Why in the news?

  • A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh recently flagged the urgency of instituting a performance evaluation mechanism for High Court judges, in view of persistent delays, pendency, and uneven output across benches.

Performance Evaluation Mechanism for Judges

  • Why there is a need:
    • High Pendency rate of cases in the Indian judicial system.
    • Variability in Judge Performance: Disproportionate work and justice delivery by various judges.
    • Lack of Self-Management & unnecessary Adjournments: Unnecessary adjournments, especially after hearing, send a demoralising and negative message about judicial credibility.
    • Shortfalls in ensuring transparency in the system
  • Significance:
    • Aligns judicial accountability with public expectations of timely justice.
    • Moves toward performance culture in judiciary, curbing pendency and reducing backlog.
    • Provides a remedial pathway to detect structural inefficiencies (uneven workloads, lax practices).
    • Enhances transparency through reporting norms and timelines, reinforcing confidence in the judiciary.
  • Challenges:
    • Judicial independence concerns: Too rigid metrics could encroach on discretion and quality of adjudication.
    • Heterogeneity of courts & cases: Volume, complexity, and nature vary widely; uniform yardsticks may be unfair.
    • Resistance from judiciary: Judges may see this as external control or undermining dignity of office.
    • Implementation burden: Data collection, standardised formats, digital infrastructure- especially in weaker High Courts.
    • Risk of perverse incentives: Metrics-based evaluation might encourage “quantity over quality,” rash decisions, or unnecessary dismissals.
  • Way Forward:
    • Engage judges, legal academics, judicial bodies to evolve fair benchmarks like disposal rate, adherence to timelines, non-adjournment ratio, reasons quality.
    • Differentiate between types of cases so that expectations are realistic.
    • Emphasise coaching, mentoring, capacity building in underperforming benches, rather than punitive action.
    • Technological interventions: Digital dashboards; standard reporting templates; integration with NJDG (National Judicial Data Grid).
    • Regular oversight by a designated judicial authority like the Supreme Court or judicial council.