Previous Table of Content Next
3

Effective Hearings in PILs: A Transaction Costs-based Approach

Sridhar Pabbisetty

Ritwika Sharma

Introduction

In the book The Remembered Village by anthropologist-turned-novelist M.N. Srinivas, published by University of California Press in 1980, the author elaborates on the oft-used Kannada adage about the judiciary—‘the victor in a law suit suffered defeat while the defeated suffered death (geddavanu sota, sotavanu satta)’.1 When this statement is analysed in the context of the Indian judiciary, it evokes the sentiment that the time taken for cases to be resolved in the judiciary means that for the winner of a case, victory is often Pyrrhic, while for the loser, it is worse.

In contemporary times, it is important that we begin to evaluate the state of our judiciary from certain interdisciplinary perspectives, such as those pertaining to data management and information technology. To analyse the socio-economic impact of judicial delay, we need to rethink how we measure the efficiency and effectiveness of our judicial processes. A lot has been said and written about the challenges around judicial processes from the perspectives of judges. To develop a more nuanced understanding of the effects of delay, we need to also keep in mind the affected parties. When we flip the discussion from the perspective of judges and judicial administration and keep the affected parties at the centre of our analysis, our treatment of the cost of litigation and loss of time can be seen from a new viewpoint. In this chapter, we use the age-old management tool of transaction costs to take a fresh look at a few cases in the Karnataka High Court.

For the purpose of this chapter, we begin with a simple transaction costs-based study of the judicial process as it unfolds in the adjudication of public interest litigation cases (PILs). One of the authors of this chapter, Sridhar Pabbisetty, has been a litigant in several of these PILs in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Namma Bengaluru Foundation. Analysis of transaction costs is limited to the information and data available on the website of the Karnataka High Court. While the study in this chapter is modelled on a small sample of eight PILs, taking this approach forward, it can be extended to all kinds of cases. Our understanding of transaction costs, for this chapter, is informed by three variables—(a) preparation time of both litigants and counsels, (b) attendance time of both litigants and counsels, and (c) the time spent on on-boarding of benches hearing a case. We begin by looking at the number of litigants at the time of filing the petition and attribute a nominal amount of time spent by them on the case, based on the information available on the Karnataka High Court website. As mentioned, this includes both the case preparation time and case attendance time based on our observations. Needless to say, the accuracy of each of these variables can be further improved if and when more granular data becomes available on websites of courts or through private entities.

In this chapter, we argue that transaction costs can be used to measure and analyse judicial delay. The time and effort spent towards the three variables mentioned previously, which we consider to calculate transaction costs, can have important implications on studying the time taken for disposal of cases. Considering PILs are crucial for bringing to light issues of governance, it is important to analyse the time spent in specific stages and acts which occur as these cases progress. However, this analysis will remain incomplete (and unsatisfactory) unless our case management systems are re-engineered and data on certain specific parameters of judicial hearings are collected and presented. To that end, this chapter gives certain indicative parameters around which data management systems should work for better study and analysis of judicial delays.

Our Data Set—Sample Study of Cases

Transactions generally occur when goods or services are transferred from a provider to a user. In economics, transaction costs are understood as depending on how the transaction is organised.2 Within an organisation, costs forming part of a transaction can include aspects of managing and monitoring personnel as well as procuring inputs. Where external providers are involved, transaction costs include source selection, contract management, and performance monitoring. In this chapter, we make an attempt to use this concept, which is generally used in management studies, for studying judicial delays and efficiency.

Transaction costs may be affected by a number of factors. However, we have only considered the factors mentioned in this part of the chapter. Our selection of these factors is informed by the availability of relevant data on the website of the Karnataka High Court. In addition to that, some assumptions have been made where accurate data is not available. These will be explained under the relevant factors which have been considered to measure transaction costs.

Our sample comprises eight PILs belonging to diverse subject areas which have the potential of wide-ranging impact on the public. This sample of cases pertains to matters of improving governance in Bengaluru, India.

We have considered the following factors in arriving at the transaction costs for each case.

