Time frames for judicial proceedings

What are the time frames for judicial proceedings?

Judicial time frames can be understood as managerial tools that are set to prescribe the period Fwithin which a number of cases have to be resolved on the basis of the time periods for which such cases have been pending. In India, this practice has not been adopted according to international definitions, but through case flow management and statutory timelines.

Case flow management rules are practices and rules that “ensure[s] that a judge or an officer of the court creates, adheres and implements the time frame for the lifecycle of a case. This means that the court and not lawyers or parties to the case control the progression of the case’s lifecycle”. By classifying cases into different ‘tracks’ cases on the basis of the subject matter of the dispute, case flow management rules ensure that each case is handled according to its particular requirements.

On the other hand, statutory timelines prescribe procedural time limits for cases falling under the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court has also prescribed timelines, for instance, in 2022, it held that execution petitions must be disposed of within 6 months from the date of filing. For criminal matters, certain special criminal laws have prescribed time limits. For instance, The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) requires that trial for offences under the Act be completed ‘as far as possible’ within a year of taking cognisance of the offence.

With regard to time frames, the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association v.Union of India directed High courts to implement the model draft rules suggested by Justice M Jagannadha Rao committee at both High Court and subordinate court levels.  

Statutory Timelines

Statutory timelines under the Civil Procedure Code

Timeframes for judicial proceedings under the CPC have been specified but the provisions have been interpreted several times by the Supreme Court as directory and not mandatory.

Section 148 of the CPC provides for enlargement of time and states that “Where any period is fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by this Code, the Court may, in its discretion, from time to time, enlarge such period, not exceeding thirty days in total, even though the period originally fixed or granted may have expired.”

Order VIII Rule 1 provides the defendant with 30 days from the date of service of summons to present their written statement, and the proviso specifies that when the defendant is unable to do so within 30 days, the Court may allow the defendant to submit it on a later date but such date shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons. This is also provided under Order V Rule 1.

The Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v Union of India, (2005) and  R.N. Jadi & Brothers v Subhaschandra, (2007) has held that the time limit under Order VIII to file written statements in the Court is merely directive and not mandatory.

Statutory timelines under the Commercial Courts Act

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 amended the CPC and included provisions that would be applicable only to selected commercial disputes. The second proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is applicable only to such select disputes and provides where the defendant does not file the written statement within thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement within one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and after that "the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record".

In SCG Contracts (India) Private Limited v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure Private Limited (2019), the Supreme Court held that this provision is mandatory and the defendant will forfeit the right to file the written statement if it is not filed within 120 days.

Order XV-A of the CPC deals with “Case management hearing” which was also inserted by the Commercial Courts Act and prescribes the time limit for the completion of a trial. Trials shall be completed no later than 6 months from the date of the first case management hearing, where the Court passes the order framing issues and fixing the dates for filing of affidavits, examination of witnesses, filing written arguments and the date on which the court will hear oral arguments.

Statutory Timelines Under The Consumer Protection Act

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is required to dispose off complaints as expeditiously as possible and “every endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months if it requires analysis or testing of commodities.”

Statutory timelines under special criminal statutes

Statutory timelines under the POCSO Act

Section 35 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) Act requires special courts formed for the purposes of ensuring speedy trial for offences under the Act to complete the trial, “as far as possible, within one year from the date of taking cognizance of the offence.” Section 35 also requires that evidence of the child shall be recorded within 30 days of special courts taking cognisance of the offence, with the reason for any delay being recorded by the special court.

Statutory Timelines under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act provides that aggrieved persons can approach the Magistrate with their application for reliefs available under the Act. Section 12(5) provides that the magistrate shall “endeavour” to dispose of such an application within 60 days from the date of its first hearing.

Statutory Timelines under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court can try complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act summarily. Section 143(3) further provides that “every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.”

Case flow Management

NCMS Baseline Report

The NCMS Baseline report on ‘Case Management Systems’ of 2019 has outlined tracks for both civil and criminal suits and suggested outer limits for concluding matters.

https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/NCMS/Case%20Management%20System.pdf

Model case flow management rules

The model case flow management rules were presented after the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Salem Bar Association case. Two model rules were prepared, one for trial courts and subordinate appellate courts and another for the High Courts.

For trial and first appellate subordinate courts, the model rules provide suggestions for track-wise classification of civil disputes on the basis of the evidence to be examined, and the time taken for the completion of the suit.

Track 1 may comprise of family matters, divorce, child custody, adoption maintenance etc. Track 2 may consist of money suits, based on negotiable instruments and suits based on which are based primarily on documents. Tracks 3 shall include suits concerning partition and property disputes, trademarks, copyright and other Intellectual property matters. Track 4 shall include rent, lease, eviction matters etc.

All effort shall be taken to complete the suit in Track 1 within 6 months, Track 2 – within 9 months, Track 3- within 1 year, Track 4 – within 1.5 years.

The court and judges nominated for ensuring compliance are required to monitor the stages of each case monthly and ensure that the cases are disposed off in the required period. These actors are allowed to shift a case from one track to another depending on its complexity and circumstances. It also specifies fixing time limits for issuing notices, service of summons, procedure for grant of interim orders, adjournments and referral to alternate dispute resolution mechanisms. Similarly, procedures for appeals have also been specified.

For criminal trials, offences must be classified on the basis of offence, sentence and whether the accused is on bail or in the jail.

Capital punishment cases should be kept in Track I. Other cases where the accused is not granted bail and is in jail, should be kept in Track II. Cases which affect a large number of persons such as cases of mass cheating, economic offences, illicit liquor tragedy, food adulteration cases, offences of sensitive nature including rape, should be kept in Track III. Offences which are tried by special courts such as POTA, TADA, NDPS, Prevention of Corruption Act, etc. should be kept in Track IV. Track V – all other offences.

The endeavour should be to complete Track I cases within six months, Track II cases within nine months, Track III within a year, Track IV within fifteen months.

Case flow management rules have been created for subordinate courts in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Bihar etc. Case flow management rules have been made for High Courts such as Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Tripura, Patna etc.

International Experiences

United Kingdom

In the UK, case management in civil courts was introduced via the 1998 Civil Procedure Rules. The provisions were drawn from the Woolf Reforms, where it was identified that there was a need to shift the responsibility for managing civil litigations to the courts themselves from litigants' hands. A new system was introduced which provided for three tracks; a small claims track, a fast track and a multi-track on the basis of the financial value of the claims.

Research on Time Frames for Judicial Proceedings

1. DAKSH Centre for Law and Technology IIT Delhi, "Draft paper on court management and case management- the past, present and the future" (2022).
2. DAKSH, "Case flow management rules in India" (2017).
3. NCMS Baseline Report on Case Management Systems (2019).
4. Council of Europe, "Towards European Timeframes for Judicial Proceedings" (2016).
5. Jagannadha Committee Report, "Consultation Paper on Case Management" (2003).
6. Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, "Differentiated case management for the Indian Judiciary" (2023).
7. Arunav Kaul, "Make haste slowly: Why time limits imposed for judging rape and other cases are seldom observed in practice" (Times of India, 2018).
8. Hasit B Seth, "Adhering to Statutory Timelines: A Step Towards Better Case Management of Civil Trials" (2021 SCC OnLine Blog).
9. Abraham Thomas, "New time lines for speedy trial under Centre’s proposed criminal code" (2023 Hindustan Times).