Scribd
Upload
5 views

Term 1 Project Sample

The proposal discusses the need for implementing a case management system in India's judicial system, highlighting the absence of such regulations and the delays in case resolution. It outlines the objectives and challenges of adopting a structured approach to case management, drawing comparisons with successful systems in other countries like the USA and Australia. The proposal emphasizes the importance of categorizing cases based on complexity to improve efficiency and reduce litigation costs.

Uploaded by

Md Mujtaba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views

Term 1 Project Sample

The proposal discusses the need for implementing a case management system in India's judicial system, highlighting the absence of such regulations and the delays in case resolution. It outlines the objectives and challenges of adopting a structured approach to case management, drawing comparisons with successful systems in other countries like the USA and Australia. The proposal emphasizes the importance of categorizing cases based on complexity to improve efficiency and reduce litigation costs.

Uploaded by

Md Mujtaba
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 9

Sample

Proposal

Term-I PROJECT
Area of Interest
Case Management

Project Title for Term-I


Case Management and Court Management

Presented By,
Md Mujtaba
IPL01075

On behalf of,
Dr. Archana Patro ma’am
[email protected]
Introduction and brief background of the topic chosen for the project:

Introduction

In India, there is no such thing as 'Case Management' as a system of regulations. For the first
time, the Supreme Court of India's Committee in SALEM ADVOCATES BAR
ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA has circulated Model Rules in a Consultation Paper
sent to High Courts, Bar Councils, and Bar Associations, as directed by the Supreme Court of
India in SALEM ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION vs. UNION OF INDIA. This paper
has generated some feedback.

The Supreme Court-appointed Committee has attempted to explain the notion of 'Case
Management' in a Consultation Paper. Lord Woolf's Interim Report on 'Access to Justice' was
cited.

Background

In judicial administration, it is axiomatic that "justice delayed is justice denied." Unnecessary


delay raises the expense of litigation and lowers the value of a ruling. Case Flow
Management (CFM) is recognised as an important component of successful court
management and has been implemented in many courts under various rules to prevent delays
and costs. Not unexpectedly, a number of countries' courts and tribunals, like Australia's
Federal Court and Thailand's Administrative Court, have adopted and developed their own
CFM systems.

The usefulness of CFM is well recognised as a court tool for overseeing cases from filing to
resolution in terms of both time and events. The primary goals of implementing CFM are to
limit costs and ensure timely and expeditious case resolution while maintaining the process's
quality and fairness.

The case flow management systems that have been implemented assist courts in efficiently
managing their caseloads through the systematic management of documents, docketing and
event processing, calendaring, the parties' and/or the Court's issuing of notices, statistical and
managerial reporting, and the enforcement of the settlement or court order. 2

Brief Introduction and vital details of the organization/s under study:

In the United States of America sec. 479(c)(1)-(3) of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990
(28.US.SC), which required the implementation of "case management" systems, was enacted
in response to strong and persistent demand for reform of the civil litigation process to
minimise cost and delay.
The Federal Judicial Centre in Washington, D.C., has referred to the Judge's "active
participation" in the United States, where case-management systems have been well:
“to anticipate problems before they arise rather than waiting
passively for matters to be presented by counsel. Because the
attorneys may be immersed in the details of the case, innovation and
creativity in formulating any litigation plan may frequently depend
on the court.”

Prof. Sallman of the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration in Australia (quoted in


Lord Woolf’s interim report, Chapter 5, para 9)
stated as follows:

“The Revolution has involved a dramatic shift from a laissez faire


approach in conducting court-business to an acceptance by courts of
the philosophical principle that it is their responsibility to take
interest in cases from a much earlier stage in the process and manage
them through a series of milestones to check-posts. Most courts
have now acted upon this philosophy and introduced a variety of
schemes, the common denominator of which is substantially
increased court supervision and, in some instances, control … The
essence of it is the adoption by courts of a systematic, managerial
approach to dealing with caseloads.”

The Australian Law Reform Commission in a background paper called “Judicial and Case
Management” (1999) has elaborately considered this subject.

The phrase "judicial management" is described as "all aspects of judicial engagement in the
administration and management of courts and the cases before them." It incorporates judges'
procedural activism inside the pre-trial, trial, and 'case management' procedures. In its wider
definition, it also encompasses things of court governance and administration.
Case management is defined as a process along with the control of case flow through a court
or tribunal (case flow management) or the control of a court's or tribunal's implementation
and control.

