Chief Justice of India BR Gavai’s recent observations in Hyderabad have once again highlighted the daunting and deep-rooted issues confronting the Indian legal system. CJI highlighted how delays in trials have often led to innocent individuals languishing in jail for years as undertrials. This grim reality paints a worrying picture of the current state of judicial delivery and calls for serious introspection into the systemic shortcomings that continue to plague the legal machinery. At the heart of this crisis is the sheer volume of pending cases, which has now crossed an alarming 5 crore mark across all courts. Despite acknowledgement at the highest levels, including by successive Chief Justices and even the Law Commission, the gap between recognition and implementation of reforms remains wide. CJI Gavai’s candid admission is a welcome first step. However, the persistent upward trend in pending cases underlines the inadequacy of solutions implemented so far.
One of the critical reasons for the judicial backlog is the acute shortage of judges, especially in the lower judiciary. A single judge is often tasked with handling multiple District Courts, leading to inefficiency and overburdening. According to the sanctioned strength, India has approximately 21 judges per million people, compared to 50 per million in developed countries-a statistic that is both revealing and disturbing. Even more problematic is the state-wise disparity in appointments. Since the lower judiciary is a state subject, recruitment often becomes entangled in bureaucratic red tape, regional politics, and financial constraints. Many sanctioned posts remain vacant for years. Infrastructure deficiencies further compound the issue. From courtrooms lacking basic amenities to poor internet connectivity even in District Courts, the working conditions leave much to be desired. The implementation of video conferencing and virtual hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic was a promising step, proving that technology can be a great enabler. Yet, it remains underutilised due to uneven digitisation and a lack of trained staff. The support staff crisis-clerks, stenographers, and process servers-forms another bottleneck. Judges cannot function in isolation; they need a robust administrative apparatus. Yet, court staff are frequently overburdened and undertrained, leading to avoidable delays in document processing, service of summons, and court scheduling.
Efforts like setting targets to dispose of cases pending for over five years, though well-intentioned, remain insufficient unless part of a broader, integrated strategy. Legal reforms must address the root issues-staffing, infrastructure, digitisation, and above all, judicial accountability. Another neglected but significant aspect is the role of lawyers. Many times, adjournments are sought liberally, and dates are handed out mechanically, turning the judicial calendar into a revolving door. There needs to be a cultural shift within the legal fraternity-a renewed commitment to the client’s cause, especially in cases of undertrials or victims awaiting justice. Lawyers must lead from the front to ensure the early and effective disposal of matters.
As Justice Gavai noted, justice is not only political but must also be economic and social. The Constitution’s promise to deliver justice to the last and most needy citizen is being systematically eroded with each case that gets postponed for want of time, staff, or intent. The human cost of delays-loss of income, personal liberty, and even life opportunities-is devastating. Digitisation holds immense promise. The creation of a centralised case management system, real-time updates, virtual case listings, and AI-assisted scheduling could revolutionise court administration. However, without adequate staff to manage and maintain such systems, these remain paper promises.
Practically, the crisis in legal system is not one-dimensional and hence cannot be solved by isolated reforms. What is needed is a collaborative, multi-stakeholder effort involving the Judiciary, the Executive, State Governments, Legal Professionals, and Civil Society. Budgetary allocations for judicial infrastructure must be increased. Judicial appointments must be expedited transparently. Administrative reforms must go hand-in-hand with legal education reform to prepare future lawyers and judges for these modern challenges. It’s time every stakeholder in the justice delivery system realised that delayed justice isn’t just a procedural lapse-it’s a denial of the very rights that underpin our democracy.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
