinarily, a loan dispute would be resolved as a contract dispute through civil law, and, in some cases, bankruptcy law may be involved in situations where the debtor is insolvent. In 2020, in enforcing contracts, India ranked 163 out of 190 countries, while its overall rank was 63 (a difference of 100 ranks). India's rank in resolving insolvency was 52. Hence, creditors are unconfident about ordinary credit enforcement mechanisms.

One strand of credit enforcement systems is seizing assets that are pledged as collateral. This tends to work poorly in India. While the SARFAESI Act of 2002 is reasonably effective in getting collateral into the hands of the lender, many assets are hard to sell. Many land titles have encumbrances, and the land market works poorly, which hinders the recovery rate.

These weaknesses of the ordinary (civil) credit enforcement systems made criminal proceedings under S.138 attractive to creditors. Under S.138, a debtor faces up to two years of imprisonment if the debtor is convicted. In reality, the creditor does not even have to wait for the end of the litigation to get the debtor imprisoned. The debtor can be arrested at the beginning of the litigation so that the debtor can be produced before the court. In some cases, the debtor can also be imprisoned for the duration of trial under S.138. In contrast, a civil case proceeds without the debtor, if the debtor chooses not to appear. Most people will pay up to avoid being imprisoned, which gives heart to creditors.

When faced with legal difficulties around land title, it is better for the creditor to threaten imprisonment, and have the borrower solve the problem of selling the land, instead of seizing collateral and then facing legal difficulties in liquidating them.

As a consequence, after the new law was established in 1988, creditors started using cheques as a security. Creditors frequently demand that the debtor provide post-dated cheques for loan amounts. These cheques are payable deep into the future -- sometimes extending to multiple years. In such cases, both parties are aware that the cheque drawer does not have the money in the bank account at the point in time when the cheque was signed. Creditors sometimes demand a separate cheque for each instalment of loan repayment. Consequently, a debtor for a five-year loan may write 60 post-dated cheques. On a similar note, landlords sometimes asked for post-dated cheques for the payment of rent at multiple time points in the future.

Modern economies do not have a debtors prison: the choice of filing for bankruptcy is always there, in which case the creditor gets a low recovery rate. On one hand, in India, there is no legal framework for personal bankruptcy. When threatened with jail time, the borrower may reach into her web of relationships, and borrow from the community. This increases the resources available to the lender.

Weighing the pros and cons

The introduction of S.138 has thus exerted many complex impacts upon the working of the economy.

An increased level of violence in society

More people go jail, and more threats of incarceration are bandied about. This is a less civilised society.

Increased interest in lending

When lenders are given greater certainty about recoveries, they are likely to be more willing to lend to persons that might otherwise be excluded from the credit market.

Diminished interest in borrowing

When borrowers are shown the possibility of jail time, they will be more cautious and avoid borrowing. That has its own welfare consequences.

Conditions for state failure

The prospect of jail time is a `high stakes' situation where the policing system gets to make decisions which have a high impact upon the life of a citizen. This increases the incentives for corruption.

Hindering the emergence of a modern economy

All advanced economies have moved away from debtor's prison, and evolved civil mechanisms around borrowing, collateral and bankruptcy. These pathways reduce the extent of violence in society and increases user confidence in borrowing.

The threat versus the cash

Jail time is indeed a potent threat and creates strong incentives for the borrower to obtain cash, either by borrowing from someone else or by liquidating opaque assets. But once a person goes to jail, all future payments to the lender are stopped. With more civil processes of collatoral and bankruptcy, there is the strategy of keeping the delinquent active in economic life, and obtaining a stream of cashflows to the lender.

Incentives for policy makers

Lenders that got comfortable with the use of S.138 were less inclined to persuade policy makers of the need for the institutional apparatus of the credit market.

Conclusion

The introduction of S.138 into the N.I. Act in 1988 was a response to a problem of the time. Some other countries, like Taiwan, had also criminalised cheque bouncing. However, most countries have walked back since then because credit systems have improved and the use of cheques have declined. In those countries, cheques are not used as collateral for loans.

