By Vijay L. Kelkar, Pradeep S. Mehta
India’s justice system is groaning under a crushing backlog. Nearly 48 million cases are pending in lower courts, while the Supreme Court alone has close to 90,000 unresolved matters. This does not include matters before tribunals and administrative bodies.
There is no shortage of lawyers or law colleges, but thousands of judicial posts remain vacant. There are over 4,800 vacancies in subordinate courts and nearly 300 in high courts, leaving the country with barely 21 judges per million people, far below the widely accepted benchmark of 50.
As Chief Justice Surya Kant has warned, “Without sufficient courts, even the most sincere judicial system will collapse under the strain.” The consequences are already visible.
Undertrial prisoners wait years for hearings, commercial disputes drag on interminably and ordinary citizens steadily lose faith in the promise of timely justice. Delays have become normal and the exception has become the rule.
Against this backdrop came the Supreme Court’s November verdict striking down key provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act of 2021. The court invalidated clauses governing tribunal appointments, tenure and administrative control, reaffirming that tribunals must remain insulated from executive influence.
To restore institutional independence, it directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunals Commission within a fixed timeframe to oversee appointments, service conditions and administration.
Tribunals were created to expedite justice. Yet, many are dysfunctional today. A law ministry assessment points to over 524,000 cases pending before specialized tribunals.
Debt recovery tribunals alone account for 250,000 unresolved matters, while tax and administrative tribunals face tens of thousands more. Alarmingly, several key tribunals are functioning without chairpersons and nearly a fifth of the sanctioned member posts remain vacant.
This tribunal crisis is not an isolated failure. It reflects deeper institutional weaknesses across India’s courts. Judicial capacity routinely falls short of sanctioned strength even as filings rise.
Appointments move slowly, caught in a web of prolonged collegium procedures, political deadlocks, vetting delays and informal influence networks. Experienced judges retire without timely replacements, while capable young lawyers wait years for elevation.
We have recommended that a Judicial Services Commission be established, like in South Africa and Kenya, so that appointments and removals are smooth, but it is being resisted on the misplaced ground of judicial independence.
While no judicial system is free of backlogs, most constitutional democracies operate with far lower pendency-to-judge ratios. The UK, with over 50 judges per million people, relies on statutory timelines and active case management to limit adjournments.
Singapore combines strict scheduling discipline with end-to-end digital case tracking. Even Brazil, despite its heavy caseload, has expanded specialized courts and mandatory electronic filing, raising disposal capacity.
In India, an infrastructure deficit compounds the problem. India may have over 22,000 courtrooms, but many lack basic facilities. Judges across states report shortages of staff, inadequate courtroom space and outdated record systems. Digital tools promised under the e-courts project have been unevenly implemented.
We need reform.
First, judicial and tribunal appointments must follow strict, publicly monitored timelines.
Second, the National Tribunals Commission must be operationalized on schedule, with standing search panels ready to fill vacancies immediately.
Third, ad-hoc judges under Article 224A should be deployed far more systematically. The Supreme Court has recently clarified that retired high court judges appointed under this provision may be assigned flexibility, including as part of division benches at the discretion of the chief justice of the high court.
This pragmatic approach taps a vast pool of judicial experience and should be adopted more widely to clear cases without waiting for permanent appointments.
Fourth, investment in judicial infrastructure must accelerate. Courtrooms, staff and digital systems all require sustained funding and oversight. Completing the e-courts upgrade nationwide would eliminate avoidable procedural delays and reduce the administrative burden on judges.
Lastly, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and Lok Adalats must be expanded further, freeing the courts to focus on serious trials and complex disputes.
There are no quick fixes. But the cost of inaction is far greater. Every day a tribunal operates without leadership or a court sits short of judges, justice is delayed and public trust is eroded.
Judicial independence and judicial capacity must advance together. In this exercise, lawyers must cooperate with the system rather than oppose any effort to advance litigant interest. For example, the chief justice of the Rajasthan high court recently proposed that courts should function for two Saturdays in the month, but the proposal was opposed by lawyers on specious grounds.
One wonders what their response will be when the reform of no holidays for courts is proposed. With clear targets, institutional cooperation and political will, India can still ensure that justice is not merely promised but delivered on time.
Anushka Kewlani of CUTS contributed to this article.
The authors are, respectively, vice president of Pune International Centre and secretary general of CUTS International.
This article can also be viewed at:
https://www.livemint.com/