Revitalizing India’s Justice System

India's justice system is structurally crippled by chronic resource deficiency, with one in four positions vacant across police, judiciary, and prisons. Overwhelmed courts have led to prison overcrowding increasing from 18% to 30% in a decade, with 76% of inmates being undertrials rather than convicts. To ensure timely and equitable justice, India must undertake comprehensive reforms to revamp its judicial system, addressing structural inefficiencies and enhancing institutional capacity across all levels. 

What is the Institutional Framework of India’s Justice System? 

• Supreme Court: Established under Article 124, the Supreme Court is the apex constitutional authority and the final interpreter of the Constitution.  
  • It exercises original (Article 131), appellate (Articles 132–136), and advisory jurisdiction (Article 143). It currently consists of the Chief Justice of India and 33 other judges. 
• High Courts: High Courts function at the state level under Articles 214–231. They have original and appellate jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters.  
  • India has 25 High Courts, with some serving more than one state or Union Territory. 
• Subordinate Judiciary: At the district level, District and Sessions Courts (Article 233) serve as the backbone of the judicial system.  
  • These include civil and criminal courts at district, taluka, and metropolitan levels. While judicially subordinate to High Courts, their administration is managed by state governments. 
• Police and Law Enforcement: Law and order is a state subject under the Seventh Schedule. Each state has its own police force, governed by the Police Act of 1861 and state-specific legislations.  
  • Central agencies like the CBI, NIA, ED, and paramilitary forces supplement state efforts. The Prakash Singh judgment (2006) laid out key police reforms, though implementation remains uneven. 
• Prosecution System: Public Prosecutors, appointed under Sections 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, form the prosecution machinery.  
  • Many states have a Directorate of Prosecution, though lack of autonomy and poor coordination with the police hampers effectiveness. 
• Prison Administration: Prisons fall under the State List (List II) and are administered by respective Home Departments, as per the Prisons Act, 1894 and state prison manuals. 
  • The prison population includes undertrials, convicts, and preventive detainees, with oversight provided by judicial officers at district and High Court levels. 
• Legal Aid and Access to Justice: The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is mandated to provide free legal aid to the underprivileged under Article 39A.  
  • Each state has corresponding State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) to facilitate grassroots access. 
• Quasi-Judicial and Specialised Forums: To reduce the burden on regular courts and offer domain-specific justice, India has established tribunals such as the NGT, CAT, and DRT, as well as fast-track courts, Lok Adalats, and special courts for handling POCSO, NDPS, and corruption cases. 

What are the Key Issues Associated with India’s Justice System?  

• Backlog Crisis Undermining Justice Delivery: Justice in India suffers from an endemic backlog that undermines the rule of law and erodes citizen confidence.  
  • The sheer volume of pending cases results in judicial fatigue and procedural stagnation. 
  • Over 5 crore cases are pending in various courts of the country, including 80,000 in the Supreme Court, the backlog may hit 6 crore by 2026 (IJR 2025). 
• Vacancies Weakening Institutional Capacity: Widespread vacancies across judiciary, police, and prisons severely hinder institutional capacity, causing delays, under-enforcement, and burnout.  
  • This weakens justice delivery at every level. According to India Justice Report 2025, India has just 15 judges per 10 lakh people, far short of the 50 recommended by the Law Commission (1987). 
    • Even top-performing states like Karnataka face key staffing shortfalls in legal aid and court support staff. 
• Underfunding and Skewed Resource Allocation: Justice remains a low-budget priority despite its foundational role in democracy. Most funds are locked in salaries, with minimal investment in infrastructure, training, or tech. 
  • For instance, on average, 4.3% of states' budget funds were allocated for justice in 2024-25. Specialist courts like POCSO remain under-resourced. 
• Inaccessibility for the Marginalised: India’s justice system often excludes the very communities it should protect — the poor, Dalits, Adivasis, minorities — due to geography, cost, and social capital barriers. 
  • Undertrial prisoners constitute 76% of the total prison population, reflecting a deep systemic crisis. Access to timely bail and speedy trials remains a distant dream for many. 
    • Legal aid services are largely concentrated in urban areas, leaving rural and marginalised communities underserved. 
• Procedural Illegality and Custodial Violence: Frequent cases of custodial deaths, illegal detentions, and police brutality point to a culture of impunity worsened by poor oversight and minimal legal consequences. 
  • In 2019, India estimates 1723 custodial deaths have occurred which constitutes 5 deaths every day. Despite SC’s D.K. Basu judgment (1997) mandating safeguards, compliance with CCTV and arrest protocols remains uneven across most states. 
• Legal Aid Gaps and Ineffectiveness: Despite a constitutional guarantee (Article 39A), legal aid remains patchy in quality, reach, and perception, often failing the poor in practice. 
  • For instance, India spends only INR 0.78 per capita on legal aid, which is one of the lowest in the world. Also, most jail legal clinics are non-functional. 
• Undertrial Crisis and Prison Overcrowding: The justice system holds thousands in prolonged pre-trial detention due to systemic delays. 
  • Many remain incarcerated at the pre-trial stage for years without conviction. Ineffective bail processes further contribute to rising prison overcrowding. 
  • Recent data shows that 25 States and Union Territories reported overall prison occupancy rates above 100% in 2022.  
• Gender and Social Representation Gaps: Under-representation of women, SC/STs, OBCs, and minorities in judiciary and police undermines public confidence and restricts empathetic justice delivery. 
  • For instance, women constitute 37.4% of all judges in India—14% in high courts and 38% in subordinate courts. 
    • In the last 75 years, the Supreme Court has only had 11 women judges, an abysmal 4% of the total 276 judges. 
  • Also, between 2018 and 2023, only 17% of High Court appointments were from SC, ST or OBC communities. 
• Institutional Fragmentation and Lack of Coordination: The four pillars—police, judiciary, prisons, and legal aid—function in isolation, weakening holistic justice delivery. Policy coherence and data-sharing are limited. 
  • India Justice Report scores show wide variation: states ranking high in police lag in judiciary or prisons. No shared performance dashboards or grievance systems exist across institutions. 
• Lack of Transparency and Performance Evaluation: Judicial and police accountability mechanisms remain weak. Opaque appointments, absence of case disposal benchmarks, and no community feedback reduce institutional responsiveness. 
  • For instance, the Collegium system faces criticism for opacity. NJAC was struck down in 2015 but no reforms have followed.  

