Judicial Delays – Causes, Consequences & Way Forward – Explained Pointwise

Timely justice is the cornerstone of public trust in the legal system, as captured by the classic maxim ‘justice delayed, is justice denied’. Prolonged delays often deter people from approaching the courts. President Draupadi Murmu, last year, termed this hesitation the ‘Black Coat Syndrome’.

Cases pending in the courts in India:

• More than 5 crore cases are pending in different courts in India – of which:
  • Over 86,700 cases are pending in SC.
  • Over 63.3 lakh cases are pending in HCs.
  • Almost 4.6 crore cases are pending in district & subordinate courts.
• The civil litigation cases at the district level (which handles the bulk of India’s pending cases) – only 38.7% are resolved within a year & nearly 20% stretch beyond 5 years.
• Vacancy in courts:
  • India judiciary functions at just 79% of its capacity.  Out of the 26,927 sanctioned posts – 5,665 posts are vacant. Resulting on overwhelming workload.
  • India operates with just 15 judges per 10 lakh population. Even at full sanctioned strength across all the courts, it would reach only 19 judges per 10 lakh population – far below the 1987 Law Commission’s recommendation of 50.
  • District & Subordinate courts, which handle bulk of the litigations, have a sanctioned strength of only 25,771 judges – averaging 18 judges per 10 lakh population.

What are the causes behind the huge pendency of cases in India?

1. Low Judge-to-Population Ratio: India has one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios globally, far below international recommendations. While the Law Commission of India and various committees have recommended increasing the number of judges to 50 per million population (from the current approximately 21 per million), this has not been achieved.
2. High Vacancy Rates: A significant number of sanctioned judicial positions remain vacant across all levels of the judiciary (Supreme Court, High Courts, and especially subordinate courts). These unfilled positions severely impact the court’s capacity to hear and dispose of cases efficiently.
3. Inadequate Infrastructure and Resources: Many courts, particularly at the district and subordinate levels, lack adequate physical infrastructure, including sufficient courtrooms, chambers, and basic amenities. The courts serving the most litigants (i.e. the district courts) are the least equipped to ensure the timely justice.
4. Limited Use of Technology: Despite initiatives like e-courts, the inconsistent and often limited implementation of modern technology (e-filing, video conferencing, AI-based case management) across all courts hinders efficiency and contributes to delays. Many courts still rely on manual processes.
5. Procedural Delays and Legal Inefficiencies:
   • Frequent Adjournments: One of the most common and significant causes of delay is the liberal granting of adjournments, often requested by lawyers on frivolous grounds. This prolongs trials unnecessarily.
   • Complex and Archaic Laws: India’s legal framework includes colonial-era laws and complex procedural codes (like the Code of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure) that allow for multiple appeals and lengthy processes, making case resolution protracted.
   • Delays in Evidence Collection and Investigations: Slow investigations by law enforcement agencies, delays in obtaining forensic reports, and difficulties in locating witnesses contribute significantly to the prolonged duration of criminal trials.
6. Government Litigation: The government (central and state governments, public sector units) is often cited as the single largest litigant in Indian courts, accounting for a substantial percentage (sometimes up to 50%) of pending cases. Many of these government-initiated cases are deemed frivolous or vexatious.
7. New Laws and Mechanisms: The introduction of new laws and legal mechanisms (e.g. Public Interest Litigations – PILs) also contributes to the increase in the number of cases entering the judicial system.

The causes behind the huge pendency of cases in India can be summarized as a combination of structural bottlenecks, procedural delays & systemic constraints.

What are the consequences of judicial pendency?

1. “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”: This adage perfectly encapsulates the primary consequence. Prolonged delays mean that victims may not get timely redressal, and the accused may languish in jail for years without conviction, effectively denying them justice.
2. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and liberty (Article 21 of the Indian Constitution). Protracted trials violate this fundamental right, leading to prolonged incarceration of undertrials and immense suffering.
3. Socio-Economic Impact: Judicial delays significantly impact economic growth. Commercial disputes, contract enforcements, and bankruptcy proceedings get stuck for years, deterring both domestic and foreign investment. Businesses face uncertainty, financial losses, and stalled projects. Large amounts of government revenue are tied up in legal disputes, impacting public spending and development projects.
4. Overcrowded Prisons: A direct consequence of delayed criminal trials is the alarming number of undertrial prisoners. Indian prisons are severely overcrowded, with a large majority of inmates being undertrials who have not yet been convicted. This leads to inhumane living conditions and further human rights violations.
5. Loss of Evidence and Witnesses: Over time, witnesses may become untraceable, hostile, forget crucial details, or even pass away, severely impacting the ability to present evidence and weakening the case.
6. Policy Paralysis: Cases involving government policies, infrastructure projects, or administrative decisions can get stuck in courts, leading to policy paralysis and hindering effective governance.
7. Overburdened Judges: Judges are often saddled with an overwhelming caseload, leading to immense pressure, burnout, and potentially affecting the quality of judgments due to limited time for detailed reasoning.
8. Loss of Credibility: Persistent backlogs and delays can lead to a loss of public confidence and respect for the judiciary, which is a critical pillar of democracy.

