This article reflects the considered views of Rohit Pandey on the growing pendency of cases in India and the urgent need for judicial reforms. Rohit Pandey has served as the Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association and brings deep insight from his long association with the legal profession and the functioning of India’s justice delivery system.

Backlogging in Indian courts, apart from the reasons stated above, is largely the result of an inadequate judge–population ratio and persistent infrastructural shortcomings. The Law Commission of India, in its landmark 120th Report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary (submitted on 31 July 1987), compared India’s judge–population ratio with several developed nations. The findings were alarming: India had only 10.5 judges per million population, one of the lowest in the world. In contrast, Australia had 41.6 judges per million, Canada 75.2, the United Kingdom 50.9, and the United States 107 per million. Shockingly, although the U.S. population in 1981 was nearly one-third of India’s, it had 25,037 judges, while India had only 7,675 judges in all.

Despite these glaring gaps, the Central Government failed to meet the Law Commission’s recommendation of increasing judicial strength to 107 judges per million by the year 2000. Even the Supreme Court, in All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (JT 2003 (3) SC 503), directed that judge strength be enhanced by 10 judges per million every year for five years, aiming for a minimum ratio of 50 judges per million. This too went unimplemented.

While India urgently requires more courts, more judges, and better infrastructure, the budgetary allocations tell a different story. In the name of “judicial reforms,” the judiciary received a mere ₹700 crore (0.078%) under the Tenth Five-Year Plan, and ₹835 crore (0.071%) under the Ninth Plan—figures too low to meet even the basic functional needs of courts.

Strengthening ADR & Legal Processes

Apart from improving judge strength, meaningful reliance on Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) systems—mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and medula—must be encouraged. Despite having statutory backing first under the Arbitration Act, 1940 and now the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ADR remains underutilized even after more than fifty years.

Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, amended on 1 July 2002, made ADR an integral part of the judicial process. Yet, without a coordinated effort by the Government and NGOs, ADR cannot realize its intended potential.

Further, courts must discourage frivolous litigation by imposing exemplary costs. A Central legislation akin to the Vexatious Litigation Prevention Act, 1949 (Madras Act VIII of 1949) is necessary to restrict habitual non-bona fide litigants. For minor offences, village-level adjudicatory bodies must be strengthened.

Grassroots Judicial Reforms

Institutions like Gram Nyayalayas (Village Courts) and Gram Parishads (Village Boards) must be empowered. Procedural laxity—such as delays in witness examination, non-compliance with the 30-day judgment writing rule, or permitting unnecessarily lengthy arguments—should be curbed. Adjournments should be granted only in exceptional cases.

Appeal provisions require urgent overhaul, and India must adopt a one-appeal policy to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. A statute similar to the U.S. Speedy Trial Act, 1974, prescribing fixed timelines for prosecution and disposal of criminal cases, is the need of the hour.

A shift system in courts—where the same infrastructure is utilized by different judges in multiple time slots—proved effective in Gujarat and should be implemented nationwide.

Fast Track & Mobile Courts

Following the 11th Finance Commission’s recommendations, 1,734 Fast Track Courts were established, significantly reducing case arrears. A similar mechanism should now be extended to Magisterial Courts. Additionally, mobile courts can play a transformative role—not only in spreading legal awareness among rural communities but also in delivering swift justice and strengthening public trust in the judiciary.

More offences must be made compoundable, thereby supporting plea bargaining and reducing unnecessary litigation.

All these steps, collectively, can meaningfully declog India’s overburdened judiciary.

Conclusion & Book Recommendation

India stands near a tipping point. Without decisive reforms, the judicial system risks reaching a stage where collapse becomes inevitable. It is imperative that the Government takes urgent and concrete measures to restore public confidence and reduce the mounting arrears of cases.

The Law Advice View:-

For readers who wish to understand the historical evolution of India’s justice system, court delays, and the social realities surrounding litigation, the book “Tareekh pe Justice” authored by Prashant Reddy T and Chitrakshi Jain is highly recommended. It offers a powerful and relatable narrative on how delayed justice affects ordinary lives and why systemic reform is essential.

Share this News