Towards Fast, Fair, and Transparent Judiciary

This editorial is based on “Calling out the criticism of the Indian judiciary” which was published in The Hindu on 07/07/2025. The article brings into picture the growing debate over India’s judiciary being seen as a hurdle to development, while emphasizing that the real issue lies in systemic flaws across institutions. It argues that only coordinated reforms can align justice delivery with the nation’s developmental goals.

For Prelims: India's judiciary, e-Courts Mission, National Judicial Data Grid, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, ADR mechanism, Mediation Act, 2023,  Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, All India Judicial Service.

For Mains: Key Advancements Transforming the Indian Judiciary, Major Challenges Confronting the Indian Judiciary.  

India's judiciary has increasingly found itself at the center of debates surrounding the nation's developmental trajectory, with prominent voices within policy circles identifying it as a principal impediment to growth. This criticism, while reflecting genuine concerns about judicial delays and procedural complexities, often presents an incomplete picture of a deeply interconnected systemic challenge. The courts operate within constraints largely shaped by legislative drafting, executive litigation practices, and chronic resource deficits, factors that lie beyond judicial control. While the need for judicial reform is undeniable, meaningful progress requires a comprehensive approach. Only through such coordinated institutional reform, can India build a legal system that truly serves both justice and development. 

What are the Key Advancements Transforming the Indian Judiciary? 

• Robust Digital Transformation via e-Courts Project: The implementation of the e-Courts Mission Mode Project Phase III is rapidly transforming justice delivery by leveraging technology for speed, accessibility, and transparency.  
  • This initiative is critical for transitioning to a paperless, digitally-enabled court system, streamlining judicial administration.  
  • The government allocated ₹7,210 crore for e-Courts Phase III (2023-2027). 
    • As of October, 2024, Indian Virtual Courts had handled over 6 crore traffic challan cases across 21 states and Union Territories, collecting over ₹649.81 crore in online fines. 
• Live-Streaming of Constitutional Bench Hearings: The Supreme Court's decision to live-stream proceedings, particularly those involving constitutional matters, is a landmark step towards achieving true judicial transparency and public scrutiny.  
  • This allows citizens to witness court functioning, demystifying the process and enhancing accountability.  
  • Rules for Live Streaming were framed in 2022, with the Supreme Court emerging as a global leader by conducting over 7.54 lakh virtual hearings from March 2020 to June 2024, facilitating open access to justice. 
• Expansion of Digital Infrastructure and Information Access: The development of the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and ancillary services has vastly improved information access for all stakeholders, making real-time case status and judgment data publicly available.  
  • This digital backbone is crucial for data-driven decision-making in judicial administration.  
  • NJDG covers 18,735 District and Subordinate Courts and provides case status information for over 21.99 crore cases, alongside the establishment of 1,814 eSewa Kendras to bridge the digital divide for litigants. 
• Proactive Judicial Activism in Constitutional Rights: The Supreme Court continues its tradition of robust judicial activism, expansively interpreting fundamental rights to protect marginalized groups and uphold democratic values against legislative or executive inaction.  
  • This proactive role reinforces the judiciary as the ultimate custodian of the Constitution. 
  •  Landmark rulings like Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India decriminalized Section 377 IPC, and the expansion of Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to dignity, health, and a clean environment demonstrates this activism. 
• Prioritization of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): There's a strong institutional push to promote and formalize ADR mechanisms like mediation and arbitration, which are vital for reducing the judicial backlog and offering citizens faster, more cost-effective solutions for disputes.  
  • This strategy unburdens the formal court system from manageable cases. Legislative amendments like the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, made Pre-Institution Mediation mandatory for commercial disputes, with Lok Adalats resolving a high volume of cases, demonstrating a concerted effort to scale ADR. 
    • The Mediation Act, 2023 is also a significant step in the right direction.  
• Legislative Measures to Decriminalize and Reduce Litigation: The Executive and Legislature are engaging in key legal reforms to reduce the judicial burden from non-serious offenses and government-led litigation, acknowledging the judiciary's capacity constraints.  
  • This inter-branch coordination is essential for long-term systemic relief.  
  • The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, decriminalized 183 provisions across 42 Central laws, directly aimed at decreasing the inflow of minor cases into the courts.

What are the Major Challenges Confronting the Indian Judiciary?  