There is a strong argument for repealing this section. The consequences of such a repeal will, however, also be far reaching, particularly in the context where the institutional apparatus for contract enforcement remain weak. It is interesting to look at the list, presented above, of the consequences of criminalising cheque bouncing. We can then ask: Which of these would flip around and arise, in reverse, when cheque bouncing is de-criminalised.

Shubho Roy and Ajay Shah are researchers at XKDR Forum.

Survey-based measurement of Indian courts

by Pavithra Manivannan, Susan Thomas, and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah.

Public institutions do not face a market test. Achieving state capacity is about establishing checks and balances. The traditional idea is to instrument the operations, and construct an operational MIS, which is released into the public domain. Through this, deficiencies of the working of the organisation are visible to researchers and the public. The other pathway is to ask the persons who interact with the state institution about what they feel, to elicit their perceptions. This is an important pathway to obtain evidence and thus create feedback loops. For instance, citizen surveys are commonly used to assess the quality and impact of public services such as health and education (UNDP 2021, Clifton et al, 2020, OECD-ADB 2019).

In the legal system, perception surveys of court users can generate useful knowledge about how well courts function in their delivery of justice (National Center for State Courts, 2005). Ongoing surveys of user experience of courts can help measure the performance of a component of the entire legal system, and in assessing the impact of interventions made for reforming the legal system.

Surveys of court users and the public on their perception of the judiciary have been prevalent in developed countries from the 1990s, and are gaining currency in India (eg., Dougherty et al, 2006; Rottman and Tyler, 2014; Staats et al, 2005; Daksh 2016). Such surveys seek to capture the perceptions of court users on qualitative metrics (Manivannan et al, 2022). Such metrics can be used to evaluate the functioning of a single court, or compare alternative courts.

On one hand, perceptions are not reality. On the other hand, the views of end-users of the justice system are particularly important because, ultimately, the justice system exists to serve end-users whose interests and preferences may differ from those of judges and lawyers. We can readily discern certain difficulties in survey-based measurement of perceptions:

1. There are many different users of a court, who differ in their extent of knowledge. Litigants who see a court case as a disruption of their daily lives, may see things differently when compared with lawyers, for whom courts are part of their professional lives.
2. A person who loses a case is likely to be unhappy with his experience of the court and vice versa.
3. Different individuals might be working on non-comparable cases, and their subjective experience of the court is then not comparable.
4. It is not clear what is an objective benchmark of sound performance. A perfect court may be prohibitively expensive. Users of courts may have normalised a variety of difficulties; their `satisfaction' may only flow from learned helplessness.
5. It is important to narrowly measure a court or a group of courts, and make claims about the narrow unit of observation, as opposed to bigger claims about the Indian legal system.

In 2023, we conducted two pilot surveys to evaluate their utility as feedback loops for courts.

One survey was administered to understand the functioning of five alternative forums that can be approached to adjudicate matters of debt disputes: the Bombay benches of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the Bombay High Court (Bom HC), the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) courts (which adjudicates criminal proceedings for cheque bouncing cases), and the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process.

To help improve data quality, the survey was conducted on practitioners who had multiple instances of interacting with the five courts. By selecting practitioners that have had repeated instances of approaching these forums to resolve disputes, the survey results are less vulnerable to the 'loser' effect. To obtain comparability, we presented a hypothetical, canonical problem of debt dispute resolution to each survey respondent. We then asked them to rank the five forums on five dimensions of court performance, namely, efficiency, effectiveness, predictability, independence, cost and convenience, and calculated the average rank for each forum on each of these dimensions.

The second survey was conducted with litigants at the DRT, with the objective of understanding the functioning of this court. For this, we deployed a team of four, who visited the premises of the Bombay bench of the DRT. The team administered a survey questionnaire on individuals, in order to evaluate the performance of the DRT on the above mentioned five dimensions. The participants were asked to rate their experience at the DRT on a five-point scale.

Method

Survey design

We used a combination of qualitative (in-depth expert interviews and open-ended comments) and quantitative surveys (multiple choice and scaled questions). Qualitative surveys with experts provide more contextual insights, enable comprehensive analysis. They helped validate our founding conjecture, the idea that there was a class of disputes which could go to multiple different forums. However, these surveys were time-intensive and it was difficult to obtain the interest and involvement of experts.

