In a recent interview with Harish Narasappa, co-founder Daksh, there was a discussion on the reduction of the pendency of 10-year old cases in four States and one Union Territory, namely, Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. He said that this decision will not lead to cases of hasty disposal and deterioration in justice delivery. However, he termed this decision as no achievement because it shows the poor state of affairs. He suggested that States are doing better than others. There are a lot of reasons for that – better recruitment, targeted reduction, leadership by the High Court, etc. While we should recognize that, we should not think we have found a solution, because reducing pendency of 10 years cases is not an achievement. when he was asked about the efficiency of lower courts in restricting adjournments, curbing summer vacations, etc as claimed, he said that There is no evidence of adjournments being restricted even from the last six months’ data. Vacation is a red herring as far as the subordinate judiciary is concerned because they don’t get as many days off as the higher judiciary does and almost everyone works six days a week, unlike the higher judiciary. On pendency of cases in Punjab and Haryana High courts, he said that Pendency in high courts is also worrying and it is difficult to fathom because most high courts do not face the problems that subordinate courts have like delay in recording evidence etc. It is basically lawyers and judges in the high courts. The one differentiating factor is that high courts supervise the subordinate courts. Subordinate judges are generally fearful of facing action from the high courts if they do not perform. There is no accountability of high court Judges. On the recent proposal of direct recruitment of district judges, he said " High courts have been given this power under the Constitution. So, there will be opposition if this power is sought to be curtailed in an indirect fashion. There is no reason for high courts to give up their Constitutionally vested power. I would think instead that a fixed calendar for examination is agreed and all high courts can follow this every year. Similarly, preparation of examination, evaluation etc. should be made uniform. There is a problem, however, in recruiting out of State Judges. In most lower courts, much of the proceedings are conducted in the local language. A centralized recruitment scheme will affect this.