Addressing the growing backlog in India’s judicial system

The National Judicial Data Grid has revealed a staggering estimate: over 4.45 crore cases are currently pending across the Indian judiciary, from the Supreme Court down to the Munsiff Courts. Among these, over 36 lakh cases involve women as complainants. The Supreme Court alone has a backlog of 83,000 cases.

In Kerala, 18 lakh cases remain unresolved, including more than 2.5 lakh cases in the High Court. Of the pending cases in the state, 1,88,687 were filed by women, with 54,347 involving criminal charges.

The backlog continues to swell each year, a reflection of India’s complex, multi-tiered legal system, which still operates largely on a framework designed by the British before independence. Despite its layers and appellate options, the system has seen insufficient reform, contributing to the seemingly endless tide of unresolved cases.

Even minor offenses charged by the police find their way into lower courts, exacerbating the problem. A potential solution could involve forming committees at the district level to handle such cases, helping to alleviate the burden on the courts. However, the law currently lacks any provision requiring that cases be resolved within a specific timeframe, except in certain areas like the Army Act of 1950 and the Factories Act of 1948. In contrast, general cases face no such urgency, leaving both legal professionals and the public uncertain about how long a case may take to conclude.

Special courts, such as those established under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, were created to expedite the resolution of serious charges. Yet, even these courts are hampered by procedural delays, often due to inefficiencies on the part of the prosecution or an inability of the courts to enforce timeliness.

One significant issue is the unlimited adjournments that both plaintiff and defendant lawyers frequently request. This practice, coupled with inadequate infrastructure in many parts of the judiciary, contributes significantly to delays. The government, responsible for funding improvements, often fails to allocate sufficient resources. Meanwhile, the shortage of judges—currently around 20,000—remains a critical problem. To adequately handle the caseload, this number should be increased to at least 50,000.

Efforts to establish a National Judicial Commission for the appointment of judges, akin to the process for selecting civil servants, have stalled due to various objections. As for lawyers, the prolonged duration of cases can translate into prolonged earnings, leading to a lack of motivation to expedite proceedings.

The practical application of modern technology could offer some relief by streamlining processes and reducing the backlog. However, progress in this area has been slow.

Compounding these issues are the frequent delays in appointing judges to the High Courts and the Supreme Court, often due to disputes between the judiciary and the government. This only exacerbates the already dire situation.

If these challenges are not addressed, the prolonged dragging of cases will continue to erode public faith in the judiciary. It is imperative that the ruling authorities adopt measures to reform and strengthen the judicial system, ensuring that justice is not only delivered but delivered promptly.