Survey mode

We administered the survey in both online and offline formats. Surveying litigants on court premises was challenging in two ways. First, litigants do not always accompany their lawyers to courts, especially in disputes of larger sizes involving firms. Second, one forum may deal with multiple type of disputes (civil v. criminal; mergers v. insolvency). This poses difficulty in identifying a litigant with a desired case-type.

The questionnaire used for the surveys and the responses collected can be found here.

Results: The perceptions of practitioners

The practitioner survey involved eliciting their choice of forum for the following hypothetical, canonical problem:

Q is a large public listed company. It has availed of a working capital loan of Rs. 7 crores from N, a small sized NBFC, repayable within three years with simple interest @16% p.a. Q and N are 100% domestically owned. As collateral for the loan, Q has granted N a floating charge over some of its movable assets, for example, its machinery or its inventory. One year into the loan, Q defaults on its loan to N. The outstanding amount exceeds Rs.1 crore. Post-dated cheques issued by Q towards interest payment bounce due to insufficient funds. The collateral is not sufficient to cover the outstanding amount. You are advising N.

The survey respondents were asked to make two assumptions, namely, that the limitation period is the same across all the courts; and that all courts have jurisdiction.

We collected responses from 18 respondents, of which 16 were lawyers and two were key managerial personnel at an asset reconstruction company and a debt restructuring advisory firm. Six of our respondents had between 20 to 30 years of experience in this area, eight of them had experience of less than 20 years, and two of them had more than 30 years experience in this field. They had significant experience with many of the venues of interest: 14 had experience with the NCLT and the Bom HC, 11 with the DRT and ADR process, and 5 with the MM Courts.

We aggregated the ranks assigned by the respondents to each of these forums on the parameters of independence, efficiency, effectiveness, predictability and access, and averaged them to arrive at an overall rank for each forum. The specific statements on which the respondents ranked the forums and their ranks are presented in Table 1. The forums are arranged in increasing order of the average rankings on each parameter. The NCLT was ranked the highest on the parameter of Efficiency, followed by ADR, the Bom HC, the DRT and the Metropolitan Magistrate. On the other hand, the Bom HC was ranked as the most preferred forum of choice on the parameter of independence.

Table 1: Preference ordering of five debt enforcement forums

Metric	Survey Statement	Ranking
		1	2	3	4	5
Efficiency	Most likely to dispose of my matter in a timely manner	NCLT	ADR	Bom HC	DRT	MM Courts
Effectiveness	Easiest to recover the amount awarded in the judgement decree.	NCLT	Bom HC	DRT, ADR	MM Courts
Predictability	(i) Expected sequence of stages in my matter was clear.	NCLT	ADR	Bom HC	DRT	MM Courts
	(ii) Hearings are most likely to be held as scheduled.	ADR	NCLT	Bom HC	MM Courts	DRT
Independence	Decisions are most likely made based on the merits of the case.	Bom HC	ADR	NCLT	MM Courts	DRT
Access	(i) Can afford to take my case to this forum.	MM Courts	DRT	NCLT	Bom HC	ADR
	(ii) Ease of navigation; staff helpfulness; website; ease of filing process	ADR	Bom HC	NCLT	DRT	MM Courts

Table 1 contains new insights on a specific court on each attribute. For example, while the Bom HC and the ADR process are perceived to be most unbiased, they are perceived as more expensive to access. ADR is perceived to be most predictable, but less effective on actually getting the relief. The NCLT, on the other hand, is perceived to be more efficient and effective, when compared to the other forums, but less likely to also be unbiased. The DRT and the Metropolitan Magistrate courts are perceived unfavourably on all aspects, except affordability.

Results: The perceptions of litigants

The in-person survey conducted at the DRT observed 55 persons, who were presently a party to a dispute at the DRT. Among these, 24 were debtors, 19 were creditors, and 12 belonged to the residual category, such as court/privately appointed receivers and auction awardees. Of these, 30.6% were at early stages (admission), 28.6% were at advanced stages (such as post-admission or pending last hearing), and 22.4% were awaiting a final hearing or pronouncement of judgement.

