The Indian judicial system, lauded for its resilience and breadth, is plagued by the long-standing issue of case pendency. As of October 2024, a staggering 4.48 crore cases remain pending across various courts in India. This backlog poses severe ramifications on justice delivery, eroding public trust and slowing economic growth. The pendency is primarily driven by delays in civil and criminal cases, with over 3.39 crore criminal cases pending. Notably, 37% of all pending cases are less than a year old, while 9% are over a decade old. The disproportionate number of criminal cases highlights the overburdened criminal justice system, which has a cascading effect on civil disputes and administrative justice.
While there are factors galore that contribute to this delay, three major ones include:
- Inadequate judicial infrastructure: Courts often operate with a lower judge-to-population ratio than recommended. As of February, 2024, the country’s judge-to-population ratio was 21 judges per million population. This is far behind the Supreme Court’s 2022 directive [Imtiyaz Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 3 SCC 658] of 50 judges per million population.
- Prolonged litigation processes: The protraction of litigation is frequently the result of recurrent adjournments and suboptimal case management practices, which inevitably contribute to judicial inertia. Adjournments, often granted with little scrutiny, stretch proceedings over years, creating a labyrinthine delay in the administration of justice. President Murmu too recently highlighted the ‘culture of adjournments’ as a major cause for the backlog of cases across various courts, particularly in subordinate courts. Inefficiencies in case handling—from improper scheduling to the failure to prioritise cases—further compound this sluggishness, transforming what should be a streamlined pursuit of justice into an interminable quagmire of procedural impediments, thus undermining the very essence of judicial efficacy. The Supreme Court too has repeatedly issued directives to curtail unnecessary adjournments, particularly in criminal cases, where the rights of the accused and the victims are at stake. Enforcing stringent guidelines around adjournment requests—only allowing them in extraordinary circumstances—would ensure that cases move forward at a more efficient pace. Examples of delays caused by frequent adjournments are widespread in India. One prominent case involved the Ajmer Blackmail and Sexual Abuse scandal, where justice was delayed for 32 years due to continuous adjournments, until the court finally convicted six individuals in August, 2024.
- Pre-litigation bottlenecks: Pre-litigation hurdles, including laborious investigative processes and the bureaucratic filing of chargesheets, represent a significant drag on the wheels of justice. These preliminary procedures, though vital to ensuring fairness, often languish, resulting in delays, thereby prolonging the time it takes for a case to reach the courtroom. Such protracted inefficiencies, coupled with the complex nature of India’s legal bureaucracy, lead to a situation where justice is not only delayed but at times diluted. The very foundation of timely legal recourse is undermined at this early stage. Recent examples of pre-litigation bottlenecks in India reflect how procedural delays, particularly in filing charge sheets and conducting investigations, severely slow down the judicial process. For instance, in the 2020 Delhi riots case, the delays in filing charge sheets significantly prolonged the trial proceedings, resulting in criticism of investigative agencies for failing to meet deadlines. Similarly, in the Unnao rape case, the slow progress in the investigation stage, including the delayed arrest of key accused, was widely reported, underscoring how pre-trial procedural delays can thwart timely justice delivery. Moreover, administrative issues such as frequent judge transfers, resulting in de novo trials (where a new judge orders a fresh hearing), have also contributed to delays. This was notably highlighted in a series of civil litigations in Maharashtra, where frequent adjournments were caused by the reshuffling of judges.
Such delays emphasise the need for systemic reforms, including more stringent oversight of investigation timelines, better resource allocation to investigative agencies, and judicial efficiency measures to minimise disruptions caused by transfers and adjournments.
Prolonged litigation particularly hampers sectors that thrive on legal certainty—such as contracts, intellectual property, and property rights—creating a chilling effect on investment and economic activity. For instance, disputes in real estate transactions, which constitute a significant portion of civil litigation, often delay infrastructure projects and real estate developments, contributing to an atmosphere of economic uncertainty. The economic ramifications are not limited to businesses alone; they also extend to the public exchequer. Pending tax litigations alone lock up crores of rupees in unresolved statutory claims, adversely impacting the Government’s revenue collection. This financial stasis further deepens fiscal deficits, obstructing economic development initiatives.
India’s eCourts Project, though a commendable initiative, remains underutilised. Full implementation of digital platforms for case management, from filing to final judgement, is imperative to streamlining legal proceedings. The National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes (NSTEP) initiative, for instance, facilitates electronic delivery of summonses, reducing procedural delays.
Virtual courts can accelerate the handling of routine matters, such as traffic offences and petty disputes, while improving transparency and accountability in more complex cases.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools could be integrated into case management systems to categorise and prioritise cases, improving efficiency. By adopting advanced AI tools such as predictive analytics, machine learning (ML), and natural language processing, courts can streamline processes, expedite routine tasks, and optimise decision-making. AI could be a game-changer in addressing the inefficiencies of the judicial system.
