The high courts had the highest settlement rate among the courts, resolving 59.39 percent of the 56,417 cases under their jurisdiction during the review year. District courts settled 54.56 percent of the 200,681 cases. According to the report, the combined number of pending cases under the specialized courts and tribunals stands at 2,651. The Revenue Tribunal has the highest number of pending cases, while the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has the lowest.
The Special Court, responsible for handling corruption cases, was able to settle 57.06 percent of the cases during the review period. However, the report indicates that the court still has 657 pending cases. In terms of the types of cases, divorce cases account for 11.43 percent of all cases in Nepali courts, followed by property disputes (11.37 percent), financial transactions (8.87 percent), land disputes (6.68 percent), fraud (5.53 percent), ‘likhat badar’ (4.8 percent), banking offenses (3.65 percent), rape (3.23 percent), culpable homicide (2.09 percent), and accidents caused by motor vehicles (1.74 percent), according to the report. The report further reveals that the number of pending cases has been steadily rising in the Supreme Court over the past decade. In the fiscal year 2010/11, the apex court had 12,714 pending cases, which more than doubled to 27,777 by the end of 2020/21. The number of pending cases in high courts also doubled over the same period. In 2010/11, the high courts had 11,382 pending cases, which grew to 22,913 in 2020/21. The report further indicates that the number of pending cases in district courts has increased by over 100 percent. In 2010/11, district courts had 40,350 pending cases, which has now surged to 91,077. The number of pending cases at the specialized courts and tribunals has also doubled. The report states that these courts had 1,379 pending cases in 2010/11, which rose to 2,630 in 2020/21. In terms of targets set by the fourth five-year strategic plan of the judiciary, the Okhaldhunga Bench of Biratnagar High Court was the best performing court, settling 113.7 percent of the targets. The Dipayal High Court was next on the list as it achieved 103.28 percent of the targets in terms of case settlements. Likewise, the Tulsipur High Court, Surkhet High Court, Hetauda Bench of Patan High Court, and Mahendranagar Bench of Dipayal High Court achieved more than 75 percent of the targets in terms of case settlement.The high courts were given targets of settling 35,018 cases during the period of which they settled 59.45 percent of them or 20,817 cases. Among the district courts, Bajura, Mustang, Achham, Dadeldurha, Salyan, Jajarkot, Gulmi, Arghakhanchi, Rolpa, and Manang achieved more than 100 percent progress in case settlements. District courts achieved 59.31 percent progress during the review period. Province-wise, Bagmati had the highest number of cases (19,644) among the 56,417 cases under high courts, while Karnali had the lowest number of cases at only 1,286. Former Supreme Court justice Prakash Wasti says one of the major reasons behind the increasing backlog is a lack of sufficient human resources. The other reason is the lack of willingness on the part of judges to settle the cases. He suspects some judges fear they will court controversies if they settle more cases. Besides, Wasti says, there are no extra incentives to judges for settling more cases. Of late, there is a tendency of handing down verdicts in only those cases that are of national interest. Wasti says judges and justices are only interested in those cases that could make national headlines. He adds in many cases, judges and justices seem to lack the study and understanding required to settle cases concerning critical issues. As a result, he says many cases are put on hold, because the judges and justices do not want to get caught delivering flawed judgment. Former Supreme Court justice Balaram KC says the low number of judges in the court is a primary reason behind increasing case backlogs. He suggests introducing a lead lawyer system in the court, so that there is no need for all lawyers to speak for hours. KC adds there is also a need to develop a system, where judges and justices are well-prepared to intervene in the hearing process. He says as people have little trust in high courts these days, the Supreme Court is getting crowded. We should work to provide more business to the high courts, says KC.
