The Supreme Court of India has demonstrated a remarkable ability to reduce its case backlog, setting an example for judicial efficiency nationwide. 

• This achievement demonstrates that with strategic reforms, even the most overburdened judicial systems can enhance their disposal rates and uphold the principle of timely justice.

Challenge of Delayed Justice

• Supreme Court as a “People’s Court”: It is known as the people’s court due to its expansive jurisdiction and handles both constitutional matters and appeals from ordinary citizens.
• Backlog of Pending Cases: The Supreme Court faces a monumental challenge of over 80,000 pending cases and as  a result the delays erode the principle of justice, as “justice delayed is justice denied”.
• Consequences of Delay:
  • Innocent individuals remain incarcerated for years.
  • Elderly litigants pass away before resolution of property disputes.
  • Businesses lose faith in judicial efficiency and reliability.
• Constitutional Mandate of Speedy Trial: In Husainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar, the Supreme Court affirmed that speedy trial is part of Article 21 (Right to Life).
• Unique Burden of India’s Supreme Court: Unlike many apex courts globally that focus mainly on constitutional matters, India’s Supreme Court also hears appeals from citizens.
  • Article 136 – Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) significantly add to its heavy caseload.

A Remarkable Turnaround: November 2024 – May 2025

• Between November 2024 and May 2025, the Supreme Court achieved a remarkable reduction in its case backlog. 
• In approximately 100 days, the pendency in registered matters decreased by 4.83%, bringing the total from 71,223 to 67,782 cases. 
  • Including defective matters, the reduction was 2.53%. 
• The average clearance rate soared to 341 cases per day, and the Case Clearance Ratio (CCR) reached an unprecedented 106.60%. 
  • This means 35,870 cases were disposed of against 33,639 new filings. 
  • This significant improvement, a 9.32% jump from the previous year’s average of 96.59%, occurred even amidst a 25% surge in new case filings since 2022.

Supreme Court’s Approach in Reducing Pendency in Registered Matters

• Backend Reforms:
  • Engine Room Overhaul: The Court’s registry, the “engine room” where cases are filed and processed.
  • Accelerated Verification: The relevant listing department (Section 1B) was directed to increase work hours and staff strength to expedite the case verification process. 
    • This prevented out-of-turn verifications and streamlined the procedure. 
    • As a result, the average daily case verification jumped from 184 to 228 cases.
  • Expert Consultation: The Court enlisted a team from IIM Bangalore to study the Section 1B procedures and recommend improvements, adopting a data-driven approach.
  • Automated Allocation: The Integrated Case Management and Information System (ICMIS) was implemented for automatic allocation of cases to benches after verification, drastically reducing human interference and eliminating favouritism or corruption in the listing process.
• Procedural Reforms:
  • Second Registrar’s Court: A second Registrar’s Court was reintroduced to swiftly address cases stuck due to procedural defects, such as incomplete documentation.
  • Mandatory Relisting: A rule was established to relist cases not heard within two to three weeks, ensuring no case gets “lost” in the system and increasing the likelihood of timely hearings.
  • Email for Urgent Matters: The previous practice of senior advocates making oral “mentions” for urgent matters, which consumed valuable court time, was replaced with a system of email requests. 
    • This saved judicial time and created a level playing field for all litigants.
• Categorisation and Identification: The Court categorised cases based on their nature. 
  • It identified approximately 16,000 cases that had never been listed and a massive backlog of 42,206 “miscellaneous after notice” cases (at the admission stage, some pending for over a decade). 
    • These were considered “low-hanging fruit” ripe for swift resolution.
• Differentiated Case Management was introduced : The Court dedicated specific days (Tuesdays and Wednesdays), initially three days and then two, solely for hearing these old, miscellaneous cases.
  • Research Wing Support: The Supreme Court’s Centre for Research and Planning (research wing) played a crucial role. 
    • A dedicated team of 30 members analysed over 10,000 cases and prepared concise, reasoned case briefs (1-2 pages) for judges, summarising key points.
    • This enabled benches to dispose of around 10 such old cases in merely 30-45 minutes. 
    • This process led to the disposal of 1,025 main cases and 427 connected cases in the miscellaneous category. 
    • The old, short, and unlisted matters were prioritised for regular hearings, resulting in the disposal of around 500 main cases and 66 connected cases in about 15 regular days, including 376 criminal matters.
• Case Categorisation Framework: The previous unorganised system was replaced with a robust Case Categorisation Framework, dividing filed cases into 48 main categories and 182 sub-categories. 
  • This allows for easier recognition of patterns, efficient clubbing of similar cases (e.g., all government department-related cases), and targeted disposal. 

Key takeaways for the broader Indian Judiciary include

• Process-Oriented Judicial Reform: Focus not just on filling vacancies but on streamlining procedures and judicial management.
• Bar and Bench Collaboration: Foster robust cooperation between lawyers and judges to implement reforms effectively.
• Leveraging Technology: Use technology to enhance transparency, accountability, and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like SUPACE are being explored.
  • SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency) is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) based portal in the judicial system aimed at assisting judges with legal research.
  • It is designed to assist judges with legal research by collecting relevant facts and laws and presenting them in an organized manner.
  • SUPACE is not a decision-making tool; rather, it processes and provides inputs, leaving judicial discretion entirely with the judges.
• Strong Leadership and Willpower: Leaders within the legal and judicial sectors must possess the resolve to implement ambitious reforms. The cooperation between Bar and Bench has been a key milestone in driving reforms.

Conclusion

• While pendency is a common concern across judicial forums, there is no panacea for it.
• Judicial forums must assess the situation before them through careful study and use of empirical data to devise appropriate strategies.
• This is exactly what was done at the Supreme Court. 
• Ultimately, though, it is the willingness of the judges and the bar that makes the critical difference.

DOWNLOAD PDF