Time Available for Each Hearing

We calculated the time available for each hearing by considering the number of cases listed in Court Hall 1 of the Karnataka High Court on 1 April 2019.

figure 4.3.1.Cases Listed for Hearing in Court Hall 1 of the High Court of Karnataka on 1 April 2019

As seen in Table 4.3.1, 85 cases were listed on 1 April 2019 to be heard in approximately five hours of court time (the Karnataka High Court starts its day at 10:30 am and benches rise at 4:30 pm, with an hour for lunch at 1:30 pm). This can be quite arduous when litigants, their lawyers, and the judges have to make meaningful progress from the last hearing to the present one. Even when we did not account for the time taken by lawyers and clients of one case to make way for the next one, we end up with a mere 3.53 minutes per case.3

Bench On-boarding

In the Indian judicial process, an ongoing case might also have to bear the effects of changes in bench composition. This could be necessitated either by change of the roster according to the schedule of the High Court, or due to factors like retirement, elevation, or transfer of the member judge. Across the eight PILs that formed part of our sample (out of which some are disposed while others are currently pending before the High Court), we found that each case was presided over by a Division Bench at all times, and the benches changed from a minimum of three times to a maximum (as on 10 June 2019) of 13 times.

Every time the composition of a bench changes, the incoming judges have to be apprised of the case right from its origin to key developments that have occurred over time. The transaction cost in this case is the amount of time taken to make judges familiar with all developments in the case.

Case Preparation Time (CPT)

In the context of PILs, the initial case preparation time includes time spent on preparing background information in the case, legal research, and following up with relevant authorities (who might be parties to the case) in an attempt to resolve the dispute out of court, if possible. When out-of-court discussion does not meet its desired end, a litigant is forced to approach the court of law. After making a decision to file a case, the litigant also has to work with the counsel to ensure that the facts of the case are presented as per the counsel’s legal strategy and research.

Keeping aside this initial time for each hearing, the case preparation time has two components— Preparation Time of Litigant4 (PTL) and Preparation Time of Legal Counsel (PTC). In explaining and calculating these, we have made certain assumptions5 as to the time spent by litigants and legal counsel for preparation of the case. The figures we use here are being considered as a model and more accurate numbers can be used if and when official data is made available as to the time spent in preparation of a case.

  1. Preparation Time for Litigant (PTL): On an average, every litigant spends about a week going through the orders from previous hearings, organising any response to be provided, gathering evidence to counter arguments of the opposing counsel, briefing their counsel, and resolving any feedback from the counsel prior to the next hearing.
  2. Preparation Time for Legal Counsel (PTC): The legal counsel, on the other hand, should process the information given by a client who may or may not be aware of how the court system works. Hence, he/she will have to process the information from the client into a format acceptable to the court, get essential signatures from the client, assist in notarising any relevant submissions, organise their arguments, and research relevant case law.

Case Attendance Time (CAT)

The Case Attendance Time (CAT) for each hearing has two components—Attendance Time for Litigant (ATL) and Attendance Time for Legal Counsel (ATC). Since only the date of hearing is confirmed for any case but not the time of hearing, this is a hugely suboptimal process. As with preparation time, we have made assumptions with regard to attendance times as well.

  1. Attendance Time for Litigant (ATL): Each litigant will have to travel to the court complex and wait for the case to be called. Often, each litigant ends up spending anywhere between half a day to an entire day on each date of hearing. Since the time of hearing is at best a guess, he/she will end up arriving either too early or too late for the hearing. Litigants tend to err on the side of caution so as not to miss the hearing and arrive at least an hour earlier than the anticipated hearing time. Though the actual time of hearing may be anywhere from 0 to 3.53 minutes (on an average) to 60 minutes or more, the waiting time itself is longer than the productive time spent in court.
  2. Attendance Time for Legal Counsel (ATC): Counsels usually have more than one matter being heard in the court on a particular day. They, however, have a different challenge in case they have more than one matter being heard on the same day. One can often see lawyers rushing from one court hall to another. In any case, a counsel will end up allocating an hour (at the least) to one particular case to ensure effective appearance.

