Answer

Introduction

India’s judiciary faces over 5 crore pending cases (2025) with only 15 judges per million people, far below the recommended 50. This mismatch fuels delays, erodes public trust, and highlights the urgent need for systemic reforms.

Body

Reasons Behind Pendency in Judiciary

• Rising Case Filings: Increasing litigation has outpaced disposal capacity.
  Eg: Filings increased by 25% since 2022, pushing pendency to over 71,000 cases in SC by Nov 2024.
• Defective and Unverified Cases: Many cases remain stuck due to procedural defects or verification delays.
• Backlog of Miscellaneous Matters: Admission-stage cases pile up without timely disposal.
  Eg: Over 42,206 “miscellaneous after notice” matters were pending, some for more than a decade.
• Government as a Major Litigant: A large proportion of cases arise from government litigation, slowing disposal.
  Eg: Govt-related cases dominate backlogs(around 50%); weak departmental follow-ups prolong hearings.
• Resource and Infrastructure Constraints: Limited manpower, outdated processes, and lack of case categorisation hinder efficiency.
  Eg: Verification earlier handled fewer cases (184/day), contributing to slower listings.
• Delays in Connected/Similar Matters: Cases linked to resolved ones still linger without disposal.

How Supreme Court Addressed It Through Institutional and Procedural Reforms

Institutional Reform

• Accelerated Case Verification & Listing: Expanded staff and hours in Section 1B(Listing Department) to cure defects faster with inputs from IIM Bangalore..
  Eg: Daily verifications improved from 184 to 228 cases; auto-allocation via ICMIS reduced human interference.
• Registrar’s Court Revival & Relisting: A second Registrar’s Court was reintroduced; unlisted cases relisted within 2–3 weeks.
• Differentiated Case Management: Dedicated team identified 10,000+ unlisted/short matters for priority disposal.
  Eg: 1,025 main cases + 427 connected matters from miscellaneous categories disposed swiftly (avg. 30–45 mins per case).
• Case Categorisation Framework: Revamped filing into 48 categories and 182 sub-categories for targeted clearance.
  Eg: 500 connected matters disposed once categorisation clarified duplications.

Procedural Reforms 

• Accelerated Case Verification & Listing: Enhanced staff and hours in Section 1B, removed out-of-turn verifications, and automated allocation via ICMIS.
  Eg: Verification capacity rose from 184 to 228 cases/day; human interference reduced.
• Tech-Driven Reforms: SUPACE AI programme piloted for curing defects, preparing synopses, and aiding evidence scrutiny.
  Eg: AI used beyond transcription/translation to cut processing time.
• Higher Case Clearance Ratio (CCR): Focused strategy led to disposal surpassing fresh filings.
  Eg: CCR reached 106.6% in 2025 vs. 96.59% (3-year average), with 35,870 disposals vs. 33,639 filings.

Conclusion

Clearing pendency is about restoring faith in justice, not just numbers. The Supreme Court’s reforms in case management and technology show progress, but long-term change needs filling vacancies, strengthening lower courts, and leveraging AI to ensure justice is timely and accessible.

DOWNLOAD PDF