• Massive Case Pendency and Backlog: The colossal case backlog represents the most visible failure, severely delaying justice delivery and violating the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.  
  • This systemic stress is compounded by a consistent inflow that perpetually outpaces the rate of case disposal.  
  • Over 5 crore cases are pending across all courts, including an all-time high of 88,417 cases in the Supreme Court as of September 2025.  
    • This delay contributes to a high number of undertrial prisoners, constituting 76% of the jail population. 
• Chronic Judicial Vacancies and Low Judge-to-Population Ratio: A severe shortage of judges at all tiers critically limits the court's functional capacity, directly fueling the mounting backlog and overworking the sitting judges. 
  • This structural deficit undermines the constitutional goal of accessible justice for all citizens.  
  • According to the latest data from the Department of Justice, India’s 25 High Courts have a combined sanctioned strength of 1,114 judges.  
    • As of now, only 769 judges are in position, leaving 345 posts, or over 30%, vacant. 
  • Subordinate courts alone face nearly 5,000 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of over 25,000. 
• Lack of Transparency and Accountability in Appointments: The Collegium system's opaqueness and delays in judicial appointments raise serious concerns about accountability, favoritism, and meritocracy, leading to the persistent allegation of an 'Uncle Judge Syndrome.'  
  • The lack of clear, published criteria for selection dilutes public confidence in the integrity of the process.  
  • The absence of a statutory disciplinary mechanism means the 'In-House Procedure' for misconduct is secretive and non-binding, evidenced by the fact that women judges in High Courts stand at a mere 14.27% as of March 2025, highlighting poor diversity. 
• Inadequate Judicial Infrastructure and Technology Adoption: The physical and technological infrastructure in lower courts remains severely deficient, hindering efficiency and preventing the full utility of e-courts initiatives like e-filing and video-conferencing.  
  • This gap creates operational bottlenecks and slows down the judicial process. 
  • Centre for Research and Planning of Supreme Court of India in its 2023 report highlighted how there is an acute shortage of 4,200 courtrooms for judges across the country, while e-Courts projects still struggle with poor connectivity and inadequate equipment in many rural courts. 
• Over-Centralization and Selectivity in the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court's role as both an apex constitutional court and a final court of appeal on routine matters leads to over-centralization of workload, causing critical delays in hearing urgent constitutional matters.  
  • The alleged selective listing of cases further compounds concerns over equitable access to the highest court.  
  • The Supreme Court's backlog hit a peak of 88,417 cases in September 2025, with an institution rate of 7,080 cases in August alone, drastically reducing the time for Constitution Bench hearings. (28 main and 265 connected Constitution Bench matters are pending as of May 2025) 
• Government as the Largest Litigator: The excessive litigation initiated by government bodies places an enormous, often avoidable strain on judicial resources, consuming a significant portion of the courts' time and financial resources across all levels.  
  • Government agencies are responsible for approximately 50% of all litigation in India, with numerous cases tying up public revenue and stalling vital infrastructure projects. 
  • The amendment of laws like the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, to decriminalize provisions attempts to ease this burden. 

What Measures can be Undertaken to Further Strengthen Indian Judiciary? 

• Institutionalizing a National Judicial Infrastructure Authority: Establishing an independent authority with statutory backing can ensure coordinated planning, financing, and maintenance of judicial infrastructure across all levels.  
  • It would standardize digital and physical court facilities, ensuring parity between urban and rural jurisdictions.  
  • This institutional mechanism should work on lifecycle-based infrastructure management rather than ad-hoc grants.  
    • It can integrate architecture, technology, and accessibility parameters into all court design frameworks.  
  • Such an empowered body would depoliticize infrastructure funding and promote long-term capacity building. 
• Comprehensive Judicial Cadre and Human Resource Reform: Creation of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS), coupled with periodic performance audits, can enhance efficiency, uniform recruitment standards, and professionalism in the lower judiciary. 
  • Specialized service tracks for technology, research, and court management would complement traditional judicial roles.  
  • Continuous judicial education through structured training modules can upgrade capacity for complex, tech-driven cases. 
    • A transparent appraisal and transfer policy will ensure accountability and motivation. This holistic HR ecosystem can modernize judicial functioning from the grassroots level. 
• Rationalizing Case Flow and Introducing Judicial Case Management Systems: Implementing structured case-flow management with defined timeframes for each stage of litigation can drastically reduce pendency.  
  • Courts should adopt differentiated case-handling tracks, fast-track, regular, and complex, based on nature and urgency.  
  • Integration of AI-assisted scheduling tools can ensure optimal distribution of judicial time and equitable workload.  
    • Regular publication of case disposal metrics would enhance transparency. This move institutionalizes efficiency without compromising procedural fairness. 
• Strengthening the Collegium through Transparency and Institutional Accountability: The appointment process must evolve towards greater transparency by publishing shortlists, evaluation parameters, and timelines.  
  • Introducing an independent secretariat to assist the Collegium can reduce delays and subjectivity.  
  • A hybrid model involving a restructured National Judicial Commission with limited executive representation can balance autonomy with accountability. 
    • Periodic diversity audits will ensure inclusion of women and marginalized communities. This reform will strengthen public trust while retaining judicial independence. 
• Institutionalizing Pre-Litigation Resolution Ecosystems: Creating mandatory, tech-enabled pre-litigation mediation and conciliation platforms across districts can filter out non-serious cases.  
  • Embedding legal aid clinics, mediation centers, and online dispute portals into Gram Nyayalayas would democratize access to early resolution.  
  • Trained community mediators can resolve local disputes at source, reducing dependence on formal courts. 
    • Incentivizing resolution through reduced fees and enforceable settlement certificates will improve participation. This approach transforms dispute resolution into a multi-tiered ecosystem. 
• Judicial Federalism through Decentralized Benches: Establishing regional benches of the Supreme Court and circuit benches of High Courts can improve access and reduce over-centralization in Delhi.  
  • Such decentralization respects federal balance while easing litigant burden. Specialized benches for constitutional, commercial, and social justice cases will optimize judicial specialization.  
  • Enhanced geographical distribution ensures equitable access to apex justice. It will also decongest the Supreme Court docket and enhance focus on constitutional jurisprudence. 
• Strategic Litigation Management and Government Dispute Resolution Cells: Institutionalizing litigation management units within ministries and public enterprises can minimize repetitive and frivolous government litigation. 
  • Pre-clearance mechanisms before filing appeals would ensure that only policy-significant cases reach courts.  
  • Regular inter-departmental coordination meetings can resolve inter-agency disputes outside courtrooms.  
  • Use of technology dashboards can track case status and accountability for delay. This proactive litigation governance will convert the government from a “compulsive litigator” to a “responsible disputant.” 
• Mainstreaming Judicial Ethics and Accountability Framework: Adopting a codified Judicial Standards and Accountability Code can enhance integrity and consistency in conduct.  
  • Mandatory declaration of assets, recusal norms, and conflict-of-interest guidelines can fortify public trust.  
  • An independent Judicial Ethics Commission can be constituted for inquiry into misconduct allegations without impinging on judicial independence.  
    • Periodic sensitization on gender, diversity, and constitutional morality will humanize adjudication. Institutionalized ethics will anchor judicial credibility. 
  • Bangalore Principles outline six core values for judges: Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Equality, and Competence and Diligence. 
    • It provides a framework for regulating judicial conduct to ensure fairness, public confidence, and the proper administration of justice 
• Enhancing Citizen-Centric Justice and Legal Empowerment: Justice delivery must become more participatory and user-friendly through multilingual digital portals, simplified court procedures, and legal literacy drives.  
  • Integration of legal aid services with technology can empower marginalized citizens to navigate the system effectively.  
  • Court communication units should provide accessible updates to litigants on case status and next steps.  
    • A citizen feedback framework on service quality can guide future reforms. This participatory orientation will convert the judiciary from an institution of access to one of inclusion.

