India faces record case backlogs, attributed to judicial staff shortages, procedural inefficiencies, and infrastructure gaps, impacting rights, economy, and public trust; reforms include infrastructure, technology, and ADR expansion.

Why in the News?

Case backlog in Supreme Court hits all-time high of 88,417.

More in the News

District Courts have nearly 4.6 crore pending cases and High Courts have nearly 63 lakh case pendency (National Judicial Data Grid).

Reasons for pendency of cases

Inadequate Judge/population ratio: India has just 21 judges per million people against the recommended Judge to Population ratio of fifty Judges per million (120^th Law Commission).
Ineffectiveness of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR): ADR mechanisms have not been deployed effectively enough to meet the rising demands for justice.
- Gram Nyayalayas (village courts), which were proposed to handle small claims in rural areas and reduce the main judiciary's workload, have not been effectively established in most states.
Systemic and Procedural Inefficiencies: Judicial delays in India stem from multiple appeals, frequent adjournments, frivolous litigation, vague laws, weak compliance and poor case management.
- There is often no systematic grouping of similar cases or categorisation based on urgency, leading to inefficiencies.
Deficiencies in Judicial Infrastructure and technology: India's judiciary faces challenges like shortage of support staff, lack of basic amenities in lower courts limited technological equipment and poor digital adoption.
Financial Constraints: India spends only 0.1% of GDP on judiciary compared to 2% on defence.
Government as Litigator: Government agencies are responsible for around 50% of litigation.

Impact of Judicial pendency

Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar (1979) held that the right to speedy trial is part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).
Social Implications
- Weakening Rule of Law: Delay in criminal trials emboldens offenders and reduces deterrence.
- Disproportionate impact on the poor: Undertrial prisoners (about 76% of prisoners in India) remain incarcerated without conviction.
Economic Implications
- Increased litigation cost: Parties spend heavily on repeated hearings, adjournments, and lawyer fees.
- Stalled projects: Land acquisition and environmental clearance cases block infrastructure development.
Erosion of trust: Citizens lose confidence in the judiciary and sometimes resort to extra-legal methods for dispute resolution (Black coat syndrome).
- The delay in delivering justice has become so systemic that it can be perceived as a "new defense", where prolonging a case becomes a strategic advantage for one party.

Schemes/Initiatives by Government to reduce case pendency

National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms (NMJDLR- 2011): Reduction of arrears & delays, infrastructure, procedural reforms.
Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for Development of Infrastructure for Judiciary: Court halls, residential units for judges, lawyer halls, toilets, digital facilities in courts.
e-Courts Mission Mode Project (Phase I, II, III): Computerisation of courts, e-filing, videoconferencing, virtual courts, Virtual Justice Clock, JustIS App for judges.
Commercial Courts (under Commercial Courts Act, 2015): Faster disposal of commercial disputes, lowering pecuniary jurisdiction, electronic case management.
Fast Track Courts (FTCs): Disposal of long pending and heinous criminal cases. E.g. NIA courts, POCSO courts etc.
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms: Settling disputes outside regular courts, reducing burden through Lok Adalats, Mediation, Arbitration etc.

Way Forward

Establishment of a Central Authority: The establishment of the National Judicial Infrastructure Authority (NJIA), as proposed by former CJI Justice N.V. Ramanna in 2021, is needed to plan, create, manage, and maintain functional infrastructure for Indian Courts.
- The potential of AI in case management should be explored.
Appoint Ad-hoc Judges: Articles 128 and 224A of the Constitution should be invoked to appoint experienced retired judges as ad-hoc judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Setting Targets and Timelines: High Courts and subordinate courts should set annual targets for disposing of old cases and conduct bi-monthly or quarterly performance reviews to ensure accountability.
Controlling Adjournments: The practice of granting adjournments on flimsy or technical grounds, which wastes significant judicial time, should be strictly regulated.
Reforming Litigation Practices: Reduce government litigation, draft clear laws, ensure timely compliance, and deter frivolous cases.
Prioritizing ADR Mechanisms: Expand ADR and promote local resolution to reduce unnecessary litigation.
- The Legal Services Authorities should undertake pre-litigation mediation on a large scale to regulate the number of new cases being filed.