Court Cases and Cash: The Unseen Costs of Governance in India
The Indian government's staggering expenditure of over ₹400 crore on legal proceedings in the past decade, with ₹66 crore spent in the fiscal year 2023-24 alone, raises pertinent questions about the efficacy of the judicial system, resource allocation, and the increasing role of litigation in governance. While proponents argue that this expenditure is necessary to uphold the rule of law and resolve policy disputes, critics point to systemic inefficiencies, political motivations, and the severe underfunding of the judiciary as fundamental concerns that cannot be ignored.
The sheer volume of litigation involving the government is alarming. With the Finance Ministry alone entangled in nearly two lakh pending cases, the cost of legal battles is not merely financial but also administrative. Government policies, land acquisitions, tax disputes, and regulatory decisions frequently end up in prolonged courtroom battles, leading to a backlog that chokes the judicial system. Ironically, while the government is the biggest litigant, it is also the entity responsible for enacting legal reforms. The much-discussed National Litigation Policy aims to streamline processes and expedite resolutions, but its effectiveness remains to be seen. Without strong implementation, it risks becoming yet another bureaucratic attempt at reform without tangible impact.
A glaring issue in this debate is the disproportionate allocation of resources. India spends a mere 0.1% of its GDP on the judiciary, while defense expenditure stands at 2%. This stark contrast highlights the government's prioritization and raises the question: Is justice being sidelined? The economic cost of judicial delays is immense, with estimates suggesting that inefficiencies in the system cost the nation around 9% of its GDP annually. This is a paradoxical situation where billions are spent on legal proceedings while judicial infrastructure remains underdeveloped and underfunded. Despite provisioning funds, a significant portion remains unutilized, exacerbating the crisis. If the government truly intends to address the backlog and accelerate case resolutions, shouldn't the focus be on enhancing judicial infrastructure rather than increasing litigation expenditure?
The functioning of central investigative agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) further complicates this debate. While these agencies have imposed penalties amounting to thousands of crores and conducted numerous high-profile investigations, their conviction rates remain dismally low. This raises concerns about selective targeting and the political motivations behind many cases. The fact that central agencies' actions often coincide with election cycles fuels accusations of vendetta politics, undermining public trust. The Supreme Court itself has acknowledged the dismal conviction rate and the frequent granting of bail in high-profile cases, making one wonder whether these legal battles are more about optics than justice.
Beyond political considerations, the inefficiencies of the judicial process also contribute to low conviction rates. Inadequate investigations, corruption, witness intimidation, legal loopholes, and delays in forensic analysis are some of the key reasons why cases drag on for years without conclusive outcomes. In high-profile cases, the legal system appears more as an arena for political battles than a mechanism for delivering justice. If central agencies were truly impartial and efficient, would we still see such a stark contrast between the number of cases filed and the actual convictions secured?
Furthermore, states have increasingly withdrawn consent for the CBI to operate within their jurisdictions, a move driven by concerns over political misuse. This further complicates the legal landscape, as central agencies must now seek case-specific permission, potentially delaying investigations. While proponents argue that this ensures state autonomy, critics claim it hampers efforts to combat corruption and crime. In a federal democracy, should investigative agencies function as independent institutions or as tools of political strategy?
At the heart of the matter lies the question of justice versus governance. While legal proceedings are essential for upholding laws and settling disputes, excessive litigation points to deeper systemic failures. Is the government’s growing litigation expenditure a sign of a more litigious administration, or does it reflect a failing system where policies are increasingly challenged in court? If judicial delays cost the economy significantly, why is there no robust push to increase judicial spending and infrastructure development? If investigative agencies are being questioned for their selective targeting, should their functioning not be reassessed to ensure impartiality?
Ultimately, this debate is not just about numbers; it is about priorities. Should the government continue pouring resources into endless litigation, or should it focus on reforming the judicial system to ensure efficiency and impartiality? The answers to these questions will shape not only the future of India’s legal system but also its democratic credibility.
