Statement: Courts take too long to decide important disputes across various departments.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Order the courts to speed up case disposal immediately.\nII. Grant special powers to departmental officers to settle disputes concerning their departments.

Introduction / Context:
Systemic judicial delays are complex; mere “orders to speed up” (I) do not address structural constraints (vacancies, procedures, case mix). Creating or empowering departmental fora for limited classes of disputes (II) can reduce inflow to courts and accelerate resolution, provided due process and appeal mechanisms are preserved.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Courts are overburdened; delays harm governance and business.
• Some disputes are routine, technical, or policy-bound and may be resolved administratively.
• Statutory frameworks can authorise quasi-judicial powers with oversight.

Concept / Approach:
Demand management: divert appropriate matters to specialised or departmental mechanisms (grievance cells, tribunals, lok adalats, arbitration), leaving courts to focus on complex/precedential cases. Blanket “orders” (I) risk infringing judicial independence and lack implementability.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify dispute categories suitable for administrative disposal with speaking orders.2) Empower officers with time limits, transparency, and right of appeal to an independent forum.3) Monitor disposal time and quality; iterate rules to prevent bias.

Verification / Alternative check:
Jurisdictions with effective pre-litigation resolution and tribunals show reduced court backlogs. Mere exhortations to “speed up” rarely change throughput without resources and process reform.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Either/Both: I is superficial and potentially improper; pairing it with II does not cure the defect. Neither: ignores viable administrative pathways.

Common Pitfalls:
Granting unchecked powers without appeals; routing rights-heavy matters away from courts.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.