AI can predict delays in case resolutions by analysing a vast dataset of previous cases. A 2024 study titled, “Predicting delays in Indian lower courts using AutoML and Decision Forests”, using AutoML and decision forests demonstrated how AI can predict delays in Indian lower courts with over 81.4% accuracy, drawing on variables such as case type, jurisdiction, and the names of presiding judges. By leveraging this predictive power, courts can prioritise cases that are likely to face prolonged delays and address the root causes proactively. Moreover, this model could identify bottlenecks related to specific judicial districts, individual courts, or even types of litigation, allowing for targeted interventions.
Routine cases, such as small claims, traffic violations, or bailable offences, could be handled largely through automated processes, freeing up judicial resources for more complex matters. AI models can assist in sorting cases based on complexity, thereby reducing the burden on judges. For instance, SUPACE, the AI portal launched by the Supreme Court of India, helps in handling large amounts of case data more efficiently. This model could be expanded to all levels of the judiciary, enabling more effective triaging of cases.
AI can enhance e-filing systems by streamlining data input and minimising errors during the filing process. The integration of machine learning models can ensure that case documentation is automatically categorised, reducing administrative delays (Bhatnagar & Huchhanavar, 2024). Also, automated systems can flag incomplete or incorrectly filed documents, reducing the need for human intervention and speeding up the filing process.
The laborious process of legal research can be revolutionised by AI. Natural Language Processing (NLP) models can sift through thousands of legal documents, precedents, and judgments to identify relevant materials faster than any human lawyer could. Such tools can assist judges in preparing judgments by offering comprehensive legal briefs and analysing complex case histories in a fraction of the time it would typically take otherwise.
For routine, non-contentious matters, virtual courts powered by AI could automate the issuance of judgments based on predefined legal rules and precedents. In jurisdictions like British Columbia and Canada, similar systems have been used to handle small claims and family law matters. In India, applying such systems to civil cases like contractual disputes, or less serious criminal cases, would not only reduce pendency but also offer citizens faster resolutions.
AI’s ability to analyse patterns from massive datasets can highlight systemic inefficiencies within the judiciary. By evaluating factors such as judge performance, case complexity, and procedural delays, AI can help identify areas where reforms are most needed. For instance, the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), although primarily a descriptive tool, could be enhanced with AI algorithms that provide actionable insights into pendency.
The integration of AI into India’s judicial system presents a profound opportunity to address the issue of case pendency. By automating routine processes, enhancing predictive capabilities, and facilitating data-driven decision-making, AI can free up human resources to focus on complex legal issues, thereby ensuring that justice is delivered in a timely and efficient manner. However, the implementation of AI must be accompanied by ethical oversight, ensuring transparency and fairness in all AI-driven judicial processes (Bhatnagar & Huchhanavar, 2024).
Filling judicial vacancies is an immediate necessity. The Law Commission of India has long advocated increasing judicial appointments, especially in high-stakes sectors like commercial disputes and family law.
The establishment of specialised courts, such as commercial courts or family courts, can expedite cases by allowing judges to focus on specific types of litigation. Fast-track courts need to be bolstered and expanded, particularly in handling older pending matters—ensuring that these courts do not just function as band-aid solutions but as integral parts of the judicial framework.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, including mediation, arbitration, and conciliation, offer a viable pathway to decongesting court dockets. Encouraging pre-trial settlements and compulsory mediation for civil matters could drastically reduce the inflow of new cases. Indeed, India’s Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has already incorporated mandatory pre-litigation mediation, yet its implementation remains inconsistent. Widespread institutionalisation of ADR can also help resolve disputes involving small claims, labour issues, and consumer grievances outside the conventional courtroom setting.
To ensure greater accessibility to justice, it is imperative to expand judicial infrastructure, especially in rural and semi-urban areas. While urban courts are overburdened, rural areas face issues of underrepresentation and lack of facilities. Constructing more court complexes in these regions and upgrading existing infrastructure will decentralise the burden from metropolitan courts. Furthermore, increasing the number of e-Sewa Kendras (centres offering legal digital services) in such areas would allow people from marginalised communities to file and track cases more efficiently.
India’s burgeoning case pendency demands multi-faceted reforms, driven by technological advancements, judicial capacity-building, and procedural efficiency. A comprehensive overhaul of the legal system, with an emphasis on ADR, digital transformation, and judicial accountability, will ensure that justice is delivered in a timely and equitable manner. A robust and responsive judiciary is the cornerstone of a vibrant democracy and thriving economy; thus, it is imperative for India to rectify its pendency crisis without delay.