Report No. 14
24. Position in States.-
We thus reach the clear conclusion that the revenue derived from the civil side of the administration not only meets the charges attributable to it but leaves a substantial surplus. A similar analysis of the budget statements of the other States has yielded a like result. We set out below a statement showing on this basis the final figures of receipts, charges and the surplus in the case of all the States:
Comparative Table Showing The Revenue and Receipts From and Expenditure on The Administration of Justice In The Various States During The Financial Years 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55
Name of the State |
Financial Year |
Receipts in rupees |
Charges in rupees |
Surplus (+) or Deficit.-) |
Remarks |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Andhra |
1953-54(A) |
40,91,782 |
25,43,471 |
(+)15,48,311 |
(A) For six Months only. |
1954-55 |
86,97,434 |
65,23,325 |
(+)21,74,109 |
(B) For the six months. |
|
Assam |
1952-53 |
20,50,260 |
14,37,572 |
(+)6,12,688 |
Note.- Revenue and receipts from"Law offence", Pleadership and Mukhtiarship Examination fees" have not been included in this Statement; similarly expenditure incurred on "Law Officers" and Charges in England" have not been taken into account. |
1953-54 |
21,94,393 |
15,28,513 |
(+)6,65,880 |
||
1954-55 |
20,86,155 |
15,57,469 |
(+)5,28,686 |
||
Bihar |
1952-53 |
1,19,39,280 |
84,53,908 |
(+)34,85,372 |
|
1953-54 |
Not available. |
Not available. |
Not available. |
||
1954-55 |
1,19,14,601 |
86,10,434 |
(+)33,04,167 |
||
Bombay |
1952-53 |
2,22,45,655 |
2,00,37,894 |
(+)22,07,761 |
|
1953-54 |
1,99,45,555 |
1,98,72,274 |
(+)73,281 |
||
1954-55 |
2,15,85,722 |
1,95,81,499 |
(+)20,04,273 |
||
Hyderabad |
1952-53 |
31,24,515 |
51,59,078 |
(-)20,34,563 |
|
1953-54 |
Not available. |
Not available. |
Not available. |
||
1954-55 |
21,28,990 |
54,50,271 |
(-)33,21,281 |
||
Madhya Bharat |
1952-53 |
27,72,000 |
34,74,231 |
(-)4,02,231 |
|
1953-54 |
28,33,000 |
32,57,431 |
(-)4,24,431 |
||
1954-55 |
24,19,000 |
35,99,000 |
(-)11,80,000 |
||
Madhya Pradesh |
1952-53 |
76,78,704 |
45,06,144 |
(+)31,72,560 |
|
1953-54 |
72,61,956 |
46,15,215 |
(+)26,46,741 |
||
1954-55 |
77,38,903 |
49,85,699 |
(+)27,53,204 |
||
Madras |
1952-53 |
2,56,38,497 |
1,78,54,860 |
(+)77,83,637 |
|
1953-54(B) |
1,69,88,689 |
53,28,575 |
(+)6,60,114 |
||
1954-55 |
1,22,12,475 |
1,20,51,874 |
(+)1,54,601 |
||
Mysore |
1952-53 |
23,37,205 |
26,56,047 |
(-) 3,18,542 |
|
1953-542 |
26,69,000 |
27,92,000 |
(-)1,23,000 |
||
1954-55 |
29,75,733 |
28,46,437 |
(+)1,29,296 |
||
Orissa |
1952-53 |
38,52,389 |
21,20,278 |
(+)17,32,111 |
|
1953-54 |
36,31,805 |
21,71,974 |
(+)14,59,831 |
||
1954-55 |
85,18,603 |
43,99,029 |
(+)41,19,574 |
||
Punjab |
1952-53 |
52,19,626 |
38,37,500 |
(+)13,82,126 |
|
1953-54 |
76,56,346 |
40,47,978 |
(+)36,08,368 |
||
1954-55 |
11,71,841 |
15,69,696 |
(-)3,97,855 |
||
Pepsu |
1952-53 |
10,95,980 |
15,38,485 |
(-)4,42,505 |
|
1953-54 |
11,30,458 |
15,63,459 |
(-)4,33,001 |
||
1954-55 |
11,71,841 |
15,69,696 |
(-)3,97,855 |
||
Rajasthan |
1952-53 |
33,05,157 |
30,84,140 |
(+)2,21,017 |
|
1953-54 |
36,19,691 |
31,30,741 |
(+)4,88,950 |
||
1954-55 |
37,85,182 |
33,84,940 |
(+)4,00,242 |
||
Saurashtra |
1952-53 |
11,61,356 |
17,97,537 |
(-)6,36,181 |
|
1953-54 |
13,36,908 |
17,33,241 |
(-)3,96,333 |
||
1954-55 |
Not available. |
Not available. |
Not available. |
||
Travancore-Cochin |
1952-53 |
33,84,874 |
38,19,274 |
(-)4,34,400 |
|
1953-54 |
32,37,921 |
39,73,073 |
(-)7,35,152 |
||
1954-55 |
34,29,441 |
40,50,429 |
(-)6,20,988 |
||
Uttar Pradesh |
1952-53 |
2,14,16,251 |
1,31,54,359 |
(+)82,61,892 |
|
1953-54 |
2,20,16,497 |
1,33,67,262 |
(+)86,49,235 |
||
1954-55 |
2,13,64,796 |
1,36,71,717 |
(+)76,93,077 |
||
West Bengal |
1952-53 |
4,46,11,867 |
98,96,967 |
(+)47,14,900 |
|
1953-54 |
1,49,23,348 |
1,02,30,626 |
(+)46,92,722 |
||
1954-55 |
1,51,62,824 |
1,04,02,458 |
(+)47,60,366 |
25. View of the Taxation Enquiry Commission.-
The Taxation Enquiry Commission basing itself on the fact that the total charges under the head of Administration of Justice exceeded the total receipts from court-fees reached the conclusion that administration of justice as a whole did not pay its way and that a part of its costs had to be borne by the general revenues. According to them "The figures ought to dispel any impression that State Governments make large income out of the administration of justice."1