Litigants at the DRT had more positive perceptions than practitioners. Litigants ranked the DRT the highest on predictability of the hearing: most litigants agreed that when a hearing for their case is scheduled at the DRT, it will be held on the scheduled date. About 67-69% of litigants perceived the DRT to be an affordable and unbiased forum to resolve their dispute. More creditors ranked it higher (85-89%) on these two metrics than debtors (58-62%). However, 52% of litigants did not think that the DRT resolves cases in a timely manner.

Discussion

Good performance by the judicial branch in a country is essential. As with all aspects of public policy, this requires the loop of evidence, identification of difficulties, creative policy proposals, policy reforms, and measurement of the gains. In the legal system, generally, evidence and measurement involves quantitative measures. In this article, we have shown a case study where survey-based evidence was useful. This constitutes a useful additional pathway to measurement of the legal system.

Litigants are the ultimate end-users of courts, so their views matter greatly, but their information set may be limited. Legal practitioners have better information through repeated interactions and potentially observation of multiple venues, but their views may not capture the views of the litigants themselves. In the future, it would be useful to go further, by way of surveying the general public, measuring the view of persons who have not experienced litigation at a given location.

References

Shaun Bowler, Joseph L. Staats, and Jonathan T. Hiskey (2005). Measuring Judicial Performance in Latin America, Latin American Politics and Society.

Judith Cliftona, Marcos Fernandez-Gutierrez and Michael Howlett (2020). Assessing public services from the citizen perspective: What can we learn from surveys?, Journal of Economic Policy Reform.

Daksh (2016). Access to Justice Survey, A DAKSH report.

David B. Rottman and Tom R. Tyler (2014). Thinking about judges and judicial performance: Perspective of the Public and Court users, Onati Socio-legal Series.

Devendra Damle and Tushar Anand (2020). Problems with the e-Courts data, NIPFP Working Paper Series 314.

George W. Dougherty, Stephanie A. Lindquist and Mark D. Bradbury (2006). Evaluating Performance in State Judicial Institutions: Trust and Confidence in the Georgia Judiciary, State and Local Government Review.

Institute of Social Studies and Analysis (2021). Satisfaction with Public Services in Georgia, United Nations Development Programme.

National Center for State Courts (2005). CourTools: Trial Court Performance Measures.

Pavithra Manivannan, Susan Thomas and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah (2022). Evaluating contract enforcement by courts in India: a litigant's lens, XKDR Working Paper No. 16.

Pavithra Manivannan, Susan Thomas and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah (2023). Helping litigants make informed choices in resolving debt disputes, The Leap Blog.

OECD-ADB (2019). Government at a Glance Southeast Asia, Serving Citizens: Citizen satisfaction with public services and institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Pavithra Manivannan and Susan Thomas are researchers at XKDR Forum, Mumbai. Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah is a doctoral candidate at the National University of Singapore. We thank Surya Prakash B.S., Renuka Sane, and Anjali Sharma for their suggestions on the design of the surveys. We acknowledge the very diligent assistance by Nell Crasto and Balveer Godara, students at Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, NMIMS Mumbai, on conducting the litigant survey. We are grateful to all the survey respondents for their generous participation, and thank Mahesh Krishnamurthy, K.P. Krishnan, Sachin Malhan, Harish Narsappa, Rashika Narain, Geetika Palta, Siddarth Raman, Ajay Shah, and Arun Thiruvengadam for their comments and suggestions on this work.

How substantial are non-substantive hearings in Indian courts: some estimates from Bombay

by Pavithra Manivannan, Karthik Suresh, Susan Thomas, and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah.

The problem

If we think about court as a services production organisation, then the number of staff, technology and other resources would be inputs to deliver well-defined outcomes of litigants' cases being decided satisfactorily. In between these inputs and outcome are hearings as the output of courts. Hearings are where the matter of the dispute is presented in front of a judge. When hearings are substantive, progress is made in resolving the dispute.

Not all hearings are substantive. Some non-substantive hearings are inevitable, involving procedural matters such as the filing of documents. When a hearing is non-substantive because the matter is rescheduled to a later date, this imposes a burden of time and cost upon litigants and the court.

Such unexpected non-substantive hearings are an important problem in the Indian legal system. The Civil Procedure Code (1909) prescribes a limit of three adjournments per case, but reality often diverges from this stated limit. In 2021, the e-committee of the Supreme Court has proposed an alert for judges to be informed about breaches in this 3-adjournment rule within its case management system. There is thus a recognition of the presence of this problem.