Modelling Assumptions

Since many of the above defined times are not captured (on either the Karnataka High Court website or any other information portal nor are they otherwise available for research and analysis), for the sake of modelling, we have considered the following starting values:

figure 4.3.2.Starting Values for Determining Essential Transaction Costs (on per Hearing Basis)

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, these numbers have been arrived at based on prior experiences of one of the authors (Sridhar Pabbisetty) in past cases where he has been involved as a litigant.7 Once we can capture real data for each of the above described data elements, the model can use the real data. As will be evident from later sections of this chapter, these values have been used to determine the time spent (in days) for each of the following—preparation time (of litigants and counsels), attendance time (of litigants and counsels), and bench on-boarding. For instance, for calculating preparation time of litigant, the starting number of eight days (based on our assumption) is multiplied by the number of litigants involved in the case (this information is available on the High Court website). While this may not present the most accurate calculation (or depiction) of the preparation time of litigants, we have assumed that this is the closest possible (or the least incorrect) figure that can be arrived at based on available information.

Time Taken for Disposal of Cases

An important metric for us to keep in mind as we begin looking at cases is the duration that each case takes from its inception to culmination. In our sample of eight PILs, we find the range to be from 359 days to 2,442 days. This is a very important metric to keep in mind, particularly because these are matters of immense importance to the citizenry at large; while on the one hand, speedy disposal is always preferable, on the other hand, these cases require judges as well as counsel to spend an appropriate amount of time in meaningful discussion of issues and adjudication of disputes.

Maximum Delay Between Hearings

As we began examining the selected cases, an important aspect that came up for consideration was the gap between case hearings. This metric shows a very random nature of occurrence. For the purpose of this chapter, we have highlighted the maximum delay between hearings in each of the cases. Any hearings delayed by more than 30 days need to be urgently prioritised and should be calendared automatically.

Study of Specific PILs

As mentioned, each of these PILs concern issues of far-reaching importance for governance in Bengaluru. This section will describe each of these PILs in some detail and consider the transaction costs involved in them.

Climate Change and Environment Protection (PIL No. 1)

While it would be reasonable to assume that containing the effects of climate change necessitates suitable policy measures from the government’s side, courts across India have been frequently invoked by publicspirited persons to intervene in causes of environment protection. Dattatraya T. Devare v. State of Karnataka8 is one such instance where the petitioner, who belongs to the Domlur and Bangalore Environment Trust, argued that the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) did not conduct a consultation process before felling trees for the purpose of preparing the required metro rail routes.9 The case was filed on 23 April 2018, and as per the order dated 23 April 2019, the High Court directed the State of Karnataka to constitute a committee consisting of experts from the field of environment, science, and technology (as well as connected fields) to examine whether trees proposed to be felled could be saved by adopting any method. The High Court categorically stated that trees must be felled only when, after exhausting all other methods, it is found impossible to save any tree.

This case went through a change in bench four times, and the number of days spent in onboarding the new bench was estimated to be 12 days (according to our model). The longest gap between two hearings was 68 days, between 28 November 2018 and 6 February 2019, which can be attributed to the fact that the bench was changed between these two hearings and a new Division Bench was constituted to hear this case. As on 10 June 2019, this case was pending before the High Court.

The case involves questions of environmental law and climate change. This requires some technical knowledge of the subject area (environmental studies) as well as the relevant law for taking approvals for felling of trees. All of this adds to the preparation time of the counsel as well as the parties. The figures concerning the variables which determine transaction costs as per our model are given in Table 4.3.3.

figure 4.3.3.Transaction Costs for Dattatraya T. Devare v. State of Karnataka

Addressing Bengaluru’s Garbage Management Woes (PIL No. 2)

Another PIL which closely concerns issues of governance in Bengaluru is the one on garbage management. Even to a casual visitor, Bengaluru’s garbage management woes are hard to miss. Increase in urban population, which was not accompanied with simultaneous urban planning, has led to large swathes of waste dotting several parts of Bengaluru.10 In Kavita Shankar v. State of Karnataka,11 the petitioner urged that the right to life, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, includes the right to life of the future generation also, which makes it incumbent on the state to protect the natural environment.12 It was in the second recorded hearing of this case where the High Court passed the following directions to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for segregation of waste at source:

This order was made by the High Court on 10 September 2012. In its subsequent order, the High Court noted how despite the proceedings before it, the Government (of Karnataka) had not looked into the problem of shortage of dumping sites for waste generated in the metropolis. The litigation is currently pending before the High Court as of 10 June 2019, and several directions have been made to agencies of the state government.

