Bootstrapping India
 Main Page       Feedback? MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com

Why/how citizens of US/West have reduced corruption/delay in courts, while citizens of India have failed to do so?

    Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. Cuases why Indian courts are more corrupt
  3. cause#1 : Lack of The Jury System in India
  4. cause#2 : No judge in India is elected
  5. cause#3 : Appointment procedures for lower/high and supreme court judges in India is narrow based
  6. cause#4 : MPs/MLAs/Ministers in India DO NOT allocate funds to courts
  7. cause#5 : Crime records in India are NOT indexed
  8. Other cuases why courts in India are corrupt/nexuses and inefficient compared to US
  9. Hence,culture is NOT the reason
  10. Summary
  11. How can corruption/nexuses in India's courts reduce?

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to enumerate and discuss ONLY those factors
  1. which increase corruption/nexuses in courts, and are present in India and absent in West.
  2. which decrease corruption/nexuses in courts, and are absent in India and present in West.
The purpose of this article is NOT to enumerate factors that are present/absent in BOTH countries. Hence a large number of factors, such as moral values, greed etc will get dismissed as non-issues. Why? Becuase greed is present in US/West as well as India. And moral values are at same level in India as well as West.


Key reasons why Indian courts are more corrupt than US/Western courts

Following are the key reasons why courts in India are more corrupt than courts in US :
  1. Lack of the Jury System : The citizens of west have enacted The Jury System for their courts, while ALL courts in India follow exclusively the judocratic system. Lack of Jury System in India has increased nexuses/corruption in India's courts.

  2. India's MPs/MLAs/Ministers have literally starved courts of funding. And few intellectuals/economists ever demand that courts' funds should be raised. While citizens of west have ensured that more funds are allocated to court-sector to increase number of courts and improve logistics of courts.

  3. India's MPs/MLAs/Ministers and senior officers have NOT drafted laws which enable junior officers to index and cross-index the crime records. While crime records in US are extensively indexed.

  4. No election of judges : In many States in US, citizens have enacted laws by which they elect the Judges. While NOT even one judge in India is elected; ALL of them are appointed.

  5. The appointment procedures for judges in US are broad based, and this reduces nexuses/corruption, though not as much as procedure of election. While appointment rules in India is very narrow based.

  6. The citizens of US have enacted laws by which they elect the Police Chiefs in most districts. This makes police chiefs less corrupt/nexused, and this has positive effect in criminal courts. Whereas, EACH AND EVERY police chief in India is appointed by CM, and this has made many police chiefs nexused/corrupt. This worsens the performance of courts.

  7. Procedures to recall police chiefs: In many districts in US, citizens have encated procedures to recall (expel) the police chiefs before his term ends. This drastically reduces corruption in police dept, and a positive effect is seen in the court. Not even one district in India, MLAs have created procedure by which citizens can expel a police chief.

  8. The citizens in US are supervise policemen by Jury and Grand Jury Systems. This reduces corruption/nexuses in police and thus improves courts' functioning. No such Jury and Grand Jury exists in India.

  9. The citizens of US have enacted laws by which they elect Govt lawyers in most districts. And if appointed, the appointment procedure is more broad based than in India. Whereas NOT even one district has elected public prosecutor.

  10. In many districts in US, citizens have procedure to recall (expel) the public prosecutor before his term ends. No such procdure exists in any district of India.

The Jury System is THE MOST important reason. Other reasons are also important.


How citizens of US/West reduced corruption in courts ----
Cause No. 1 : Jury System

Let me point out some of the basic procedural and structural differences between The Jury System and the judge system.

Given any region in any nation, there are bound to be disputes between two citizens and a govt body and a private citizen. If the citizenry does NOT take a decision and enforce on both parties, the disputes will multiply and society will implode/weaken. Therefore, forget progress, for basic minimum survival, it is necessary that society takes a decision and enforces on both the parties.

