In 2021, India fell three positions in the Rule of Law Index released by the World Justice Project (2019). The India Justice Report 2020 shows the pathological disparity in access and administration of justice in India. Why is it that despite decades of judicial reforms, justice delivery in India continues to remain poor? This paper argues that judiciary is looked at and studied from the standpoint of its most visible dimension—judges and their decision-making, rather than the administrative machinery which facilitates this. This has tilted the judicial reforms discourse towards structures and procedures rather than functions and behaviours. Using the Public Value Theory, it is submitted that judiciary needs to be understood as a ‘bureaucratic’ and ‘public’ organisation which is not only tasked with justice delivery but also value creation. This is a novel approach which has not been deployed to study judicial organisations.
BozemanB. (2002). Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 145–161. 10.1111/0033-3352.00165
2.
BrysonJ. M., CrosbyB. C., & BloombergL. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456. 10.1111/puar.12238
3.
CastelnovoW., & SimonettaM. (2008). A public value evaluation of e-government policies. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 11(2), 61–72.
4.
CookM., & HarrisonT. M. (2015). Using public value thinking for government IT planning and decision making: A case study. Information Polity, 20(2–3), 183–197. 10.3233/ip-150359
5.
ClarkT. C. (1970). Judicial self-regulation. Its potential. Law and Contemporary Problems, 35(1), 37–42. 10.2307/1191028
6.
De GraafG., HubertsL., & SmuldersR. (2016). Coping with public value conflicts. Administration & Society, 48(9), 1101–1127. 10.1177/0095399714532273
7.
Eleventh Law Commission of India. (1987). 120th Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary.
8.
FayolH. (1949). General and industrial management. Pitman.
9.
FissO. M. (1983). The bureaucratization of the judiciary. The Yale Law Journal, 92(8), 1442. 10.2307/796182
10.
FukumotoE., & BozemanB. (2018). Public values theory: What is missing?The American Review of Public Administration, 49(6), 635–648. 10.1177/0275074018814244
11.
GainsF., & StokerG. (2009). Delivering ‘public value’: Implications for accountability and legitimacy. Parliamentary Affairs, 62(3), 438–455. 10.1093/pa/gsp007
12.
GerthH. H., & Wright MillsC. (Eds.). (1948). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. In GerthH. H. & MillsC. (Trans.; 1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203759240
13.
GulickL. H., & UrwickL. F. (1937). Papers on the science of administration. Institute of Public Administration Columbia University.
14.
HerzbergF. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Thomas Y. Cromwell.
15.
JorgensenT. B., & BozemanB. (2007). Public values: An inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381. 10.1177/0095399707300703
16.
KernaghanK. (2003). Integrating values into public service: The values statement as centerpiece. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 711–719. 10.1111/1540-6210.00334
17.
MayoE. (2003). The human problems of an industrial civilization (1st ed.). Routledge. 10.4324/9780203487273
18.
MeyerB. S. (1983). Justice, bureaucracy, structure, and simplification. Maryland Law Review, 42(4), 659. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol42/iss4/3.
19.
MooreM. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press.
20.
NabatchiT. (2012). Putting the ‘public’ back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708. 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02544.x
21.
OsborneD., & GaeblerT. (1993). Reinventing government: The five strategies for reinventing government. Plume.
22.
PangM., LeeG., & DeLoneW. H. (2014). IT resources, organizational capabilities, and value creation in public-sector organizations: A public-value management perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 29(3), 187–205. 10.1057/jit.2014.2
23.
RhodesR., & WannaJ. (2007). The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 406–421. 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00553.x
24.
RiggsF. W. (1961). The ecology of public administration. Asia Publishing House.
25.
RosenbloomD. H. (2017). Beyond efficiency: Value frameworks for public administration. Chinese Public Administration Review, 8(1), 37–46. 10.22140/cpar.v8i1.143
26.
RubinA. B. (1980). Bureaucratization of the federal courts: The tension between justice and efficiency. Notre Dame Law Review, 55(5), 648. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol55/iss5/1
27.
RutgersM. R. (2008). Sorting out public values? On the contingency of value classification in public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 30(1), 92–113. 10.1080/10841806.2008.11029617
28.
SamaratungeR., & WijewardenaN. (2009). The changing nature of public values in developing countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 313–327. 10.1080/01900690902732947
29.
ScottM., DeLoneW., & GoldenW. (2016). Measuring e-government success: A public value approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 25(3), 187–208. 10.1057/ejis.2015.11
30.
SinhaR. (2019, August8) Examining pendency of cases in the Judiciary. PRS India. https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/explainer-code-occupation-safety-health-and-working-condition
31.
SpanoA. (2009). Public value creation and management control systems. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 328–348. 10.1080/01900690902732848
32.
StokerG. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57. 10.1177/0275074005282583
33.
TalbotC. (2011). Paradoxes and prospects of ‘public value’. Public Money & Management, 31(1), 27–34. 10.1080/09540962.2011.545544
34.
Tata Trusts. (2021). India justice report: Ranking states on police, judiciary, prisons and legal aid. https://www.tatatrusts.org/Upload/pdf/ijr-2020-overall-report-january-26.pdf
35.
TaylorF. W. (2016). The principles of scientific management. Cosimo Classics. https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/11610173
36.
The World Bank. (2012). New directions in justice reform. Paper No. 70640 (Washington, DC: Legal Vice Presidency, The World Bank). http://www.wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/09/06/000386194_20120906024506/Rendered/PDF/706400REPLACEM0Justice0Reform0Final.pdf
37.
WatersT., & WatersD. (2015). Bureaucracy in Weber’s rationalism and modern society (pp. 73–127). Palgrave MacMillan.
38.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197. 10.2307/2139277
39.
World Justice Project. (2019). Measuring the justice gap: A people-centered assessment of unmet justice needs around the world. https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/access-justice/measuring-justice-gap