What is not, at present, known is a quantitative sense of the improtance of the problem. In this article, we estimate the magnitude of non-substantive hearings for one group of situations. The working of the Indian legal system varies widely by venue and case type. In order to measure the phenomenon of non-substantive hearings, we pick one relatively homogeneous class of disputes --- debt dispute resolution --- which are heard at three courts in Bombay. They are the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), and the Bombay High Court (Bombay HC). For these three venues, we seek to estimate four quantities:

1. What is the fraction of substantive hearings in these courts?
2. Out of the hearings in a case, how many are substantive?
3. How much time elapses till a first substantive hearing?
4. How likely is the first hearing to be a substantive hearing?

Definitions and estimates

An understanding of the number and likelihood of such hearings is important to set litigant expectations about the time and costs spent when seeking redress from the court. Regy and Roy (2015) use the term 'failed hearing' in their work on understanding what causes delays at the Delhi Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). They classify failed hearings as those hearings that satisfy three criteria: the hearing resulted in an adjournment without any judicial business, the adjournment was avoidable and the adjournment was not penalised. Khaitan et al. (2017) record hearings as 'inefficient' in their study on court efficiency, where the definition of an efficient court is based on whether the court meets set deadlines or not. In their work on cases from the Delhi High Court, they record hearings as 'inefficient' when there is a failure, either because of the court ('insufficient time to hear the case', 'absent judge') or because of either party ('counsel sought time', 'Absent counsel', 'Delay condoned', 'Restoration'). These papers present us with the earliest estimates of non-substantive hearings. Regy and Roy (2017) record 58% of hearings at the DRT as failed hearings. Khaitan et al (2017) record 48% of hearings at the Delhi HC as inefficient. Both suggest that attempts to reduce adjournments could reduce court delays by up to 50-60%, based on these estimates.

The Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, in the context of fees payable to government counsel, refer to 'Effective hearings' and 'Substantial work'. Effective hearings are where either one or both parties are heard by the court, while 'non-effective' hearings are where 'the case is mentioned and adjourned or only directions are given or only judgement is delivered by the court'. The same memorandum refers to substantial work as 'when the case has been admitted by the Court after hearing of preliminary objections or filing of the affidavits/counter-affidavits etc. by the Counsel'. These definitions guide a distinction between adjournments and non-substantive hearings.

In this article, we broaden the notion of differentiating non-substantive hearings beyond adjournments. Only hearings where there is application of judicial mind to the resolution of the dispute, are classified as 'substantive'. Thus hearings that involve disposals, withdrawal, admission, reporting settlement, are classified as substantive hearings. Adjournments are classified within non-substantive hearings. A reading of the order for an adjourned hearing may simply have a next date given for a hearing. These may be adjournments on account of paucity of time, time sought by parties, non-appearance of parties, wrongly listed or technical glitches. We also classify hearings as non-substantive when orders in which the court gives directions to file pleadings or take on record pleadings. Hearings that involve matters of procedure, without a substantial impact on the resolution of the dispute itself, are taken as non-substantive for a litigant.

The dataset

We hand-constructed a novel dataset, where for a sample of cases, we built the existing case life-cycle by collating all the hearings for a given case. We then read and classified each hearing in the case life-cycle as a substantive or a non-substantive hearing using the approach listed in the previous section. Since each judge records what transpired at the hearing in her own style, parsing and classifying every order necessarily involved a subjective judgement about whether it is a substantive hearing, or not. Therefore, once we had classified orders, we then subjected the classification to a double-blind peer review.

We built this dataset for cases of debt dispute resolution, using orders collected from the websites of the High Court (HC), DRT and NCLT in Bombay. The analysis was done for a random sample of 200 matters from each of the three courts. In these samples, we selected 100 disposed cases and 100 pending cases for each court. The hearing dates ran between 2018 and 2022.

One difference in how orders are uploaded on the Bombay HC versus the two tribunals is important to take note of: each court follows a different timeline for uploading case life-cycle data. On the Bombay HC website, the case appears from the date of filing. For the tribunal courts, the case appear on their respective websites only from the first hearing date, irrespective of the filing date of the case. Since the sample of cases from each court was drawn at random, there could be cases in the Bombay HC without a hearing, while this is not possible with cases in the sample from the tribunal courts. Further, this makes a strict comparison of hearing characteristics at the Bombay HC and the tribunal courts difficult. These differences impose constraints on how various measures are calculated for each court, in order to enable a balanced comparison across the courts.

