India’s sub-continent reaches all the way from Pakistan in the west to Bangladesh and Myanmar in the east, all the way down to the southernmost tip of the spice islands, between the lines of latitude above and below the equator, and the world’s biggest democracy accommodates almost 1.4 billion people, making its judiciary one of the most important by any legal metric. As the world’s largest democracy undergoes turbulent social, economic and political changes, its courts face increasing pressures that put at risk their most basic task — dispensing justice in a timely manner.
The most serious crisis that India’s courts face is a massive backlog of cases. As of early 2024, the total number of pending cases at all levels of the judiciary stood at around 48.1 million. With over 80,000 cases pending before the Supreme Court alone, High Courts are struggling with approximately 6.2 million cases. The rest of the backlog haunts district and subordinate courts, the first place most citizens encounter the judicial system.
That backlog represents justice deferred — and, all too often, denied. The average civil case takes almost nine years to settle, and criminal cases often extend beyond five years. For the average Indian citizen, this means that constitutional rights are now a generational burden in seeking legal recourse.
The system is failing due to lack of resources. India has an average of around 21 judges per million people — still far short of the target recommended by the 120th Law Commission report of 50-55 judges per million. Many court facilities in the districts have no basic technological infrastructure, an appropriate record-keeping system, and proper manpower. Judiciary has been allocated about 0.08% of the GDP every year, indicating a deeply entrenched under-resourcing of this important institution.
Through judicial interpretations, the appointment process evolved into the present “collegium system”, where senior judges virtually appoint their successors with little involvement of the executive or legislature. This system has been criticized for both its opacity and its lack of diversity while still preserving judicial independence. As of early 2024, women account for only roughly 12% of High Court judges and 11% of Supreme Court justices, and representation from marginalized communities continues to be disproportionately low.
The judiciary has taken an activist role in the country by using Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to expand access to justice for disadvantaged groups and through shaping public policy. But critics contend that activism can overstep the legislature’s role in ways that blur the lines of what’s acceptable in a constitutional democracy.
There have been attempts to modernise the judiciary with the e-Courts project which has shown promise. More than 18,000 courts have been digitized, and virtual hearings — a fast-tracked innovation in the COVID-19 pandemic — are here to stay. Through the National Judicial Data Grid, we now have real-time updates on status of cases, which has brought unparalleled transparency to the proceedings of the courts. Nonetheless, the digital divide remains an obstacle for many litigants, especially in rural areas.
There are several reform measures that need to be urgently undertaken. First, upgrading the strength of the judiciary to recommended levels would entail appointing about 40,000 additional judges of all tiers. Second, specialized tribunals for routine matters could relieve pressure on ordinary courts. One, enhancing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms could redirect a substantial number of cases away from formal litigation.
The shortcomings of the judicial system adversely impact marginalized communities who are unable to access adequate legal representation during protracted legal processes. Justice, for them, is an aspiration — not a fact. The business community, meanwhile, points to judicial delays as a top barrier to economic growth, with World Bank data showing contract enforcement taking an average of 1,445 days.
As India seeks a bigger role in the world, the health of its judiciary is central to its democratic credentials. A judiciary unable to provide justice in a timely manner risks undermining faith in institutions and the rule of law itself. The problems confronting India’s courts cannot be described only as administrative issues; they are existential questions about the quality of its democracy.
Only with the political will, the financial resources, and the continued public focus will provide the kind of investment this initiative needs to succeed. And absent wholesale reform, the divide between constitutional realities and judicial realities will only grow, with millions of citizens left with rights on the page but remedies just out of reach.
