Indian Polity
India’s Judicial Pendency Crisis
- 05 Dec 2025
- 14 min read
For Prelims: Judiciary, Lower Courts, Supreme Court, High Court, Law Commission, Lok Adalats, e-Courts Mission Mode Project, Special Leave Petitions, Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
For Mains: Status of Judicial Pendency in India and their Reasons, Systemic Reforms are Necessary to Reduce Judicial Pendency in India.
Why in News?
Union Minister of Law and Justice informed that the judiciary faces a major manpower shortage, and the gap between high vacancies and a rising case load (roughly 4.80 crore cases pending in lower courts) underscores the need for systemic reforms.
What is the Status of Pendency Across Indian Judiciary?
- Pendency in Higher Courts: The Supreme Court has seen a sharp rise in pendency—up by about 30% in four years, from 70,239 cases in 2021 to 90,694 cases in 2025.
- Rising Pendency in Lower Courts: Nearly 4.80 crore cases are pending in the Lower Courts. The case of Maharashtra, where lower court vacancies have stayed at 250 since 2021, shows that pendency has likely kept rising because recruitment has not moved forward.
- State‑wise Disparities: Uttar Pradesh is the epicenter of India’s judicial backlog, with Lower Courts holding 1.13 crore pending cases, accounting for over 23% of the country’s total.
- The Allahabad High Court also records the highest pendency among High Courts, with 11.66 lakh cases awaiting disposal.
How do Systemic Issues Contribute to the Pendency Crisis in the Indian Judiciary?
- Inadequate Judge to Population Ratio: India has a very low judge-to-population ratio, only 21 judges per million, compared to 150 per million in the US, and far below the Law Commission’s 1987 recommendation of 50 per million.
- Former CJI DY Chandrachud also stressed that India “needs more judges” and that the judiciary is in talks with the government to increase judicial strength at all levels.
- High Vacancy Rate: As the data shows, 4,855 vacancies in lower courts and 297 in High Courts mean existing judges are severely overburdened. A single judge in a lower court may have thousands of pending cases.
- Infrastructural Deficiencies: Many courts lack adequate courtrooms, clerical staff, stenographers, and modern technological support (computers, video-conferencing), slowing down daily proceedings.
- Inefficient Case Management: Weak pre-trial scheduling, poor prioritization of old cases, and not grouping similar matters result in disorganized hearings.
- Frequent and easily granted adjournments—due to lawyers’ absence, deliberate delays, or procedural lapses—causing cases to stretch across multiple hearings for years.
- Slow & Complex Appointment Process: The recruitment of judges is lengthy and slowed by bureaucratic and political delays, with the Collegium-Executive tussle prolonging High Court and Supreme Court vacancies.
- Meanwhile, insufficient specialized courts (e.g., for cybercrimes) force general courts to handle complex cases, worsening pendency.
- Low Adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Mechanisms like mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats are underutilized. While Lok Adalats dispose of millions of cases, they often handle pre-litigation or smaller disputes, not the core backlog.
How does the Judicial Vacancy and Pendency Crisis Undermine India’s Justice Delivery?
- Compromises Constitutional Guarantees: It directly infringes upon Article 21's right to speedy trial, transforming "justice delayed" into "justice denied" and violating the due process of law.
- Lower Quality of Justice Delivery: The heavy workload on existing judges, often hearing hundreds of cases per day, risks compromising deliberation, thoroughness, and fairness of judgments.
- Erodes Public Trust & Social Contract: Inordinate delays lead to litigation fatigue, diminish deterrent value of judgments, and breed public disillusionment with the judiciary, weakening the social contract between the state and citizens.
- Stifles Economic Growth: Protracted adjudication of commercial disputes creates regulatory uncertainty, increases transaction costs, and acts as a deterrent to investment, adversely impacting India's ease of doing business rankings and economic potential.
- Exacerbates Social Inequity: The crisis has a disproportionate impact on marginalized sections and under-trial prisoners, perpetuating pre-trial detention that often exceeds potential sentences, thus reinforcing existing socio-economic disparities.
- Threatens the Rule of Law: By rendering legal remedies ineffective, it encourages vigilantism and extra-constitutional means of dispute resolution.
- This erosion of institutional efficacy fundamentally undermines the Rule of Law, a Basic Structure of the Constitution.
Initiatives to Reduce Judicial Pendency in India
What Systemic Reforms are Necessary to Reduce Judicial Pendency in India?
- Expedite Filling Vacancies: A national judicial recruitment framework is essential to mandate urgent, time-bound hiring in high-need states like Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh.
- A long-term goal is to raise the national judge-to-population ratio to 50 per million, as recommended by the 120th Law Commission Report (1987).
- Optimize Existing Judge Time & Court Processes: Grant adjournments only in exceptional cases, with penalties for frivolous delays.
- Expand dedicated courts for commercial disputes, cheque bounce cases, traffic offences, and family law to enhance expertise and speed.
- Leverage Technology (Digital Courts): Fully implement the e-Courts Mission Mode Project with video-conferencing, e-filing, and case management systems.
- Use AI-powered triage tools to categorize cases, suggest mediation, predict hearing time.
- Promote ADR: Make pre-litigation mediation compulsory for most civil and commercial disputes, as in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Strengthen Lok Adalats and arbitration by enhancing enforceability and promoting institutional arbitration.
- Optimizing Supreme and High Court Functions: The Supreme Court should drastically restrict Special Leave Petitions to focus on constitutional matters, reducing its backlog.
- High Courts must enforce strict case management and performance benchmarks in lower courts.
Conclusion
India’s judiciary faces a critical manpower and infrastructural shortage, leading to unprecedented case pendency. Systemic reforms—including mission-mode recruitment, technology adoption, optimized case management, and expanded ADR mechanisms—are urgently needed. Enhancing judicial strength and efficiency at all levels is essential to ensure timely justice and reduce the backlog crisis.
|
Drishti Mains Question: Critically examine the key factors responsible for the high pendency of cases in the Indian judiciary. Suggest systemic reforms to ensure timely justice. |
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q. What is the current pendency in India’s lower courts?
Nearly 4.80 crore cases are pending in lower courts, with Uttar Pradesh alone accounting for 1.13 crore cases.
Q. What is India’s judge-to-population ratio?
India has 21 judges per million people, far below the Law Commission’s 1987 recommendation of 50 per million.
Q. What is the e-Courts Project?
The e-Courts Project is a flagship mission-mode initiative to digitize Indian courts through ICT for efficient case management, e-filing, and online access to justice.
Summary
- India faces a severe judicial pendency crisis with nearly 4.8 crore cases in lower courts and a sharp 30% rise in Supreme Court backlog over four years.
- Uttar Pradesh is the worst-affected region, accounting for over 23% of the national backlog, highlighting severe state-level systemic failures.
- Key causes include a low judge-population ratio, high vacancies, infrastructural deficits, inefficient case management, and low adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution.
- Essential reforms involve mission-mode recruitment, full implementation of the e-Courts Project, mandatory pre-litigation mediation, and rationalizing the Supreme Court's docket to focus on constitutional matters.
UPSC Civil Services Examination Previous Year Question (PYQ)
Prelims
Q. With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
- 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.
- 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)
Q. Consider the following statements: (2019)
- The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.
- The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Ans: (b)
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)
