IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v91y2024ics0038012123002677.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Factors affecting efficient discharge of judicial functions: Insights from Indian courts

Author

Listed:
  • Gupta, Maansi
  • Bolia, Nomesh B.

Abstract

The mandate of any judicial system is to pronounce quality judgements in a timely, impartial and transparent manner. The Indian judiciary is currently facing a mammoth backlog of cases leading to delayed delivery of justice. The present work develops a framework identify and prioritize factors that influence judicial performance and applies it to the case of Indian courts. The study determines twenty factors that affect an efficient delivery of judicial functions. We classify these factors into five broad categories, namely, organizational, judge-related, case-related, procedural and exogenous. We rank the categories and factors within each category using fuzzy best-worst method. Findings indicate that organizational and procedural categories are most significant, thereby, having maximum potential to improve judicial efficiency. Complexity associated with judicial procedures is the highest ranked factor, followed by lack of information technology initiatives, high complexity of cases, low judicial staff and procedural ambiguities. We recommend policy interventions based on key insights derived from the results. Focused changes in acts and codes for simplification of judicial processes are essential to enhance judicial efficiency. Judges and staff can play a more active role by adopting practices to improve case procedures. Various challenges associated with technological reforms need to be addressed for their successful implementation. Separate procedures can be outlined for complex cases and judges can prioritize these cases to reduce unnecessary delay. Courts can also recruit judicial staff in line with the requirements followed by their optimal allocations.