What are the various initiatives taken by government & SC to address the issue?

1. Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for Development of Judicial Infrastructure: This scheme provides financial assistance to States/Union Territories for the construction of court halls, residential units for judicial officers, lawyers’ halls, toilet complexes, and digital computer rooms. This aims to improve the physical infrastructure necessary for efficient court functioning.
2. e-Courts Mission Mode Project (Phase I, II, and III): This is a flagship initiative aimed at digitizing court processes and enhancing judicial efficiency. It includes:
   • Computerization of Courts: A large number of district and subordinate courts have been computerized.
   • Video Conferencing (VC) Facilities: VC facilities have been enabled between court complexes and jails, facilitating remote hearings and reducing the need for physical production of undertrials.
   • e-Sewa Kendras: These centers have been set up in court complexes to assist lawyers and litigants with services like case status, obtaining judgments/orders, and e-filing.
   • Virtual Courts: Dedicated virtual courts have been established in several states/UTs, primarily for handling traffic challans and other minor cases, allowing for online disposal and payment of fines.
3. Fast Track Courts (FTCs): The 14th Finance Commission recommended the establishment of 1,800 FTCs for cases involving heinous crimes, civil disputes related to women, children, senior citizens, and property matters. Many FTCs are operational across the country.
4. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms:
   • Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 1999: Introduced formal recognition of ADR in civil courts, enabling courts to refer disputes to any of the ADR mechanisms.
   • Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (amended in 2015, 2019, and 2021): Governs arbitration and conciliation in India, aligning it closer to global best practices.
   • Mediation Act 2023: Enacted to promote, institutionalize, and regulate mediation as a means of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in India.
   • Lok Adalats: Lok Adalats are People’s court organized by Legal Services Authorities for minor civil and compoundable criminal cases. These informal dispute resolution forums are held regularly and have been highly successful in disposing of a large number of cases, including pre-litigation cases, through amicable settlements.
   • Between 2021 & 2025, over 27.5 crore cases have been resolved by various ADR mechanisms in India – including 22.21 crore pre-litigation & 5.34 crore pending court cases.
5. National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms (2011): Set up with the twin objectives of reducing delays and arrears and enhancing judicial efficiency and accountability.
6. Arrears Committees: Established in High Courts and District Courts to identify and prioritize the clearance of long-pending cases (e.g., those pending for more than five years).
7. National Litigation Policy (NLP): Aims to curb excessive government litigation, which is a major contributor to the backlog.

What can be the way forward to address the issue of judicial pendency in India?

1. Expedite Judicial Appointments: The most immediate and critical step is to fill all existing vacancies of judges across all levels of courts (Supreme Court, High Courts, and especially subordinate courts) in a time-bound and transparent manner. The appointment process needs to be streamlined and made more efficient.
2. Modernize Court Infrastructure: Invest significantly in upgrading physical infrastructure, including building more courtrooms, providing adequate staff, and ensuring modern amenities. This should be a shared responsibility of central and state governments.
3. Procedural Reforms and Case Management:
   • Strict Adjournment Policy: Implement and strictly enforce a policy limiting adjournments to exceptional circumstances, with financial penalties for frivolous requests.
   • Active Case Management: Empower judges to actively manage their dockets, set firm timelines for various stages of a case, and conduct regular case management hearings to ensure timely progression.
4. Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation: Make pre-litigation mediation or conciliation mandatory for certain categories of civil and commercial disputes before allowing them to enter the formal court system. The Mediation Act 2023, is a positive step in this direction.
5. Promote Online Dispute Resolution (ODR): Encourage the use of ODR platforms for resolving disputes, particularly for smaller claims and consumer grievances, leveraging technology for faster and more accessible resolution.
6. Inter-Departmental Dispute Resolution: Encourage internal dispute resolution mechanisms within government departments to resolve conflicts without resorting to court.
7. Simplification of Laws and Procedures: Review and amend archaic and complex procedural laws (like CPC and CrPC) to simplify processes, reduce technicalities, and expedite trials.

Conclusion:
The issue of pendency of cases must be effectively addressed to not only restore the public faith in the justice system but also to ensure that justice is not merely a promise but a timely reality for all the citizens of India.