1. Report Vol. III, p. 108.
26. Mistaken view.-
Having regard to the detailed examination of the figures made by us in regard to one State which in its broad outline is applicable to other States, in our view, the conclusion of the Taxation Enquiry Commission was not justified. As the figures show if one considers the cost of administration of both civil and criminal justice, the actual receipts exceed the expenditure incurred by a substantial amount. This arises, as already pointed out, by the erroneous inclusion in the charges of the remuneration of the law officers of the State, and some other charges, which, in principle for reasons already stated, cannot be regarded as a part of the cost of the administration of justice.
27. Court-fees- a heavy item of expenditure.-
Court-fees paid by the litigant form a high percentage of the taxed costs. A few sample decrees selected at random are set out below:
Value of suit Rs. 230 |
Value of suit Rs. 25,000 |
||||||
Rs. |
As. |
P. |
Rs. |
As. |
P. |
||
Stamp for plaint |
21 |
9 |
0 |
Stamp for plaint |
1488 |
0 |
0 |
Vakalatnama |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0 |
|
Applications |
0 |
10 |
0 |
11 |
4 |
0 |
|
24 |
3 |
0 |
1499 |
14 |
0 |
||
Pleaders fees |
14 |
6 |
0 |
Pleaders fees |
550 |
0 |
0 |
Process |
0 |
15 |
0 |
Miscellaneous |
17 |
13 |
0 |
39 |
8 |
0 |
2067 |
11 |
0 |
||
Value of suit Rs. |
13143 |
9 |
9 |
||||
Rs. np. |
|||||||
Stamps |
917.63 |
||||||
Pleader |
403.5 |
||||||
Miscellaneous |
9.37 |
||||||
1329.5 |
|||||||
It is therefore not correct to say as was said by the Taxation Enquiry Commission that "The abolition of court-fees, even if that was feasible, would not by itself lower the cost of justice as there are other factors like lawyers fees which also determine such costs,1" particularly as the court-fees in all the above cases amount to more than half the taxed costs.
We must however state that in cases where the value for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction is arrived at on the artificial basis sometimes prescribed in the Court-fees Act, the court-fee paid by the litigant is likely to form a smaller proportion of the total taxed costs. But in the generality of cases, it is equally likely to be otherwise. There are other numerous items of expenses like the stamp affixed to exhibits, applications and so forth which the litigant cannot avoid.
Having regard to court-fees alone and ignoring other items of expense, to an honest litigant trying to vindicate a just claim, the Courts of justice would seem to wear a stern and even cruel frown instead of an inviting and friendly look.
1. Report Vol. III, p. 108.
28. Lack of adequate judicial strength or facilities.-
The question of court-fees may be looked at also from another angle. There has been a loud outcry that justice has been unduly delayed in recent years. The situation arising from delays has been described as grave in governmental circles. The inadequacy of judicial personnel has been repeatedly pointed out by the High Courts of several States. It is clear that a large number of courts have more cases on their files than they dispatch. To complaints that the situation has not received the attention it merits from the State Governments, the perennial answer has been that financial stringency ties their hands.
There would appear to be no justification for this answer. Even if part of the surplus of the court-fee revenue had been utilised in making good these deficiencies, the State would have rendered a great service to the cause of justice. The litigant would not grudge paying a heavy court-fee if he is assured that the proceeds are spent on efficient and adequate services rendered to him. He does not pay a heavy court-fee so that State may meet the expenses of hospitals or schools, however worthy these objects. The State seems to have dealt with the litigant in the matter of court-fees in no better manner than does the rapacious landlord with his tenant or the profiteering trader with the consumer.
29. Court-fees and frivolous litigation.-
The argument that it is necessary to impose High Court-fees to prevent frivolous litigation, already referred to, has no substance. Indeed that has not been the reason assigned by the States for increasing the scales of court-fees. These increases have been generally justified, as far as we know, on the.ground of the need of increased revenue by reason of the increased cost of the administration of justice.
30. Principles governing the levy of court-fees.-
In England, the principle governing the levy of court-fees is that the salaries and pensions of Judges are paid by the State out of public funds it being accepted that it is the obligation of the State to provide the machinery for the dispensation of justice in all its courts-civil, criminal and revenue-and that only the other expenses of administration of justice shall be borne by the litigants. In dealing with this matter, the Committee on Court-fees in England presided over by Mr. Justice Macnaghten observed as follows:1
1. Quoted in the Second Interim Report of the Committee on Supreme Court Practice and Procedure, p. 43.
Views in England-Macnaghten Committee.- "The Supreme Court is not merely engaged in the work of dispensing justice to the private suitors who resort there; it administers public justice not only in criminal cases but also in civil matters, such as proceedings on the Crown side of the King's Bench. For the cost of administration of justice, where the public itself is directly concerned, the State ought, it is suggested, to provide the necessary funds, since there can be no reason why the private suitors should do so. Though it would no doubt be difficult to calculate exactly how much of the expenditure of the Supreme Court is attributable to the administration of public, as distinguished from private Justice, the salaries and pensions paid to the judges may perhaps be taken to represent fairly that figure."
Back
