By Sanjay Raman Sinha
Recently, Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna took a hard look at the state of India’s judicial system—and what she saw prompted a stark warning. Her concern was not merely about rising pendency in the courts, but also about the attitude of key stakeholders who contribute to the problem. In a pointed critique, Justice Nagarathna—who is slated to become India’s first woman chief Justice in 2027—placed the government squarely in the dock.
“The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation,” she remarked. “The State becomes both the complainant and the cause,” she added.
Her observation captures one of the central paradoxes of India’s judicial crisis. Today, government departments account for nearly half of all litigation in the country. Yet, the State often fails to streamline its internal processes to reduce unnecessary disputes.
Justice Nagarathna pointed out that bureaucratic incentives themselves encourage excessive litigation. Officials who attempt to settle disputes internally may face scrutiny or accusations of impropriety, while filing appeals is often viewed as a safer administrative choice.
The result is predictable: appeals become routine, disputes multiply, and the courts become the default arena for administrative decision-making. Despite being the single largest litigant in the country, the government has also been reluctant to significantly invest in judicial infrastructure.
India allocates less than one percent of its budget to judicial infrastructure—equivalent to just 0.01 to 0.1 percent of GDP. This chronic underinvestment has left many courts struggling with outdated facilities and limited technological support.
Justice Nagarathna offered a candid explanation for this neglect. “Expanding courts does not generate the same immediate visibility as constructing highways or launching welfare programmes,” she observed. “The political incentive is weak when it comes to judicial infrastructure investment,” she said.
Over the years, several chief justices of India have attempted to tackle the crisis through ambitious reforms. Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud launched Phase III of the e-Courts Project, integrating the Supreme Court with the National Judicial Data Grid. With a budget of Rs 7,210 crore, the initiative aims to provide real-time data on case pendency and enhance transparency across the judicial system.
Earlier, former Chief Justice NV Ramana proposed the creation of a National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India. His argument was simple: judges cannot deliver modern justice from outdated facilities. “Good infrastructure for courts is not a luxury—it is a necessity,” Justice Ramana said at the time. “Judicial infrastructure is essential for improving access to justice.” However, the proposal submitted to the government in 2021 has yet to materialise.
Meanwhile, other reforms have focused on the functioning of the Supreme Court itself. Former Chief Justice UU Lalit, followed by the current Chief Justice Surya Kant, prioritised the revival of Constitution benches, enabling the Court to address long-pending constitutional questions. While this has helped resolve major legal controversies, a different problem continues to fuel pendency: the steady accumulation of routine cases.
Justice Nagarathna also pointed to another stakeholder whose role in delays is rarely acknowledged—the legal profession itself. “A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponements because he benefits from per-appearance fees and extended timelines,” she remarked wryly. The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly warned against such practices. In the 2025 judgment K Vadivel vs K Shanthi, the Court emphasised that the legal process must not be used as a tool for delay.
The consequences of prolonged litigation extend far beyond courtrooms. India’s prisons offer a stark illustration of the human cost of delay. More than 75 percent of inmates are undertrials, many of whom spend years awaiting trial—sometimes longer than the maximum sentence prescribed for the alleged offence.
To address these structural issues, Justice Nagarathna has proposed the creation of a Judicial Reforms Commission that would examine systemic problems, including India’s severe shortage of judges. Currently, the country has around 21 judges per million people, far below the recommended benchmark of 50 judges per million.
Ultimately, Justice Nagarathna argues that solving India’s pendency crisis requires more than piecemeal reforms. It demands institutional change. That means enforcing strict procedural timelines, imposing costs for unnecessary adjournments, holding government departments accountable for frivolous appeals, and structuring court hearings in ways that promote efficient adjudication.
Without such systemic reform, the backlog will continue to grow—and justice will remain frustratingly out of reach for millions of citizens.