What Measures can India Adopt to Revamp the Justice System? 

• Constituting National Judicial Infrastructure Authority: India’s judiciary continues to function in dilapidated buildings with poor access, especially in subordinate courts.  
  • A centralized NJIA, as proposed by former CJI N.V. Ramana, can ensure uniform infrastructure standards, dedicated funding, and modern amenities like digital courtrooms and barrier-free access. 
    • This would institutionalize infrastructure planning across states, reduce inter-state disparities, and enhance the dignity and functionality of the justice system. 
• Establish Regional Benches of the Supreme Court: Access to the apex court is geographically skewed due to its centralization in Delhi.  
  • There is a need to explore the feasibility of invoking Article 130 to establish regional benches in east, west, south, and northeast zones that would decentralize appellate access and reduce cost, time, and case overload. 
    • This measure, supported by the 2023 Standing Committee, enhances the fundamental right to access to justice under Article 21 and operationalizes federal equity in judicial access. 
• Enacting Comprehensive Victim Rights and Compensation Law: India’s criminal justice system remains accused-centric.  
  • A dedicated victim rights law must guarantee participation of victims in trials, state-funded legal counsel, and enforceable compensation mechanisms. 
  • A Victim Compensation Fund, as proposed by the Malimath Committee, must be institutionalized and linked to proceeds from organised or economic crimes, placing victim dignity at the center of justice delivery. 
• Strengthen Judicial Accountability: To counter perceptions of judicial opacity, India needs a robust judicial appraisal mechanism assessing disposal rates, conduct, and reasoning quality — alongside a statutory requirement for annual declaration of assets. 
  • Inspired by the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (2010), this would uphold ethical integrity, improve internal evaluation, and align judiciary with transparency norms applicable to other constitutional authorities. 
• Rationalize Court Vacations: The colonial-era practice of long court vacations reduces effective working days and delays case disposal.  
  • A shift to staggered leave systems and vacation benches, along with a Malimath-style “Arrears Eradication Scheme,” can clear long-pending cases through dedicated fast-tracks or Lok Adalats. 
    • This would directly reduce pendency, optimize judicial time, and uphold the principle of continuous access to justice. 
• Revamp Legal Aid Delivery Through Technology and Community Models: While Article 39A promises free legal aid, its delivery is urban-centric, underfunded, and poorly monitored.  
  • AI-powered chatbots (as piloted in Maharashtra), mobile legal vans, and trained paralegal volunteers embedded in panchayats can widen the net of accessible justice. 
    • This reform will operationalize “justice as a service,” especially for SC/STs, women, and rural poor. 
• Modernize Police Investigation with Structural and Forensic Reforms: Separation of law-and-order from investigation, specialization in cyber and financial crimes, and expansion of forensic labs are crucial to credible and timely prosecutions. 
  • Establishing a National Forensic Grid and Police Establishment Boards, as recommended by the Malimath Committee, would professionalize investigation, reduce custodial excesses, and increase conviction rates.

Conclusion:  

India’s justice system, though institutionally well-structured, suffers from deep-rooted inefficiencies that compromise access, equity, and trust. Structural vacancies, delays, and exclusion of the marginalised have turned justice into a privilege rather than a right. Reforming the system requires coordinated, well-funded, and inclusive measures across all pillars — police, judiciary, prisons, and legal aid. Only then can justice truly serve as a pillar of democracy and social transformation. 

Drishti Mains Question: “Despite a robust institutional framework, India’s justice system continues to deny timely and equitable justice.” Examine.