The Supreme Court of India, the apex guardian of constitutional rights, is facing a historic all-time high pendency of 88,417 cases (National Judicial Data Grid, 2025). 

The Scale of Pendency

• Case Breakdown: Out of this, 69,553 are civil cases and 18,864 are criminal matters, reflecting the wide jurisdiction of the Court.
• Annual Trend: In 2025 so far, 52,630 cases were filed, while 46,309 were disposed (88%). 

Causes of Pendency of Cases

• Judicial Vacancies & Low Judge-Population Ratio: India has only 21 judges per million people, far below the United States (50+) or China (100+).
  • High Courts and lower courts routinely operate with 30–35% vacancies, delaying case disposals.
• Rising Litigation & Expansive Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court functions as a “People’s Court”, hearing not just constitutional issues but also Special Leave Petitions (Article 136), service disputes, and property matters.
  • Increasing awareness of rights and Public Interest Litigations (PILs) has surged litigation volume.
  • Example: In August 2025, the Supreme Court received 7,080 fresh cases, outpacing its disposal of 5,667 cases.
• Government as the Biggest Litigant: Union and State governments account for nearly 46% of all pending cases (Law Commission, 2017).

• • Repeated departmental appeals, even in settled matters, clog the judicial pipeline.
  • Example: Land acquisition, service, and tax disputes frequently escalate to higher courts due to departmental resistance.
• Procedural Delays & Adjournments: Frequent adjournments, lengthy oral arguments, and excessive paperwork prolong trials.
  • Lawyers often seek multiple hearings, and courts grant time extensions liberally.
  • Example: Many property and service disputes remain unresolved for 10–15 years, eroding public faith.
• Infrastructure Deficiencies: Subordinate courts, where 90% of pendency lies, often lack modern facilities, case management systems, or e-filing.
  • A 2022 Parliamentary Standing Committee report noted that only 54% of courts had functioning video-conferencing facilities.
  • Power outages, shortage of stenographers, and absence of digitisation hinder faster hearings.
• COVID-19 Pandemic Backlog: Between 2020–21, case disposals slowed drastically while filings continued, creating a permanent pile-up.
  • Virtual hearings were introduced but were not effective for criminal trials or rural litigants lacking digital access.
  • The impact continues in 2025, with pendency touching new peaks despite reforms.
• Underuse of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Mechanisms like mediation and arbitration remain underutilised. The Economic Survey 2018–19 noted that while 87% of civil cases could be settled through ADR, less than 2% are referred. 
  • Example: Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandates mediation, but compliance is weak.

Implications of High Pendency of Cases

• Crisis of Credibility: Delayed justice steadily erodes citizens’ trust in the judiciary, particularly in cases tied to corruption, constitutional interpretation, and rights protection.
• Economic Repercussions: Prolonged commercial disputes trap capital, discourage domestic and foreign investment, and act as a brake on economic growth.
• Deepening Social Inequality: Marginalised groups suffer most — whether it is undertrials languishing in jails or poor litigants waiting decades for property and service disputes to conclude.
• Prison Overcrowding: The Indian Justice Report 2025 found that over 50% of jails operate beyond capacity and 76% of prisoners are undertrials, showing the direct link between pendency and incarceration without conviction.
• Broader Governance Impact: High pendency undermines effective governance, as disputes over land, service, taxation, and administrative actions remain unresolved.
  • Citizens and businesses lose confidence in rule-based systems, impacting compliance and civic engagement.
  • Slow judicial redress weakens checks on executive actions, indirectly affecting accountability and transparency.

Measures Taken

• Backend Reforms:
  • Engine Room Overhaul: The registry was strengthened with additional staff and extended hours, raising average daily verification of cases from 184 to 228.
  • Expert Consultation: IIM Bangalore studied registry processes and suggested data-driven improvements.
  • Automated Allocation: The Integrated Case Management Information System (ICMIS) automated bench allocation, reducing discretion and ensuring transparency.
• Procedural Reforms:
  • Second Registrar’s Court: Cleared defective filings to prevent delays in listings.
  • Mandatory Relisting: Cases not heard within 2–3 weeks were compulsorily relisted, avoiding “lost” cases.
  • Email Mentions: Replaced oral mentions by senior advocates with an email system, saving court time and ensuring equal access.
  • Categorisation Framework: 48 main categories and 182 sub-categories introduced for efficient case grouping; enabled faster disposal of similar cases.
• Focused Disposal of Old Cases:
  • Dedicated Days: Tuesdays and Wednesdays earmarked for these old cases.
  • Research Wing Support: The SC’s research wing analysed over 10,000 cases and prepared 1–2 page briefs for judges. This enabled benches to dispose of 10 old cases in 30–45 minutes, clearing 1,025 main and 427 connected cases swiftly.
• Differentiated Case Management (DCM): Implemented under the “Unclogging the Docket Initiative”, DCM screened short, infructuous, and decades-old cases. This pushed the Supreme Court’s disposal rate above 104%, proving that systemic reforms can outperform incremental changes.
• Arrears Committees: The SC set up special committees to formulate strategies for backlog reduction, guided by the Malimath Committee Report, which advocated strict procedural timelines and discipline in adjournments.
• Expanding Judicial Capacity: Law Commission reports have repeatedly recommended:
  • Cutting judicial vacation by 10–21 days;
  • Filling vacancies without delay;
  • Increasing the number of working days to tackle arrears.
• Legislative Reforms:
  • Arbitration & Conciliation (2015, 2019): Introduced time-bound dispute resolution.
  • Commercial Courts Act (2018): Mandated pre-institution mediation.
  • Negotiable Instruments Act (2018): Enabled summary trials for cheque-bounce cases.
• Digital Tools & E-Courts: E-filing, virtual hearings, and Electronic Case Management Tools (ECMTs) are being expanded. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) adds transparency but requires tighter integration with real-time case tracking.
• Prompt Government Action: Collegium recommendations for SC judges are now often cleared within 48 hours, minimising vacancies.
• Summer Reforms: In 2025, CJI B.R. Gavai converted summer recess into “partial working days”, with 21 benches functioning, increasing disposals during vacation.
• Splitting the Supreme Court: Law Commissions (10th & 11th) suggested dividing it into:
  • A Constitutional Division for rights and federal disputes;
  • A Legal Division for routine appeals.

Way Forward

• National Judicial Council: A central coordinating body, akin to the GST Council, to oversee pendency reforms.
• Specialised Benches: Permanent benches for tax, service, and commercial matters to reduce SC’s routine load.
• Strengthen Lower Judiciary: Empower High Courts and trial courts to absorb inflow.
• Expand Strength: Consider raising SC judge strength beyond 34.
• Technology & AI: Broader use of SUPACE, predictive analytics, and AI-driven case triage.
• Process Orientation: Focus not just on numbers but systemic reforms in case management.

Conclusion

The pendency crisis is a structural challenge threatening India’s constitutional promise of speedy justice under Article 21. Yet, recent reforms show progress is possible. As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer said “Delay in justice is a denial of justice.” Embedding reforms in constitutional values of justice, equality, and efficiency will ensure the Supreme Court remains the People’s Court and the ultimate guardian of rights.

DOWNLOAD PDF