Findings: What is the fraction of substantive hearings in the three courts?

Table 1: Fraction of substantive hearings to total hearings in three debt dispute resolution courts

Court	Hearings in full sample			Hearings in disposed cases
	Total	Substantive	Fraction		Total	Substantive	Fraction
Bombay HC*	399	192	0.34*		208	139	0.48*
DRT	575	229	0.40		267	116	0.43
NCLT	1135	258	0.23		365	145	0.40

^{*57 cases at the Bombay HC had zero hearings. The fractions reported for the Bombay HC have been adjusted to account for this.}

Table 1 shows the total number of hearings, the number of substantive hearings and the ratio of substantive to total hearings in the three courts. The number of non-substantive hearings can be calculated as (Total hearings - Substantive hearings). This table shows that the NCLT generates the lowest ratio of substantive hearings among the three courts, while the Bombay HC outputs the highest ratio.

Table 1 also shows the data on the ratio of substantive hearings for disposed cases in the three courts. This indicates two features: first, the court generates a higher fraction of substantive hearings in the case of disposed cases. This means that there is a higher number of substantive hearings among hearings for cases that have been disposed. But, there are still fewer substantive hearings than non-substantive hearings. Less than than 50% of all hearings for disposed cases are substantive hearings. This observation holds for all three courts. This suggests that process improvements that simplify administrative hearings or reduce the incidence of adjournments will have a significant improvement in the experience of the litigant in these courts.

The above finding relates to the outputs generated by the courts as a whole, in relation to each other. The litigant focus will be more on what we observe about hearings per case. We examine these questions next.

Findings: What is the fraction of substantive hearings per case in the three courts?

Table 2 shows the summary statistics of hearings per case in the sample. The values presented include the minimum, median, maximum and average number of hearings per case.

Table 2: Number of hearings per case for three debt dispute resolution courts

Court	Hearings			Substantive hearings
	Median	Average		Median	Average
Bombay HC	1	1.21*		1	0.43*
DRT	3	2.88		1	0.82*
NCLT	5	5.68		1	0.91*

^{*Each court has a different number of cases for which substantive hearings could be observed. The counts are 79 cases in the Bombay HC, 57 cases in the DRT and 60 cases in the NCLT with no substantive hearings}

Table 2 shows two values for each court: the average number of hearings per case, and the average number of substantive hearings per case. We see that the Bombay HC has the lowest average number of hearings per case (1.21). The NCLT has the largest number of hearings per case (5.68). This indicates that NCLT has more than 3 times the hearings per case compared to the Bombay HC. It holds more than 2 times the average number of hearings at the DRT which has 2.88 hearings per case, on average.

When comparing the values of the average number of hearings per case to the average number of substantive hearings per case, Table 2 shows that all courts have less than 1 substantive hearing per case, on average. The NCLT has the highest average number of substantive hearings per case (0.91) but it is less than one. The average number of substantive hearings per case for the DRT is almost the same as the NCLT, despite the number of hearings per case being double at the NCLT. This suggests that for every 6 hearings at the NCLT, one is likely to be substantive, while for every 3 hearings at the DRT, one is likely to be substantive. If the number of hearings can be used as a proxy for the cost of filing a case in court, then NCLT is likely to be the lowest benefit to cost for the litigant.

But, the hearing or substantive hearing per case is often not the sole objective for a litigant who approaches court for the resolution of debt. What is also important is the time within which the substantive hearing can be reached. For this, we next examine what is the expected time to the first substantive hearing.

Finding: Time to first substantive hearing

When the case gets a first substantive hearing is an important milestone for a litigant. It is likely to be a hearing in which substantive oral arguments will be made on questions such as the admission of the matter before the court, questions of interim relief that will operate pending the final disposal of the matter, the impleadment of new parties to the matter, the time schedule for the filing of replies and counter-replies, and so on. Setting an expectation on when such a hearing is likely to be conducted after the case is filed, is therefore an important input to preparing for the case.