It must be mentioned that in PILs, one of the respondents is generally one or more concerned government department. In several cases, before parties approach the court, they make an attempt to have a grievance redressed by approaching the department first. It is reasonable to assume that only when departments fail to discharge their duties do litigants approach the judiciary. Following up with such relevant authorities urging them to discharge their duties also adds to the time spent in preparation by both the litigants as well as the counsels. Further, this is the kind of case in which preparation and research is on the part of the litigants primarily because it involves certain specialised areas of legal research—environmental law and garbage management.

The presiding bench in this matter was changed after the first hearing itself, and six times thereafter. The longest gap between two hearings was 289 days—between 23 June 2016 and 12 April 2017. The figures concerning the variables which determine transaction costs as per our model are given in Table 4.3.4.

figure 4.3.4.Transaction Costs for Kavita Shankar v. State of Karnataka

As mentioned, both the above PILs (on felling of trees and garbage management) require specific knowledge of environmental law and climate change—both on the part of the counsels as well as the bench. While we have estimated the time spent by counsels for preparation of the case, it is still difficult to determine the knowledge on the part of the judges. In the absence of specialised knowledge of climate change or environmental studies, the bench may require time to familiarise themselves with the technical specifics of the case, adding to the time spent in adjudication.

Land Use Concerns in Bengaluru (PIL No. 3)

The third PIL we analysed concerns the issue of land use in Bengaluru. In March 2008, a PIL was filed by the Citizens’ Action Forum and certain other civil society groups (in Bengaluru) who challenged the Draft Revised Master Plan (RMP) of 2015, which allowed commercial use of residential areas by routing it through a land use category called ‘mixed land use building’.13 A bench comprising of the then Chief Justice D.H. Waghela and Justice B.V. Nagarathna directed the state government to amend the land use change rules of BDA’s revised Master Plan to allow only the ancillary use of residential properties, instead of allowing land use change for commercial use.

The case was disposed on 28 November 2014. The High Court held that a notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 would be issued against the state government if previous orders passed by the High Court were not complied with. While this case should have been effectively disposed with the initial reproach by the High Court of the state government, the court was compelled to pass further directions in 2014 threatening the government with contempt. This talks about another dimension to the issue of transaction costs which was addressed in our discussion of the PIL on garbage management as well, which is non-compliance of executive bodies of the directions passed by the court. Ideally, this matter should have been disposed with the order of the High Court dated 28 November 2014; however, a contempt petition was required to ensure that the government complies with the order of the High Court.

The figures concerning the variables which determine transaction costs in this case are given in Table 4.3.5.

figure 4.3.5.Transaction Costs for Citizens’ Action Forum v. State of Karnataka

Affixing Accountability for the Open Drains of Bengaluru (PIL No. 4)

On 9 October 2014, a PIL was filed by Namma Bengaluru Foundation, an NGO based out of Bengaluru, for initiating criminal proceedings against officials of the BBMP responsible for leaving a drain open in Bilekanahalli. The filing of the PIL was triggered by the death of two children who fell into open drains in Bengaluru. The PIL sought for directions to be issued to the state to conduct an inquiry to identify the administrators and officers who were derelict in the conduct of their statutory duties and criminally negligent for leaving drains open and not maintaining the upkeep of public infrastructure in the city. The petition also sought a direction from the High Court to the BBMP to take immediate steps to close all open drains and manholes in the city while also providing adequate signage to warn people of the hazards.14 The High Court took cognisance of the matter and in an order dated 21 October 2014, ordered the personal presence of the Commissioner of the BBMP in court, with necessary explanation on how the petitions were being dealt with by the BBMP.15

is still pending before the High Court (as of 10 June 2019). Even though the crux of this matter was affixing criminal responsibility on BBMP officials, till June 2017, the High Court was issuing directions to the BBMP to submit further reports as to whether they had taken action against the erring persons and fixed their personal responsibilities.16 After this order was passed, the next hearing in this case was four months later, on 25 October 2018, where the Court held that this as well as all cognate matters be listed in the special sitting of the High Court on Saturdays. The High Court connected this PIL with two other matters which deal with similar issues17— Citizens Action Group v. State of Karnataka18 and the JP Nagar 4th Phase Dollars v. State of Karnataka.19 Hearing of these matters are underway as of 10 June 2019.