The "body" that takes decision is called as court. One may refer it with 10s of names like tribunal, or arbitration body or panch or whatever, but that makes little difference. The disputes can be of 100s and 1000s of nature. But in most cases, the decision that the citizenry need to take is as follows :
  1. should the accused be imprisoned or acquitted? If imprisoned, for how many months/years?
  2. should the accused be fined or not? If yes, what should be the amount of fine imposed?
  3. many times, the parties are fighting over ownership of a property, in which case, the decision makers need to decide which party should be given how much ownership/stake.
  4. and quite often, the dispute is between govt agency and citizen on deciding the amount of tax due on the citizen.
Now the question is --- which individuals will sit in the court and decide upon the disputes? To deal with the problem of appointing decision makers, following are the two common systems used around the world.

  1. The Jury System
  2. the judge system
In the judge system, the citizens directly or indirectly appoint individuals, titled as "judges" who have a long tenure, sometimes as long as till they reach 60 to 65 years. These fixed permanent individuals take the decisions. Whereas in The Jury System, for each trial, DIFFERENT 5 to 15 (mostly 12) citizens are chosen at random from a the citizens residing in a region (such as district), and these 12 citizens, called as Jurors, take the basic decisions about punishing and acquitting. The judges exist, but their role is to guide the Jurors, but discretionary powers are in the hands of the Jurors.

How does Jury System reduce nexuses in courts?

Since a judge is permanent, and transferred only once in 2-3-4 years, judge-lawyer or even judge-criminals nexuses are routine. Since the judges' term is of several years, judges also often form nexuses with senior officers, Ministers, lobbyists etc. While such nexuses are absent in Jurors. Since the Jurors change with every trial, it is NOT possible for a lawyer or a criminal to establish nexuses with such a large number of Jurors. Likewise, no lobbyist, no Minister and no officer or no criminals can form nexuses with so many Jurors. Hence while BOTH the US as well as Indian courts suffer from judge-lawyer nexus problem, the US/Western courts suffer LESS from this nexus problem, as Jurors are nexusless.

The lack of nexuses in courts makes criminals, govt officers etc more scared of courts, and it forces them to take the courts and thus law seriously. For a detailed discussion, I request the reader to see the article Why we must replace judges by Jurors.


Why are courts in US/West better than courts in India ----
Cause No. 2 : Election of judges makes appointment process less nexused

Not all courts, but quite a few courts in US have Judges DIRECTLY elected by citizens. eg Judges in Texas are elected, including Judges in High Courts. Even the Chief Judge of Ttexas is elected. Such elections reduce nexuses. How?

Lets consider the procedure of appointment with the Procedure of Election. In the procedure of appointment, a handful of individuals take the decisions. It is more often the case, that these individuals appoint ONLY those individuals with whom they have nexuses, or they appoint the relatives/freinds of those with whom they have nexuses. What is worse is that those individuals who want to get appointments start trying to form nexuses with the individuals, who are in-charge of appointments. As a result, the whole atmosphere becomes polluted with psycophancy and nexuses.

Whereas Procedure of Election is relatively free from nexuses. Say a District of 10 lakh voters has 40 judges, and the voters elect 10 judges every year, each judge has a term for 4 years, each voter can cast 4-8 votes and 4 candidates who have highest number of votes win. Clearly, no person on this earth can form nexuses with 10 lakh voters, or even 1% of them. So whatever reasons voters vote or do NOT vote for a candidate, the nexuses will NOT be a reason. Hence the Procedure of Election is nexusless as far as voters go. The Procedure of Election is NOT completely nexusless. Since number of voters are large, reaching them is expensive and media-intesive. So one needs support of financial sponsors as well as media. As a result, the candidates do indeed try to create nexuses with media barrons and wealthy sponsors. But this drawback can be reduced by adding codes which election less expensive and by reducing oligopoly in media (please click here for details). Even with these disadvantages, the Procedure of Election is LESS NEXUSED than procedure of appointment.

Now all the candidates who seek to get elected, will instead of cultivating nexuses with those who can appoint, will try to create an image that is accepatble to commons, instead of cultivating nexuses with those in-charge of appointment. Since the judges are elected in parts of US, these judges are LESS dependent on seniors of their fate. Hence they are more autonomous. Those who want to get elected as judges (i.e. potential candidates) are also more autonomous. This reduces psycophancy.

