The Indian judiciary, one of the most elaborate legal systems in the world, is today confronting a crisis that threatens the very purpose for which it exists — the timely delivery of justice. At the heart of this crisis lies a staggering and ever-growing backlog of cases. As of early 2025, over 5 crore cases are pending across courts in India. This includes more than 70,000 cases in the Supreme Court, around 60 lakh in High Courts, and the rest in subordinate courts. The question is no longer whether the problem exists, but how deep it runs, why it persists, and what legal and structural measures exist to address it.
The Burden of Numbers and Its Consequences
The sheer volume of pending cases erodes public faith in the judicial system. Justice delayed is not merely justice denied — it becomes a punishment in itself. For undertrial prisoners languishing in jails, civil litigants stuck in property disputes for decades, or companies tied up in contractual litigation, delay translates into lost years, drained resources, and often, shattered lives.
One infamous example is the civil suit of K.K. Modi v. Lalit Modi which spanned over 12 years before being settled, while land disputes in rural areas often take generations to resolve. Criminal trials, especially in rape and murder cases, may extend for over a decade, pushing victims and their families into despair.
Legal Framework and Judicial Accountability
While the Constitution of India provides for an independent judiciary under Articles 124 to 147 (for the Supreme Court) and Articles 214 to 231 (for the High Courts), there is no express time limit prescribed for disposal of cases. However, courts have interpreted the right to speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This was clearly laid down in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court observed that “a procedure which keeps an accused in jail for years without trial cannot be regarded as reasonable, just, or fair.”
The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, under Section 309(1), mandates that once the examination of witnesses begins, it should proceed on a day-to-day basis unless there are exceptional reasons. But this remains on paper more than in practice. Courts are overburdened, and adjournments — often taken casually or tactically — derail proceedings.
The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, also under Order XVII, allows adjournments but restricts their number to three, except under exceptional circumstances. Yet this provision is routinely bypassed, especially in high-stakes civil matters. The overuse of interim reliefs under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, adds to the docket pressure. Once a stay is granted, cases often lie dormant for years.
In Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of UP (2012), the Supreme Court recognized that inadequate judge strength and the failure of the State to provide basic infrastructure are major contributors to judicial delay. It directed the Law Commission to examine the matter. The 245th Law Commission Report reiterated this, recommending urgent reforms in judge-to-population ratio, infrastructure, and case management.
Structural and Administrative Bottlenecks
One core issue is the shortage of judges. As per sanctioned strength, India has around 25 judges per million population — far below the required 50 as recommended by the Law Commission in 1987. Many High Courts function with significant vacancies. As of 2025, over 300 judge positions in High Courts remain unfilled.
This is exacerbated by the slow pace of judicial appointments, largely due to delays in the collegium system and governmental clearance. While Article 124(2) and Article 217 provide the mechanism for appointments, the process lacks transparency and efficiency.
Another issue is poor infrastructure. Many district courts function without basic facilities like digital filing, video conferencing, adequate staff, or even proper courtrooms. The e-Courts Project under the National e-Governance Plan was designed to address this, yet progress has been uneven across states. Rural and remote courts still struggle with digitization, connectivity, and trained manpower.
Case management practices are outdated. Courts continue to rely heavily on oral submissions, physical records, and paper-heavy filings. There is little by way of pre-trial scrutiny or early case evaluation, mechanisms that in other jurisdictions filter frivolous claims and narrow down issues early.
Procedural Complexities and Strategic Delays
The adversarial legal system in India allows significant leeway to parties and counsel. Lawyers often file unnecessary applications, seek multiple adjournments, and rely on procedural loopholes to delay hearings. Parties use tactics such as non-appearance, delay in evidence production, or misuse of Section 482 CrPC (inherent powers of High Court) to stall proceedings.
In civil disputes, execution proceedings — supposed to be a post-decree formality — become separate litigations that drag on for years. Similarly, in arbitration matters, the enforcement of arbitral awards often becomes a mini-trial, defeating the purpose of an alternate speedy forum.
Public interest litigations, while noble in purpose, have sometimes burdened higher courts with issues better suited for executive or legislative intervention. Courts often stretch their jurisdictions under Article 226 and 32, hearing administrative and policy matters that add to pendency.
Solutions and Reforms: What the Law Can and Should Do
Several reforms have been proposed, though implementation remains partial or political will lacking. Fast-track courts, first set up post the Nirbhaya case, did show results in disposing sensitive matters. However, they require continuity, funding, and proper staffing.
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, aimed to expedite commercial disputes by setting strict timelines for filing written statements, completing discovery, and barring adjournments. Yet, implementation varies from court to court. Similarly, the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Acts of 2015 and 2019 sought to institutionalize arbitration and set a 12-month cap for conclusion of proceedings. Still, enforcement bottlenecks remain.
Judicial performance assessment mechanisms, though touched upon by the 230th Law Commission Report, are yet to be formally adopted. There is no codified standard to evaluate a judge’s efficiency beyond annual inspections. Moreover, court hours, vacation periods, and judicial productivity have remained immune to public scrutiny.
Technology has the potential to be a game-changer. Virtual hearings, AI-assisted transcription, digital case diaries, and intelligent cause-listing can transform courtrooms. Yet such tools must be integrated not merely as a convenience but as a necessary reform.
Mediation and conciliation under Section 89 of the CPC are often underutilized. Lok Adalats and Nyaya Panchayats have worked well in reducing small disputes, but lack institutional strength. Mandatory pre-litigation mediation in commercial matters (introduced in 2023) may show promise if applied to other sectors.
Conclusion
The backlog in Indian courts is not a result of any single failing but a mosaic of structural, procedural, administrative, and cultural deficiencies. It is not just about overworked judges but about a system that has resisted evolution in the face of rising demand. The legal framework does exist to support faster trials and effective case management. What it needs is a collective push from the judiciary, the executive, the Bar, and the public.
Justice cannot afford to move at a glacial pace in a country where law touches every aspect of life. Delay corrodes its essence. Clearing the backlog is not only a technical necessity — it is a democratic imperative.
Contributed By: Saksham Tongar (intern)