An estimated five crore cases are pending at various levels in our courts. Out of these 92 per cent (4.6 crore) are in subordinate courts, 63,000 in high courts and 90,000 at the apex court. So clearly, the major chunk of the problem lies in the lower courts ─ even though pendency with the higher judiciary is also a matter of serious concern. It is important to note that:
(a) 50 per cent of all cases are filed by various government departments
(b) 70 per cent of all criminal cases are accounted for by the accused awaiting trial and
(c) The number of new cases filed is higher than those disposed of in any year.
Pendency amounts to:
Violation of the fundamental rights of the people
Prison occupancy is already much higher than the designed capacity and, most importantly
There’s a severe impact on the economy as commercial activity is hampered and contract enforcement gets delayed, which dissuades even foreign investors.
At the core of the problem is the ‘Low Judge to Population ratio, at around 20/million (as against 100 plus in the United States ─ undisputed world champion in litigation, 65 plus in Europe and 50 in the United Kingdom). Our own 1987 Law Commission had recommended a figure of 50/million. To add to the problem, even compared with the sanctioned strength, there are an estimated 5,000 vacancies in lower courts and more than 300 in High Courts. There is also shortage of courtrooms and staff in lower courts.
As already mentioned, the government is the biggest litigant and, as such, recent passage of the ‘Jan Vishwas (amendments) Bill, 2026’ to decriminalise and rationalise about 1,000 ‘minor offences’ should make a big difference. Commerce Minister, speaking about the Bill, also urged prosecutors to request the courts to just close such cases based on the new provisions. Now, this action ─ if aggressively followed by the prosecutors ─ can reduce the pendency significantly. One of the leading pink papers also suggested ‘Go for the Big Ones, Cut the Clutter’ which should hopefully lead to better economic outcomes.
A review of newspaper reports and articles by experts, over just a month or two, brings out (what I would call) appalling misuse of the legal system by us ─ ‘Litigation Happy Indians’. Sample a few:
Court acquits 1974 robbery case absconder in the absence of witness or evidence. The accused had robbed a wrist watch worth Rs 60, four rupees in cash and a handkerchief.
Court cites ’15-year jail stay’, grants bail to two in 2011 blast case
Eleven years on, retired assistant rationing officer let off in bribery case as prosecution failed to provide cogent and convincing evidence.
Then there was a report around September 2025 ‘Legal Matters Cost India Inc. over 62K Crore in FY25’. So, the government is not the only litigant ─ the corporate sector too is active, although the amounts involved in their case may be large and also because of rising M&A activity, cross border deals, rising compliance burden and regulatory complexity. Another study revealed that ‘more than a third of the cases pending in Delhi Courts relate to dishonored or bounced cheques’.
A major cause of delays is the frequent ‘adjournments’ sought by both sides. Tareek-pe-Tareek is a technique adopted in many cases, essentially to tire out the individuals involved whereas bigger parties like the government and corporates always have ‘standing counsels’ to handle such trivia.
To sum up, we need several steps to eliminate ─ or at least lighten ─ the logjam. Such as:
(a) urgently filling up all existing vacancies of judges
(b) increasing the sanctioned strength to at least 35/40 judges per million population
(c) improving infrastructure and staff in lower courts
(d) persuading the government to actually seek closure of existing ‘minor offence cases’ and also religiously stop filing new cases for such decriminalised offences
(e) urging authorities to ensure that the ‘under trial period’ does not stretch beyond three to four years maximum during which investigating officers must collect all required evidence
(f) honourable judges to strictly examine requests for adjournments and ─ most importantly ─ strengthen our ‘alternate dispute resolution’(ADR) mechanism to resolve conflicts outside the courts. We will need to bolster our investigation agencies (Police, CBI, EOW, SFO etc.) and, of course, there will have to be a lot of education and counselling of the potential litigants to opt for (ADR).
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication. |
