By Vijay L Kelkar & Pradeep S Mehta
Few phrases capture the frustration of India’s judicial system as sharply as “tarikh pe tarikh”. Behind it lies a familiar story: cases stretching across years and even decades, files piling up faster than they can be cleared, and hearings repeatedly postponed. The structural causes of judicial delay have been examined at length in policy papers and parliamentary debates. The more pressing question is what comes next. If the problem is widely acknowledged, why does it persist, and how do we fix it?
India’s judicial system continues to face significant strain, with a judge-to-population ratio of only about 22 judges per million, far below what is required to ensure timely justice. As reported by NDTV in January, this figure is based on the Census 2011 population of 1,210.85 million and the current sanctioned strength of judges across all tiers. Compounding the problem, a significant share of sanctioned posts remains vacant, particularly in the high courts and subordinate judiciary, making time-bound appointments as urgent as expanding sanctioned strength.
Capacity alone is not enough; structural reforms matter just as much. Since the government remains the biggest litigant, consistent implementation of litigation policies at the Union and state levels would itself reduce a substantial volume of avoidable cases. A more ambitious reform is restructuring the Supreme Court into a constitutional court that hears only matters of constitutional importance, with regional appellate courts handling appeals against high court decisions. This would decongest the apex court and bring appellate justice closer to litigants.
Procedural reforms matter equally. Systematically promoting alternative dispute resolution (ADR) can divert routine disputes away from formal courts, while ending the long court vacation system would expand the working calendar without expanding the bench. A mandatory court management system binding lawyers to fixed timelines would curb the culture of unnecessary adjournments that lies at the heart of “tarikh pe tarikh”.
Alongside these reforms, judicial accountability needs urgent attention. Recent resignations of judges facing corruption inquiries highlight the need to establish a Judicial Services Commission modelled on those bodies in South Africa and Kenya. Such a body would investigate complaints, vet judicial appointments and removals, and advise the government on judicial matters. A similar framework in India could rationalise appointments and removals, and enhance transparency, particularly in the lower judiciary where systemic delays are most pronounced.
Yet capacity and structure alone cannot resolve a system that is procedurally slow. Technology must move beyond experimentation to become the backbone of judicial functioning. While initiatives such as the e-Courts Mission Mode Project have shown the potential to reduce delays and improve transparency, adoption remains uneven; what is required now is scale, standardisation, and consistency.
Digital tools can make it easier to handle routine, high-volume cases such as accident claims through faster, more consistent decisions. Measures like e-filing and digital notifications can further save judicial time. However, this shift must be supported by strong cybersecurity safeguards and sustained efforts to bridge the digital divide so that everyone can access the system equally.
Building on this digital shift, hybrid courts offer a practical next step. The pandemic showed that virtual hearings, used extensively to clear thousands of matters remotely, can significantly improve access and efficiency for routine cases by reducing travel time and easing court congestion. Complex arguments and final hearings, however, benefit from in-person engagement where the nuances of courtroom interaction remain critical. A hybrid model combining both formats allows courts to allocate time more effectively while improving accessibility across large regions.
Timely justice, however, requires not only efficiency within courts but also equitable access to them. For the poor and marginalised, barriers arise not just from delays but also from limited access to legal representation. This calls for sustained funding, well-trained legal aid lawyers, and proactive outreach. While mechanisms under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, do exist, their reach and quality remain uneven. Without meaningful representation, the promise of timely justice remains incomplete, and delay becomes a barrier that many cannot afford to confront.
Judicial delay is not unique to India; what distinguishes jurisdictions is the urgency with which they address it. While many courts operate under congestion, some treat delay not as a procedural inconvenience but as a constitutional violation. That shift in mindset is where India’s next lesson lies.
As highlighted in the paper titled “Indian Judicial System and Reforms: The Story of Delays and Pendency”, several countries have adopted effective strategies to address backlog and inefficiency. The United States enforces the right to a speedy trial through judicial balancing tests, while Europe and the United Kingdom treat delays as a violation of fundamental rights. Canada imposes strict timelines for criminal trials, and countries like Singapore and Estonia leverage technology to streamline case management and reduce adjournments.
Ultimately, the question is not whether India can reform its justice system, but whether it is willing to do so with urgency and intent. A system that delays justice risks denying it altogether. To uphold the promise of the Constitution, India must move decisively towards a model where justice is not only fair, but also timely, accessible, and credible.
Authors are respectively Vice President, Pune International Centre, and Secretary General, CUTS International With inputs from Anushka Kewlani, research associate, CUTS International
This article can also be viewed at:
https://www.financialexpress.com/