Suggested Citation

  • Gupta, Maansi & Bolia, Nomesh B., 2024. "Factors affecting efficient discharge of judicial functions: Insights from Indian courts," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:91:y:2024:i:c:s0038012123002677
    DOI: 10.1016/j.seps.2023.101755
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038012123002677
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.seps.2023.101755?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melcarne Alessandro & Ramello Giovanni B., 2015. "Judicial Independence, Judges’ Incentives and Efficiency," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 149-169, July.
    2. Chemin, Matthieu, 2009. "Do judiciaries matter for development? Evidence from India," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 230-250, June.
    3. Bernd Hayo & Stefan Voigt, 2014. "Editor's Choice The Relevance of Judicial Procedure for Economic Growth," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 60(3), pages 490-524.
    4. Grajzl, Peter & Silwal, Shikha, 2020. "Multi-court judging and judicial productivity in a career judiciary: Evidence from Nepal," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    5. Mitsopoulos, Michael & Pelagidis, Theodore, 2007. "Does staffing affect the time to dispose cases in Greek courts?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 219-244.
    6. Massimo Finocchiaro Castro & Calogero Guccio, 2014. "Searching for the source of technical inefficiency in Italian judicial districts: an empirical investigation," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 369-391, December.
    7. Giacalone, Massimiliano & Nissi, Eugenia & Cusatelli, Carlo, 2020. "Dynamic efficiency evaluation of Italian judicial system using DEA based Malmquist productivity indexes," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    8. Michael Mitsopoulos & Theodore Pelagidis, 2010. "Greek appeals courts’ quality analysis and performance," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 17-39, August.
    9. Dimitrova-Grajzl, Valentina & Grajzl, Peter & Slavov, Atanas & Zajc, Katarina, 2016. "Courts in a transition economy: Case disposition and the quantity–quality tradeoff in Bulgaria," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 18-38.
    10. Matthieu Chemin, 2012. "Does Court Speed Shape Economic Activity? Evidence from a Court Reform in India," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 460-485, August.
    11. El Bialy Nora, 2016. "The 2007 Judicial Reform and Court Performance in Egypt," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 95-117, March.
    12. Peter Grajzl & Shikha Silwal, 2020. "The functioning of courts in a developing economy: evidence from Nepal," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 101-129, February.
    13. Gupta, Maansi & Bolia, Nomesh B., 2020. "Efficiency measurement of Indian high courts using DEA: A policy perspective," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1372-1393.
    14. Milad Kolagar & Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini & Ramin Felegari & Parviz Fattahi, 2020. "Policy-making for renewable energy sources in search of sustainable development: a hybrid DEA-FBWM approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-509, December.
    15. Falavigna, Greta & Ippoliti, Roberto & Ramello, Giovanni B., 2018. "DEA-based Malmquist productivity indexes for understanding courts reform," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 31-43.
    16. Beenstock, Michael & Haitovsky, Yoel, 2004. "Does the appointment of judges increase the output of the judiciary?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 351-369, September.
    17. Bielen Samantha & Marneffe Wim & Vereeck Lode, 2015. "An Empirical Analysis of Case Disposition Time in Belgium," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 293-316, July.
    18. Timothy Yu-Cheong Yeung & Michal Ovádek & Nicolas Lampach, 2022. "Time efficiency as a measure of court performance: evidence from the Court of Justice of the European Union," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 209-234, April.
    19. Rathinam Francis Xavier & Raja Angara Viswasundara, 2010. "Law and Availability of Credit: Evidence from India," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 1-26, December.
    20. Christensen, Robert K. & Szmer, John, 2012. "Examining the efficiency of the U.S. courts of appeals: Pathologies and prescriptions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 30-37.
    21. Kahraman, Cengiz & Ertay, Tijen & Buyukozkan, Gulcin, 2006. "A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(2), pages 390-411, June.
    22. Fauvrelle Thiago A. & Tony C Almeida Alessio, 2018. "Determinants of Judicial Efficiency Change: Evidence from Brazil," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-36, March.
    23. Jarosław Bełdowski & Łukasz Dąbroś & Wiktor Wojciechowski, 2020. "Judges and court performance: a case study of district commercial courts in Poland," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 171-201, August.
    24. R. Ippoliti & G. Tria, 2020. "Efficiency of judicial systems: model definition and output estimation," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 385-408, January.
    25. Dimitrova-Grajzl, Valentina & Grajzl, Peter & Sustersic, Janez & Zajc, Katarina, 2012. "Court output, judicial staffing, and the demand for court services: Evidence from Slovenian courts of first instance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 19-29.
    26. Eugenia Nissi & Massimiliano Giacalone & Carlo Cusatelli, 2019. "The Efficiency of the Italian Judicial System: A Two Stage Data Envelopment Analysis Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 395-407, November.
    27. Falavigna, G. & Ippoliti, R., 2021. "Reform policy to increase the judicial efficiency in Italy: The opportunity offered by EU post-Covid funds," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 923-943.
    28. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    29. Fatih Deyneli, 2012. "Analysis of relationship between efficiency of justice services and salaries of judges with two-stage DEA method," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 477-493, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefan Voigt, 2016. "Determinants of judicial efficiency: a survey," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 183-208, October.
    2. Samantha Bielen & Wim Marneffe & Peter Grajzl & Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl, 2018. "The Duration of Judicial Deliberation: Evidence from Belgium," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 174(2), pages 303-333, June.
    3. Grajzl, Peter & Silwal, Shikha, 2020. "Multi-court judging and judicial productivity in a career judiciary: Evidence from Nepal," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    4. Caio Castelliano & Peter Grajzl & Tomas Aquino Guimaraes & Andre Alves, 2021. "Judicial enforcement and caseload: theory and evidence from Brazil," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 137-168, August.
    5. Berlemann, Michael & Christmann, Robin, 2017. "The Role of Precedents on Court Delay - Evidence from a civil law country," MPRA Paper 80057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Falavigna, G. & Ippoliti, R., 2021. "Reform policy to increase the judicial efficiency in Italy: The opportunity offered by EU post-Covid funds," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 923-943.
    7. Peter Grajzl & Shikha Silwal, 2020. "The functioning of courts in a developing economy: evidence from Nepal," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 101-129, February.
    8. Giacalone, Massimiliano & Nissi, Eugenia & Cusatelli, Carlo, 2020. "Dynamic efficiency evaluation of Italian judicial system using DEA based Malmquist productivity indexes," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Przemysław Banasik & Katarzyna Metelska-Szaniawska & Małgorzata Godlewska & Sylwia Morawska, 2022. "Determinants of judges’ career choices and productivity: a Polish case study," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 81-107, February.
    10. Timothy Yu-Cheong Yeung & Michal Ovádek & Nicolas Lampach, 2022. "Time efficiency as a measure of court performance: evidence from the Court of Justice of the European Union," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 209-234, April.
    11. Samantha Bielen & Peter Grajzl & Wim Marneffe, 2017. "Understanding the Time to Court Case Resolution: A Competing Risks Analysis Using Belgian Data," CESifo Working Paper Series 6450, CESifo.
    12. Gupta, Maansi & Bolia, Nomesh B., 2020. "Efficiency measurement of Indian high courts using DEA: A policy perspective," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(6), pages 1372-1393.
    13. Berlemann, Michael & Christmann, Robin, 2020. "Disposition time and the utilization of prior judicial decisions: Evidence from a civil law country," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    14. Fauvrelle Thiago A. & Tony C Almeida Alessio, 2018. "Determinants of Judicial Efficiency Change: Evidence from Brazil," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 1-36, March.
    15. Pontus Mattsson & Jonas Månsson & Christian Andersson & Fredrik Bonander, 2018. "A bootstrapped Malmquist index applied to Swedish district courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 109-139, August.
    16. Romain Espinosa & Claudine Desrieux & Hengrui Wan, 2017. "Fewer courts, less justice? Evidence from the 2008 French reform of labor courts," Post-Print halshs-01634211, HAL.
    17. Bartlomiej Biga & Michal Mozdzen, 2021. "Is it Darker in a Larger Courtroom? On the Relationship Between the Size of Regional Court and Exercising the Right to Public Information in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 1189-1203.
    18. Jonas Månsson & Christian Andersson & Fredrik Bonander, 2022. "What lessons can be learned from cost efficiency? The case of Swedish district courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 431-451, December.
    19. Castelliano, Caio & Grajzl, Peter & Watanabe, Eduardo, 2021. "How has the Covid19 pandemic impacted the courts of law? Evidence from Brazil," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    20. Sila Mishra, 2023. "‘Cyclic syndrome’ of arrears and efficiency of Indian judiciary," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-27, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fuzzy best-worst method; Multi-criteria decision-making; Judicial performance; Courts; Efficiency;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:91:y:2024:i:c:s0038012123002677. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/seps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.