While the immediate purpose of this PIL was to have criminal proceedings initiated against the concerned BBMP officials, it turned out to be beneficial for the greater purpose of health and sanitation as well. The imminent issue of ushering in better practices for management of drains was brought to the attention of the judiciary as well as the concerned authorities by the concerted efforts of the citizens. In terms of transaction costs, the ambit of this case expanded from a particular incident of loss of life to a wider issue of management of drains. Details of the case are set out in Table 4.3.6.

figure 4.3.6.Transaction Costs for Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka

Manning of Metropolitan Planning Committees (PIL No. 5)

The next PIL analysed by us pertains to the constitution of Metropolitan Planning Committees (MPCs) in Bengaluru. The Bengaluru Metropolitan Planning Committee was formed in February 2015 after a directive was passed by the Karnataka High Court making the MPCs and ward committees mandatory for governing local bodies.

The challenge to the MPC arose with regard to the inclusion of elected representatives; Section 503B of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 envisaged the presence of members of Parliament and State Legislature as permanent invitees on the MPC.20 The primary challenge in this PIL centred on the issue of decentralisation of functions of different levels of government and how it works with the Constitution (Seventy-third) Amendment Act, 1992 and Constitution (Seventy-fourth) Amendment Act, 1992.

The longest gap between two successive hearings was 437 days, while the number of bench changes stood at 13. The case is pending as of 10 June 2019. The figures concerning the variables which determine transaction costs as per our model are given in Table 4.3.7.

figure 4.3.6.Transaction Costs for Namma Bengaluru Foundation and Citizens’ Action Forum v. State of Karnataka

Saying No to the Steel Flyover (PIL No. 6)

In a bid to resolve Bengaluru’s traffic woes, the Government of Karnataka had set out on the task of building a six-lane elevated road (in the form of a steel flyover) between Basaveshwara Circle and Hebbal. The flyover would have covered a distance of approximately seven kilometres, costing nearly 􀚒 1,800 crores to the Government and 800 trees to the city of Bengaluru.21 The next PIL we analysed was filed by the Namma Bengaluru Foundation to compel the government to scrap this project.

It is interesting to note that in its first order in this case (dated 7 October 2016), the High Court said that public projects of big magnitude should not be stalled by an interim order of the court. Further, the court clarified that the concerned authorities may continue with the implementation of the project but subject to the result of the writ petition. While this matter was pending before the High Court, an application was made against the building of the flyover in the National Green Tribunal, Chennai (Southern bench), in which an injunction was passed restraining the authorities from constructing the steel flyover. Again, while this issue pertained specifically to the steel flyover, it presented the problem of Bengaluru’s traffic in front of the court.

Details pertinent for calculating transaction costs as per our model are set out in Table 4.3.8.

Table 4.3.8.Transaction Costs for Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka

Prosecution of Government Officials (PIL No. 7)

The last two PILs discussed hereafter relate to issues of the prosecution of a BBMP official and land grabbing in Bengaluru respectively. The PIL Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka22 arose out to challenge the decision of the Additional Chief Secretary of the Urban Development Authority (ACS, UDD), Government of Karnataka, rejecting Namma Bengaluru Foundation’s representation in regard to the prosecution of the then BBMP Commissioner who was alleged to have misused his office to grant a trade licence to an eatery.23 This PIL yielded commendable results—the High Court, on 30 May 2019, quashed the clean chit given to the Commissioner by the ACS, UDD in this case. A bench presided by Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice P.S. Dinesh Kumar gave liberty to the petitioners to submit a representation to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms seeking sanction for prosecution.

The figures concerning the variables which determine transaction costs in the PIL relating to order of prosecution against the Commissioner is set out in Table 4.3.9.

Table 4.3.9.Transaction Costs for Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka

Land Grabbing in Bengaluru (PIL No. 8)

The last PIL we analysed was filed in 2013 by the Namma Bengaluru Foundation which brought the attention of the High Court to the rampant issue of land grabbing. This PIL sought the recovery of land encroached upon in Bengaluru as well as the prosecution of government officials and private parties responsible for grabbing public land. The litigation involved the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited with the High Court urging them to come up with an action plan for removal of forest encroachment.24 The High Court, in its subsequent hearings, had to continuously follow up with the Corporation as to the preparation of this action plan.

The figures concerning the variables which determine transaction costs in the PIL regarding the issue of land grabbing are given in Table 4.3.10.