So Procedure of Election of Judges is additional reason why nexuses in US courts are weaker than those in India courts.


Why are courts in US/West better than courts in India ----
Cause No. 3 : Appointment procedures of the judges are more broad based

In US, a large number of judges are appointed. But the appointment procedure is far far more broad based than in India. I would compare these procedures.

First of all, the procedure used in India to recruit the juniormost judges (aka Magistrates), is FAIRER and less nexusprone than in US. In most states in India, the Magistrates are recruited by written exams, and NOT by discretion of individuals' opinion. Whereas in US, even the juniormost Federal judges are NOT recruited by such written exams, and few states hold such exams eighter. Almost all judges are appointed by discretion of some senior individuals in legislatures/executive.

But lets see the way senior judges are appointed in US and India. In US, the President proposes the name of the individual, whom he wishes to be a Federal judge, and 100 Senators will vote YES/NO to approve or reject the proposal. The voting is held after long question-answer sessions held in public. Hence, the candidate will need to form nexuses with 50 or more senators. This is way too much difficult. Similarly, in most states, the judges' names are proposed by the Governor of the State and approved or rejected by the State's legislators, who may be 50-400 in number. The procedure is far more nexusprone than procedure of Election, where lakhs of voters decide the fate rather than mere 100 or so individuals.

But how are senior judges appointed in India? Consider judges in session courts. The High Court judges form a team of 3-5 High Court judges, who invite the individuals they like, interview them as they wish and no question-answer session is held in public. In fact, the public is NOT even allowed to know the names of individuals who are being considered for the positions. In the end, the High Court judges hold closed door meetings to decide the names, and the chosen ones are appointed as the session judges. Likewise, judges in India's High Court are appointed by Supreme Court judges using closed door meetings and closed door interviews. All in all, in India, a small number of senior judges appoint anyone they please as junior judges.

In short, the appointment procedure for judges in India is far more nexusprone, and is one reason why courts are more nexused.


Why are courts in US/West better than courts in India ----
Cause No. 4 : Courts in US are better funded

India's MPs/MLAs and Ministers allocate peanuts to court sector, while US's MPs/MLAs allocate far more money for the courts. Why?

To understand why India's MLAs allocate peanuts to courts, we need to see the process using which expenditure budget is prepared.

What is an expenditure budget? It consists of a long list of EVERY department in the govt, along with a sublist of every section in every dept, and funds that that dept/section will get. eg expenduture budget of Central Govt of India in year 2000 had a list of some 100-110 departments, and there were 50-80 sections on an average per department. And each section's estimated expenses was listed. Now lets see how an expenditure budget is made by Finance Minister, his officers and other Ministers/officers. The budget of the previous year serves as the template to start with. To that, the officers would add raises in basic items like salaries, rents, electricity, petrol etc etc. This becomes the new template. Now if any company or individual wants to increase the funds allocated to a section/dept, he needs to "lobby" before the Ministries/officers. The lobbying is nothing but mixture of bribes, media support and political support. Sometimes lobbying also includes threats of blackmail.

How consider a trend seen in India's MPs/officers these days. The MLAs/MPs, Ministers and officers of India are are always eager to increase the funds allocated for highways, ports, skyways, fly-overs, schools, collages etc. But NO MLA/MP in India is interested in increasing courts' budget. Why? Becuase when funds are allocated to highways etc., some the money comes to MPs/MLAs, Ministers and officers from contractors in form of kickbacks. While no matter how much more money goes to courts, the MLAs/MPs etc will NOT get a penny. So no MLA/MP, Minister and officer makes any effort to increase courts' budgets.

The Finance Minister and his officers are constantly hit by the 10s and 100s of requests of MLAs and various lobbyists to raise the funds for the activities from which they benefit. Quite often, the MLAs and lobbyists also issue threats of blackmail. So the tendency of Finance Minister is to take away funds from depts which are LEAST lobbies and shift those funds to depts which are most lobbied for. This further worsens courts' funding. Since NO MLA ever lobbies for courts' budgets, the Finance Minister try their best to cut courts funds, so that it can be allocated to depts which for which there is heavy lobbying.