Conclusion:

The Indian judiciary is embracing reforms that blend technology, transparency, and efficiency to serve justice better. Strengthening infrastructure, human resources, and decentralized mechanisms can tackle systemic challenges effectively. True progress requires balancing speed, fairness, and inclusivity. “A strong judiciary builds not only verdicts, but also the confidence of a nation.” 

Drishti Mains Question: 

Examine the key reforms transforming the Indian judiciary and suggest measures to enhance its efficiency, transparency, and accessibility

 

FAQs:

1. What are the recent technological advancements transforming the Indian judiciary? 
The judiciary has embraced digital transformation through the e-Courts Project, virtual hearings, live-streaming of constitutional benches, and the National Judicial Data Grid, enhancing accessibility, transparency, and efficiency. 

2. How has live-streaming improved judicial transparency in India?
Live-streaming constitutional bench hearings allows citizens to witness court proceedings, demystifying the judicial process and promoting accountability.

3. What role does Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) play in reducing judicial backlog?
ADR mechanisms like mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats provide faster, cost-effective resolution for disputes, reducing the burden on formal courts.

4. What are the major challenges facing the Indian judiciary today?
Key challenges include massive case pendency, chronic judicial vacancies, low judge-to-population ratio, over-centralization in the Supreme Court, inadequate infrastructure, and excessive government litigation.

5. Why is judicial vacancies a critical issue in India?
With over 30% of High Court positions and nearly 5,000 subordinate court posts vacant, limited manpower directly hampers case disposal, delays justice, and overworks existing judges.

6. How has the Indian government helped reduce litigation through legislative reforms?
Acts like the Jan Vishwas (Amendment) Act, 2023, decriminalized numerous minor offenses, reducing avoidable cases and easing the judiciary’s workload.

7. What measures can improve judicial infrastructure and technology adoption?
Establishing a National Judicial Infrastructure Authority, upgrading court facilities, and standardizing digital tools can ensure efficient and equitable judicial functioning across India.

8. How can judicial appointments and accountability be strengthened?
Transparency in the Collegium system, publication of shortlists, structured evaluation criteria, diversity audits, and a hybrid National Judicial Commission model can enhance meritocracy and public trust.

9. What is the importance of pre-litigation resolution mechanisms?
Mandatory mediation, conciliation platforms, and online dispute resolution at the grassroots level prevent minor cases from clogging courts, making justice faster and more accessible.

10. How can citizen-centric justice be promoted in India?
Simplified procedures, multilingual digital portals, legal literacy drives, legal aid integration, and citizen feedback mechanisms can make the judiciary more inclusive and participatory.

UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year Question (PYQ) 

Prelims

Q. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:

1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.  
2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.  

Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (2021)   

(a) 1 only    

(b) 2 only   

(c) Both 1 and 2    

(d) Neither I nor 2

Ans: (c)

---

Mains

Q. Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness. (2021)

Q. Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)