Table 4.3.10.Transaction Costs for Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka

Learning from this Analysis: The Compelling Need for Re-engineering a Case Management System

One feature that stands out about PILs (in general) is that they can be immensely impactful in their contribution to issues of governance. In all the PILs we studied, while the case may be pending or might have been disposed, the High Court passed several orders which had a direct impact on governance in Bengaluru. PILs are imperative to governance, which makes it important to improve transaction costs pertaining to these cases. To that end, in this part, we make suggestions on what data/ information should be recorded about cases being heard in the High Court, for better study of how cases progress. While the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) captures important information at the case and hearing levels, some granular level details will facilitate deeper evidence-based analysis. We recommend recording of such information by the NJDG which will help in case management informed by relevant evidence. We must mention that while in this chapter we have only studied PILs to make suggestions for better mapping of data, improving case management systems will help with analysis of all kinds of cases before our courts.

In PILs which concern crucial issues of governance, impactful developments can take place during varying stages in the life of a case, and no two cases may have witnessed the same kind of progress. Considering the variations that may exist between any two cases, re-engineering the case management system to capture relevant information about the progress of the life cycle of cases becomes important.

A few starting points for re-engineering case management systems can encompass questions of how many cases a bench (or a judge) can effectively hear. This will also have an impact on the quality of adjudication in terms of the time allocated to particular advocates and the nature of exchange between the bench and the counsels. The number of hearings required (under ideal circumstances) to adjudicate a case is also worth contemplating. This is, however, not an easy figure to arrive at considering how concerned parties keep getting added to highimpact PILs, adding to the complexity of such cases. While we have considered the number of litigants at the time of filing of the petition, additional litigants are added during the course of the petition due to the evolving nature of the hearing. This is particularly true in matters involving questions of environmental protection and climate change, where concerned organisations get tagged in litigation. Addition of some parties could be due to their own insistence while others may be added based on the discretion of the judge hearing the case. Hence, this computation should capture the costs as the litigants are added to the case.

While many attempts have been made to implement Case Flow Management Rules across courts in India,25 they have yielded only limited results. Karnataka also has not passed Case Flow Management Rules for High Courts. Draft rules in subordinate courts have either not been adopted or are not implemented in the right context. However, implementation of these rules can positively impact the flow of cases considering they concern key issues of governance. For instance, in a matter like the land-grabbing PIL, it is essential that the court abide by certain timelines so as not to allow parties with vested interests to illegally encroach public land before the High Court passes any order to stop such an act.

More layers get added to the computation of transaction costs when matters are connected together to be heard. It is essential to measure the transaction costs for each litigation—while mathematically, it is a simple addition of time periods spent and costs, it can be tedious to get information from lower courts for the matters connected to the main case; particularly, it may be hard to obtain, the details of the case, when it is before the lower authority. Related case numbers in the lower court/ authority can, generally, be found only in the text of the High Court’s order upon reading it. Ideally, this should be a database field which is easily identifiable without the user having to go into the text of the High Court’s order.

Programmatically mapping lower-court case numbers, all the way up to the Supreme Court is an arduous task. Given how long certain cases take in their journey from lower courts to the apex court, such mapping of cases will enable easier analysis. Hence, looking at an end-to-end integrated case management system is essential. Even if not a monolithic system, there have to be interoperable standards in naming and tracking of cases once it is appealed in a higher court.

Also worth contemplating is how lenient a court can be for adjournment requests where a party makes no progress from previous hearing but seeks additional time. Often the cause for such adjournments or urgent mentions made is not recorded adequately in an analysable fashion. This needs to be incorporated in future case management systems. In case any of the litigants are no longer interested in pursuing the case, this may be the right metric to guide dismissal of cases by the bench itself. A decision by the Chief Justice of India giving two weeks to over 729 petitioners to file an update or withdraw their case can be made a standard operating procedure with this data being available periodically.26

In addition to all of these, changes to the case listing process also need to be considered. We believe that the process for listing cases for hearing should be rule-based with parameters, such as age of the case and disclosed priority informing the process, rather than the bias of judges or the practice of senior advocates mentioning urgent matters.