The lack of budget has resulted into fewer number of courts than needed. An average court in India is loaded with a back log of 2000 to 5000 cases. As a result, judges have no option but to give long dates of 1 to 3 months. This gives ample room for the criminals to harass the complainer and witnesses. In addition, it also gives govt lawyers and judges to cause as much additional delay as they want, as they can always cite case load as an excuse. In short, lack of logistic has reduces efficiency as well as integrity of the Indian courts.

In US, the MLAs/MPs do get ample oppurtunity to lobby for vaious companies, but the oppurtunities are NOT as wide spread as India. So a typical MLA/MP in US does get some time for public causes. As a result, he manages to find some time to lobby for increasing fund the courts. So courts in US are in far better shape.


Why are courts in US/West better than courts in India ----
Cuase No. 5 : Crime and other data in US is indexed

In India, when a person is arrested with some suspicions, it is next to impossible for policemen to dig out the past closed and open cases, warrants etc against him. Whereas this is TRIVIALLY easy in US and most Western countries. And it is LESS related with computerization. Digging the criminal record was easy in US even in late 1960s and 70s when there were no computers. Why is digging criminal records easier in US/West? Becuase the data of accused is indexed with their social security number, or some such index, and ALL complaints, chargesheets, open warrants etc. are periodically reported and stored by the police dept's officers in State and National capital. So when any person is suspected or arrested or accused, his entire crime history becomes available to police, prosecution and courts from the central office in the State/National capital. This increases the speed of courts, and also the intigrity.

Now why are crime related records like suspicions, allegations, complaints, chargesheets, summons, warrants, verdicts, convictions, bail jumping etc NOT indexed in India? Becuase there is NO index !!! Better put, India's Ministers, senior officers and intellectuals are so defunct, that 50-60 years have passed since they came into power, and yet NO Central/State Govt has created an index that can serve as a universal index for keeping and retrieving crime data. Solution? IMO, citizens should pass an Act in Parliament to create an ID system, that also has bio-metric details. Please click here for details.


Other factors which US courts less corrupt

The Grand Jury System : In US and most Western countries, the prosecution is partially under control of Grand Jurors. The Grand Jurors are semi-randomly chosen from the population, and are NOT from govt cadres, but they are private citizens. Also, the term is small and repetitions are NOT allowed. So Grand Jurors are less nexused than lawyers or other govt officials. The Grand Jury reduces nexuses and corruption in prosecution, and this improves the integrity of the court. I will discuss this in detail why discussing "Why prosecution in India is more corrupt than that in US/West".

Public prosecutors are elected : In most districts in US, the chief govt lawyer is directly elected by the citizens and even when appointed, the appointment process is far more broad based than in India. As a result, the prosecution in US is less corrupt, and this improves integrity of courts. I will discuss this in detail why discussing "Why prosecution in India is more corrupt than that in US/West".

Public prosecutors are reccallable : In most districts in US, it is easier for citizens to recall i.e. expel the public prosecutor. This improves intigrity of prosecution. I will discuss this in detail why discussing "Why prosecution in India is more corrupt than that in US/West".

Control of Jurors and Grand Jurors over policemen : In US/west, the Jurors have power to expel a policeman, and even imprison him if he resorts to corruption or atrocity. And these 12-15 Jurors are drawn from a population of lakhs, and so policemen have no nexuses with them. In India, ONLY the senior policemen, Ministers and judges have powers to expel the policemen. These individuals add up to just a few hundred, and already have pre-built nexuses. As a result policemen are less corrupt in US, and this also has positive impact on intigrity of courts. I will discuss this in detail why discussing "Why policemen in India are more corrupt than those in US/West".