Statement of the problem:

There is normally no distinction made in our Courts between simple


cases, and medium or more complex cases. All of them are put in one
basket and taken up according to their year and number. In this process, simpler cases which
would not have taken much time get mixed up with every other type of case and linger on in
the Courts for number of years. There is no reason why simpler cases should not be put on
fast track as in other countries. Those cases which are not that simple can be put in a middle
track and more complex cases can be put in the normal track.
In the last two decades, fortunately we have followed the procedure
of clubbing cases which raise same issues. This has resulted in grouping cases which are
similar or connected and helped in their disposal in a block. This process must be continued
with vigour. It would help if, when cases are filed in the Court, they are assigned a particular
number or identity according to the subject and statute involved and straightaway grouped by
the computer. In fact, further sub-grouping is also possible. Formats must be devised which
lawyers have to fill up at the time of filing of cases, so that it will be easy for the registry to
group the cases.
Government pleaders’ offices can also be compelled to store information in their registers or
computers, stating under which statute each case falls or as to the point it raises and the
Government lawyers can be frequently asked to come out with the list of cases which belong
to the same category. Cases raising the same point, when they start in any Court, must be first
listed for early hearing and disposed of before the flood actually invades the Court. The
tendency to allow such batch-cases to accumulate into hundreds should be deprecated.

Objectives

(a) The proposals will undermine the adversarial nature of the civil justice system;
(b) Judges are ill-equipped to handle;
(c) Reading the case papers, conducting conferences, and conducting pre-trial reviews will
add significantly to the workload of already overburdened Masters and District Judges;
(d) It will also mean an increase in the number of interlocutory hearings;
(e) More staff and resources will be required.

Reply:

(a) the adversarial role will continue but will function in an


environment which will focus on the key issues rather than
allowing every issue to be pursued regardless of expense and
time, as at present;
(b) there functions will not be performed by all Judges but only by
procedural Judges (i.e. Masters and District Judge), although in
6 complex cases, Civil Judges and High Court Judges will perform the tasks;
(c) Some steps indicated by the procedural Judges may be altered by
trial Judges;
(d) All cases need not go through the system but cases will be
selected for the purpose;
(e) There is need for training both Judges and staff;
(f) The proposals do add additional burden but the idea is to
persuade parties to take to ADR systems in most cases, leaving
complex cases alone for the courts;
(g) In several cases, the issues can be identified at an early stage and
at the pre-trial review, and courts will try to minimize the time
and expense;
(h) Case management hearings will then replace rather than add to
the present system of interlocutory hearings;
(i) As agreed by the Bar Council and Law Society, additional staff
and funds will be necessary;
(j) Counsel shall have to file statements as to submissions;
(k) Existing available resources have to be prioritized;
(l) Law clerks must be employed to help the Judge in these tasks;
(m) Increased use of information technology will help to release some
staff for the other additional work.
Simple cases should be allocated to ‘fast track’ and complex cases to
‘multi-track’. However, some cases have to be excluded from ‘fast-track’.

Lord Woolf in his final Report recommended exclusion of the following cases from the ‘fast-
track’, namely, suits:
(a) which raise issues of public importance;
(b) which are test cases; or
(c) where oral evidence of experts is necessary; or
(d) which require lengthy oral arguments or significant oral evidence
which cannot be accommodated within the fast track hearing
time; or
(e) which involve substantial documentary evidence.

Citation:

1.
A Comparison of the Case Flow Management

and Case Tracking Systems of

the Central Administrative Court of Thailand


with those of the Federal Court of Australia,
with Reference to Practice in the USA

Natacha Vsindilok, BA, MA

2.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Lord Woolf's Access to Justice: Plus ça Change...
A. A. S. Zuckerman

The Modern Law Review


Vol. 59, No. 6 (Nov., 1996), pp. 773-796 (24 pages)
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Modern Law Review

3.
Practical Guide to Court and Case Flow Management.

4.
Case Management in the Crown Court (Criminal Law Library)
5.
Administrative Office of the Courts The Statewide Case Management

6.
Case Management Procedures
in the Federal Courts of Appeals

Second Edition

Laural Hooper, Dean Miletich, and Angelia Levy

7.
Seminar:

"Case Management & Court Management" | Justice Roshan Dalvi

https://youtu.be/B2IPEM9Hyr8

You might also like