Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s remarks in Mumbai strike at the very heart of India’s justice delivery system. By describing High Courts as the “primary sentinel” of the rule of law, the CJI has reaffirmed a constitutional truth that is often overshadowed by the prominence of the Supreme Court: for the ordinary citizen, the High Court is not a stepping stone, but the most vital forum for justice. At a time when the Indian judiciary is grappling with more than five crore pending cases, the pressure on courts is undeniable. Yet, the crisis of delay cannot be understood merely as a judicial failure. A significant part of the problem lies outside the direct control of courts. The lower judiciary-where the bulk of litigation originates-depends heavily on State governments for infrastructure, appointment of judges, and supporting staff. Vacancies remain unfilled for years, courtrooms function with skeletal staff, and basic facilities are often inadequate. This structural bottleneck slows down the entire justice pipeline.
It is precisely in this constrained ecosystem that the role of High Courts becomes crucial. Constitutionally empowered with writ jurisdiction and supervisory authority over subordinate courts, High Courts act as the bridge between citizens and the justice system. As the CJI rightly observed, while the Supreme Court may have the final word, High Courts often have the most decisive one. They are the courts that hear the “first cry” of injustice-whether it concerns liberty, livelihood, environment, or dignity.
Recognizing this responsibility, High Courts across the country have in recent years adopted a more proactive approach to justice delivery. Several progressive measures have been introduced to tackle pendency and ensure timely relief. Preference is being given to old and long-pending cases, ensuring that justice is not rendered meaningless by delay. Specific days are earmarked for cases involving the most underprivileged sections of society, reinforcing the idea that access to justice must be inclusive. Courts have become increasingly strict about unnecessary adjournments, long considered a major cause of delay. The introduction and expansion of virtual hearings, accelerated during the pandemic, have further improved accessibility and efficiency.
These initiatives reflect a deliberate effort to clear backlogs and restore confidence in the system. Yet, as the CJI cautioned, much more remains to be done. Proactivity cannot be episodic; it must be institutional. HCs must remain alert to systemic failures in governance and law enforcement, intervening where necessary rather than waiting passively for litigation to reach their doors. Equally important is the emphasis on alternative dispute resolution. Mediation, reconciliation, and arbitration are no longer secondary methods; they are now necessary parts of mature justice. Numerous instances show that “out-of-the-box” thinking by judges-encouraging settlements outside the courtroom-has led to early and effective resolution of disputes. Such approaches not only reduce pendency but also preserve relationships and free judicial time for cases that truly require authoritative adjudication. Other ways include rationalising jurisdiction to reduce overcrowding, grouping similar cases for collective hearings, strengthening the use of summary disposal for routine matters, incentivising timely judgments, decriminalising minor offences, reducing government litigation, and enforcing strict responsibility on departments for avoidable appeals and prolonged delays.
The CJI’s strong words against bypassing HCs through direct access to the SC also carry an important ethical message. Justice cannot be a privilege of wealth or influence. Jumping the queue through money or power undermines both fairness and public trust. A robust HC system, accessible and efficient, is the antidote to this tendency. Timely justice requires a dual approach. HCs must raise the bar through proactive intervention, innovative resolution, and strict case management. At the same time, governments must fulfil their constitutional obligation by ensuring adequate budgetary support, filling judicial vacancies, and upgrading infrastructure at all levels. This is not an overnight task, but with sustained focus and cooperation, it is achievable.
CJI’s words are a timely reminder that justice delayed is indeed justice destroyed. If High Courts embrace their role as vigilant sentinels-guided by a strong sense of duty to the general public-they can make a remarkable difference. The path is challenging, but with commitment, creativity, and support, the promise of timely justice can be transformed from aspiration into reality.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