District police chief is elected : In most districts in US, the police chief is directly elected by the citizens and even when he is an appointed person, the appointment process is far more broad based than in India. As a result, the police chiefs in US are less corrupt, and more committed to ensure that junior policemen do NOT resort to bribery and atrocoity, and are more focused on catching criminals. This improves efficiency of policemen and has positive impact on efficiency and intigrity of courts. I will discuss this in detail why discussing "Why policemen in India are less corrupt than those in US/West".

District Police Chiefs are reccallable : In most districts in US, it is easier for citizens to recall i.e. expel the police chiefs. This improves intigrity of senior policemen. I will discuss this in detail while discussing "Why policemen in India are more corrupt than those in US/West".


Hence, culture is NOT the reason

The above explanation shows that courts in India are slower and more corrupt that courts of US/West, NOT becuase of culture. But becase we DO NOT have Jury System, while Westerners do. And they have crime data which is indexed, while we do not. And so forth. ALL reasons, are technical and administrative, there is NO cultural reason, or no reason related with morality etc.

Now why hve we, the acivists anbd citizens of India, failed to solve the problem of delay/corruption in courts? Because of instead of passing laws for Jury System, index creation, etc we have been brainwashed by intellectuals to believe that our culture is the cause i.e. we are doomed and hence no point in changing the laws.

Earlier the activists of India trash the culture theory, faster will we will be able to fix our courts.


Summary

In short following are reasons why courts in US/West are LESS nexused and corrupt than those in India :
  1. The Jury System : since 12 Jurors change with every trial, no lawyer/criminal can form nexuses with so many Jurors and hence courts are nexusfree.
  2. The judges are elected OR the procedure of their appointment is far more broad based. eg. in US, the President/Governor proposes the name, and the candidate becomes judge ONLY after majority of 100-200 senators approve him. This makes appointment procedure less nexusprone and more transparent than that in India.
  3. US reps/Ministers allocate more funds for courts than India's MLAs/MPs/Ministers. In addition
  4. The police and prosecution are less nexused corrupt as
    1. Grand Jurors have control over prosecution, and Grand Jurors change every year
    2. Govt prosecutors are elected, and it is easy for citizens to recall them
    3. District police chiefs are elected and it is easy for citizens to recall them
    There are NO other significant reasons. Last but least, India's history and political are NOT responsible for defunctness, nexuses and corruption in courts -- the fault lies ONLY on the administrative procedures.


How can citizens of India reduce corruption/nexuses in courts?

How can citizens of India make India's courts as low-corrupt and nexusless as courts of US?

Trivial.
  1. Steps 1-3: The citizens should force MLAs, MPs and District Panchayat Members to create procedures that would enable citizens to pass laws in District Panchayats, Assemblies and Parliament. Please read LM.01 to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in District Panchayats and City Councils. Please read LM.02 to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in Assembly. And please read LM.03 to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in Parliament.

  2. Step 4 : The citizens of India, using LM.02 can enact the law for "Jury System in Quasi Courts" (see CT.04 for detail). This will improve quasi courts.

  3. Step 5 : The citizens of India, using LM.01, LM.02 and LM.03 can enact the law for "Jury System in Lower Courts" (see CT.05 for detail). This will improve lower courts.

  4. Steps 6 : The citizens of India, using LM.03 and LM.02 can enact the law for "Jury System in High Courts" (see CT.06 for detail). This will improve high courts.

  5. Steps 7 : The citizens of India, using LM.03 can enact the law for "Jury System in High Courts" (see CT.07 for detail). This will improve Supreme Court of India.

  6. Steps 8 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 can enact the law for "Election/expulsion rules for Lower Court Judges" (see CT.08 for detail). This will improve lower courts of India.

  7. Steps 9 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 can enact the law for "Election/expulsion rules for High Court Judges" (see CT.09 for detail). This will improve High Court of India.

  8. Steps 10 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 can enact the law for "Election/expulsion rules for Supreme Court Judges" (see CT.10 for detail). This will improve High Court of India.

These TRIVIAL steps will bring India's courts far better than courts of US/West.


If you have any other question, please mail it to MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com. Thousand thanks in advance.