We use a survival analysis approach to estimate the time to a first substantive hearing after the filing date (Manivannan et al, 2023). Figure 1 shows two survivor functions for each court. The survivor function can be represented as a curve on a graph, which shows the chances of not getting a first hearing / substantive hearing (on the y-axis) against time from filing the case in court (on the x-axis). When the case is first filed, the chance of not getting a substantive hearing is 1 or 100%. I.e., at the outset, all cases experience no hearing / substantive hearing. As time progresses, this number starts to become lower than 1. The `faster' the curve drops from 1, the higher the chances that the case had a first hearing / substantive hearing. On each graph, the darker line shows the chances of a first substantive hearing, while the lighter line shows the chances of a first hearing.

The graph for the Bombay HC (in red) shows that at the end of one year, 40% of the cases have not obtained one hearing. When we focus on substantive hearings only, 60% of the cases have not achieved this milestone. The dark and light line are clearly separated, which indicates that these two values are distinctly different from each other.

The graph for the DRT (in green) shows that 77% of the cases have not got one hearing at the end of the first year after filing. When we focus on substantive hearings only, this is true for 80% of the cases. This means that only 20% of the cases can be expected to get a substantive hearing by the end of the first year from filing.

The graph for the NCLT (in blue) shows that at the end of one year, a little less than 50% of the cases have not got one hearing. When we focus on substantive hearings only, this fraction goes up to 70%. This means that 30% of the cases are likely to have achieved a first substantial hearing in the first year from filing. The gap between the curves for the first hearing and the first substantive hearing is the largest for the NCLT, among the three venues.

These graphs show that the litigant is most likely to get a first substantive hearing within one year of filing from the BHC.

We have chosen to estimate the chances of getting a first hearing and a first substantive hearing in one year after the case has been filed. But these same graphs can be equally used to estimate the chance of a first substantive hearing for shorter or longer periods of time also. For example, the chance of a first hearing within one month of filing the case is the highest at the NCLT, followed by the DRT, and last, at the Bombay HC. Similarly, the graphs show that the chances of getting a first substantive hearing within one month of filing is the highest at the NCLT, up to three months after filing. But if the case is not heard within this time, the chances of getting either a first hearing or a first substantive hearing are higher for a case which is filed at the Bombay HC.

Conclusion

Unpredictable non-substantive hearings constitute a process failure. In this article, we show that for one kind of matter (debt dispute resolution), at three venues, the fraction of non-substantive hearings is 64%, 60% and 77%. From the litigants' perspective of measuring the performance of courts, if a good measure is the fraction of matters that get to a substantive hearing within the first year after filing, we find that this value stands below 50% for all the courts studied.

There is merit in establishing systematic mechanisms for computing such performance metrics. These findings can help litigants estimate the possibilities of events and expenditures, after a case begins. Such information systems would help improve decision-making about suing, about settling, and the choice of venue, for the litigant. A regular estimation of these metrics can also be a useful guide for changes made in court processes, with the understanding that a change in performance metric will be some complex combination of the process change, along with the change in the response of the people who both make up the legal system, and those who use it.

Finally, this work highlights the difference in objectives for which performance metrics need to be designed. While the producer (court) will find it optimal to use the ratio of aggregate substantive to total hearings, the litigant will optimise based on the metric of substantive hearings per case which can lead to a different choice relative to what the court might expect.

References

Nitika Khaitan, Shalini Seetharam and Sumathi Chandrashekaran (2017), Inefficiency and Judicial Delay: New Insights from the Delhi High Court , Vidhi, March 2017.

Pavithra Manivannan, Susan Thomas and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah (2023), Helping litigants make informed choices in resolving debt disputes, The Leap Blog, 15 June 2023.

Prasanth Regy and Shubho Roy (2017), Understanding Judicial delays in debt tribunals, NIPFP Working Paper 195, May 2017.

Pavithra Manivannan, Karthik Suresh, and Susan Thomas are researchers at XKDR Forum, Mumbai. Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah is a doctoral candidate at the National University of Singapore. We thank Geetika Palta for data support, and Purbasha Panda for her support in reading through the case orders. We also thank two anonymous referees and Ajay Shah for useful feedback and comments.