Conclusion

PILs are filed in matters that have a wide impact on issues of governance and matters that touch upon the lives of all citizens. The litigation in PILs tend to continue for long lengths of time, and the transaction costs for such cases can significantly vary depending upon the number of days lost due to litigation. In our study of the eight PILs mentioned above, we witnessed that the time and resources spent on the litigation hinged on several factors—while in some cases, the state government’s willingness (or sometimes, lack of it) to comply with court’s orders determined how the litigation shaped up; in others, the High Court’s decision to tag along matters of similar nature together added to the time spent in litigation. Availability of granular details (specifically numbers) of the nature specified in Part IV of this chapter will assist us in a more broad-based analysis of the transaction costs of litigation. Even though we have discussed only a sample of eight PILs, the time is ripe to extend the suggestions made by us to other cases also, subject to some modifications. PILs have become an important tool to compel inert governments into taking actions on issues of governance. Re-engineering of our case management systems can go a long way in studying the life cycle of PILs.

Notes

  1. M.N. Srinivas. 1980. The Remembered Village. Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 115. He elaborates—the victor lost financially, while the loser lost financially as well as morally.
  2. Ellen M. Pint and Laura H. Baldwin. 1997. Strategic Sourcing: Theory and Evidence from Economics and Business Management. California: RAND Corporation, p. 3.
  3. This number has been arrived at by dividing 300 minutes (five hours) across 85 cases.
  4. Our use of the term ‘litigant’ encompasses both petitioners as well as respondents.
  5. These assumptions have been made based on the experiences of one of the authors of this chapter, Sridhar Pabbisetty, who has been a litigant in several PILs filed before the Karnataka High Court.
  6. This depicts the effort required (in days) to bring the new bench up to speed with the past history of the case.
  7. As CEO of Namma Bengaluru Foundation (NBF), Sridhar Pabbisetty was involved in the following PILs—Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka, WP 47875-76/2014; Namma Bengaluru Foundation and Citizens’ Action Forum v. State of Karnataka, WP 48720/2014; Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka, WP 53613/2016; Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka, WP 57920/2016; and Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka, WP 15500/2013.
  8. WP 17841/2018.
  9. The Hindu. 2019. ‘Cut Trees for Metro Project only if No Option to Save Them’, The Hindu, 25 April, available online at The Hindu (accessed on 24 July 2019).
  10. LiveMint. 2017. ‘How Garden City Bengaluru has degenerated into a garbage city’, LiveMint, 26 January, available online at LiveMint (accessed on 24 July 2019).
  11. WP 24739-740/2012.
  12. ‘Advocacy’, Solid Waste Management Round Table, available online at SWMRT (accessed on 24 July 2019).
  13. Regulation 4.2, Zoning of Land Use and Regulations, Revised Master Plan 2015, available online at BBMP (accessed on 24 July 2019).
  14. Citizen Matters. 2014. ‘Death of 8-Year-Old in Storm Water Drain: PIL Filed against BBMP’, Citizen Matters, 10 October, available online at Citizen Matters (accessed on 24 July 2019).
  15. These assumptions have been made based on the experiences of one of the authors of this chapter, Sridhar Pabbisetty, who has been a litigant in several PILs filed before the Karnataka High Court.
  16. This depicts the effort required (in days) to bring the new bench up to speed with the past history of the case.
  17. As CEO of Namma Bengaluru Foundation (NBF), Sridhar Pabbisetty was involved in the following PILs—Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka, WP 47875-76/2014; Namma Bengaluru Foundation and Citizens’ Action Forum v. State of Karnataka, WP 48720/2014; Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka, WP 53613/2016; Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka, WP 57920/2016; and Namma Bengaluru Foundation v. State of Karnataka, WP 15500/2013.
  18. WP 17841/2018.
  19. The Hindu. 2019. ‘Cut Trees for Metro Project only if No Option to Save Them’, The Hindu, 25 April, available online at The Hindu (accessed on 24 July 2019).
  20. LiveMint. 2017. ‘How Garden City Bengaluru has degenerated into a garbage city’, LiveMint, 26 January, available online at LiveMint (accessed on 24 July 2019).
  21. WP 24739-740/2012.
  22. ‘Advocacy’, Solid Waste Management Round Table, available online at SWMRT (accessed on 24 July 2019).
  23. Regulation 4.2, Zoning of Land Use and Regulations, Revised Master Plan 2015, available online at BBMP (accessed on 24 July 2019).
  24. Citizen Matters. 2014. ‘Death of 8-Year-Old in Storm Water Drain: PIL Filed against BBMP’, Citizen Matters, 10 October, available online at Citizen Matters (accessed on 24 July 2019).