Answer

India’s justice delivery system faces a severe challenge, with over 5 crore pending cases across courts, delaying justice and eroding public trust. Nearly 50 lakh cases have been pending for more than 10 years. Niti Aayog highlighted that at the current disposal rate, clearing backlogs in lower courts alone may take over 300 years, necessitating urgent reforms.

The growing pendency of cases in Indian courts is a major challenge to the justice delivery system

• Justice Denied Due to Delays: A prolonged legal process erodes public trust and denies justice, violating the legal principle “justice delayed is justice denied.”
  For example: The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case took nearly 70 years to reach a verdict, affecting social harmony and delaying resolution.
• Overburdened Judiciary: Courts handle an overwhelming number of cases, reducing efficiency and increasing case backlogs, making timely justice nearly impossible.
  For example: The Supreme Court has over 82,000 pending cases, while High Courts have over 62 lakh cases, causing significant delays in adjudication.
• Economic and Social Costs: Litigation costs drain financial resources, discouraging businesses and individuals from seeking legal redress, affecting economic growth.
  For example: Judicial delays are estimated to cost India more than 2% of its GDP annually, hindering economic growth and deterring foreign investment
• Human Rights Violations: Delayed trials lead to prolonged undertrial detention, violating fundamental rights and overcrowding prisons with people awaiting justice.
  For example: Over 70% of India’s prison population consists of undertrials, some awaiting trial for decades.
• Reduced Confidence in the Legal System: Lengthy trials push people toward extrajudicial settlements and alternative dispute resolution, weakening faith in formal justice.
  For example: In land disputes, families often resort to panchayat settlements, as seen in rural Haryana, where courts are perceived as too slow.

Key factors contributing to judicial delays

• Low Judge-to-Population Ratio: India has only 21 judges per million people, significantly lower than developed nations, leading to a slower judicial process.
• Excessive Government Litigation: The government is the largest litigant, responsible for nearly 50% of pending cases, due to appeals in trivial matters.
• Inadequate Infrastructure: Many courts face challenges such as insufficient courtroom facilities and outdated case management systems, leading to prolonged proceedings.
• Lack of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Mediation and arbitration remain underutilized, despite their potential to resolve cases faster and cost-effectively.
  For example: The Delhi High Court Mediation Centre successfully settled over 2 lakh cases in 15 years, proving ADR’s efficiency in dispute resolution.
• Frequent Adjournments: Lawyers and litigants misuse adjournments, leading to multiple postponements that stretch cases over years or decades.
• Procedural Complexities: Outdated legal procedures and reliance on manual documentation slow down case disposal, creating unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.

Institutional And Policy Measures To Address The Issue

Institutional Measures

• Increase Judicial Strength: India needs more judges to match its vast case load, ensuring faster case resolution and reducing backlog.
  For example: The 245th Law Commission Report recommended increasing judges per million to at least 50, but implementation remains slow.
• Expand and Modernize Infrastructure: Upgrading courtrooms, digitizing case records, and ensuring better facilities can speed up hearings and reduce procedural delays.
  For example: The E-Courts Project has digitized 3.9 crore pending cases, but many lower courts still rely on paper-based documentation, slowing proceedings.
• Specialized Fast-Track Courts: Setting up courts for specific cases like commercial disputes, cheque bounce, and gender crimes can ensure quicker resolution.
  For example: High Courts, up to December 2023, 757 FTSCs including 411 exclusive POCSO (e-POCSO) Courts are functional in States/UTs across the country which have disposed of more than 2,14,000 cases.

Policy Measures

• Curb Excessive Government Litigation: Introducing pre-litigation assessment and penalties for frivolous government appeals can significantly reduce case overload.
  For example: The National Litigation Policy (2010) aimed to reduce government cases, but weak enforcement has led to continued excessive litigation.
• Strict Adjournment Rules: Limiting adjournments to exceptional cases and imposing monetary penalties for unnecessary delays can prevent case prolongation.
  For example: The Commercial Courts Act (2015) mandates strict adjournment rules, ensuring faster disposal of business disputes.
• Mandatory Mediation for Civil Cases: Encouraging Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) through compulsory mediation before litigation can ease court burden.
  For example: The Mediation Act (2023) promotes mandatory mediation in civil and commercial disputes, aiming to reduce court congestion.

Swift and efficient justice delivery is the cornerstone of a vibrant democracy. Tackling judicial delays requires a multi-pronged approach, enhancing judicial infrastructure, filling vacancies, integrating AI-driven case management, and promoting alternative dispute resolution. A forward-thinking policy framework, coupled with judicial accountability, can transform India’s legal system into one that is accessible, time-bound, and equitable for all.

DOWNLOAD PDF