Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Kapil Sibal expressed deep concern over the dire conditions in which district court judges work, emphasizing that unless their salaries and infrastructure are improved, the quality and efficiency of the justice delivery system will continue to decline.
Speaking at the ‘National Conference of the District Judiciary’ in New Delhi, Sibal, who also serves as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), highlighted the challenges faced by district and trial courts, particularly their reluctance to grant bail in significant cases, which he described as “symptomatic of the malaise” affecting the judiciary.
Sibal underscored that liberty is the foundational pillar of a thriving democracy, warning that any attempt to restrict it would have severe implications for the quality of democracy in India. He echoed Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud’s concerns that the Supreme Court is increasingly burdened with bail matters because bail is often treated as an exception rather than the rule at the trial court level. Sibal pointed to recent Supreme Court judgments that have reaffirmed the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” even in cases involving special laws, and stressed that this principle must be strictly followed.
Highlighting the poor state of district courts, Sibal warned that any judicial structure with a weak foundation is bound to falter. He lamented that many talented young legal professionals are dissuaded from seeking appointments in district courts due to the “abysmal conditions” under which judges operate. Despite these challenges, he praised the hard work and dedication of many judges who continue to serve the nation, even though they are often hampered by inadequate courtrooms, insufficient office facilities, lack of supporting staff, and inadequate residential and transportation facilities.
Sibal also pointed out that the low salaries of those serving the judiciary are detrimental to the justice delivery system. He called for urgent improvements in the working conditions of judges, including better pay and infrastructure, to ensure that both the quantity and quality of justice do not suffer. He also touched upon other critical issues, such as the need for better pensions, promotions, gender sensitization, and incentives to join judicial services.
Sibal emphasized that he does not consider the judiciary at the trial court and district court levels to be “subordinate,” as these judges play a crucial role in delivering justice. He argued that these judges should be instilled with confidence, assured that their judicial decisions will not be held against them, and that they represent the backbone of the justice delivery system. According to Sibal, the effectiveness, fairness, and integrity of these courts significantly influence public perception of the entire judicial system.
Sibal also expressed concern over the overburdened rosters at the district court level, which not only affect the justice delivery system but also have severe repercussions on the lives of millions of people. He urged the government and the judiciary to address the persistent issues faced by judges at the trial and district court levels, emphasizing the need for a stronger, more efficient, and viable justice delivery system.
Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, who also spoke at the event, called for the establishment of a National District Judiciary Capacity Building Commission, noting that the Supreme Court has long been involved in addressing the concerns of the district judiciary. He suggested that these efforts should be institutionalized through the participation of both the government and the courts.
Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, also addressing the conference, stressed that the judicial services should be regarded as the most prestigious and trusted profession, commanding the deepest respect from citizens. Referring to the recent rape and murder case of a Kolkata doctor, Mishra highlighted the significance of the Supreme Court’s suo motu intervention, which served as a powerful reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding the law and ensuring accountability when the state fails to act.
