The Union Minister of Law and Justice has highlighted a serious manpower crisis in the Indian judiciary, where high judicial vacancies combined with a rising case load—nearly 4.80 crore pending cases in lower courts—have created systemic stress. This situation underscores the urgent need for structural and institutional reforms.
Status of Case Pendency in the Indian Judiciary
Pendency in the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has witnessed a sharp increase in pendency, rising by nearly 30% in four years, from 70,239 cases in 2021 to 90,694 cases in 2025. This reflects increasing inflow of cases, especially through Special Leave Petitions.
Pendency in Lower Courts
Lower courts carry the largest burden of unresolved cases, with approximately 4.80 crore cases pending nationwide. Persistent vacancies, such as in Maharashtra where around 250 posts remain unfilled since 2021, have contributed to rising backlogs.
State-wise Disparities
Judicial pendency is uneven across states.
-
Uttar Pradesh alone accounts for 1.13 crore pending cases, over 23% of the national backlog.
-
The Allahabad High Court records the highest pendency among High Courts, with 11.66 lakh cases pending.
Systemic Causes Behind the Pendency Crisis
Inadequate Judge–Population Ratio
India has only 21 judges per million population, far below the Law Commission’s recommended 50 judges per million and much lower than advanced democracies. This structural deficit severely limits disposal capacity.
High Judicial Vacancies
There are 4,855 vacancies in lower courts and 297 in High Courts, overburdening existing judges, many of whom handle thousands of cases simultaneously.
Infrastructural and Technological Deficiencies
Many courts lack sufficient courtrooms, trained support staff, and digital infrastructure, slowing hearings and case processing.
Inefficient Case Management
Weak pre-trial procedures, poor prioritisation of old cases, and frequent adjournments—often granted liberally—prolong litigation for years.
Delayed Appointment Processes
Judicial recruitment is slowed by bureaucratic delays and Executive–Collegium disagreements, leaving vacancies unfilled for long periods.
Limited Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
While Lok Adalats dispose of many cases, mediation and arbitration remain underutilised, especially for high-value civil and commercial disputes.
Impact of Judicial Pendency on Justice Delivery
Violation of Constitutional Rights
Judicial delays undermine Article 21, which guarantees the right to speedy justice, converting justice into an uncertain and delayed process.
Decline in Quality of Justice
Overburdened judges face time constraints, potentially affecting reasoned judgments, fairness, and consistency.
Erosion of Public Trust
Long delays reduce deterrence, increase litigation fatigue, and weaken public faith in the judiciary.
Economic and Social Consequences
Delayed dispute resolution discourages investment, raises transaction costs, and disproportionately affects undertrials and marginalized groups, deepening inequality.
Threat to the Rule of Law
When justice becomes inaccessible, citizens may resort to extra-legal measures, undermining the Rule of Law, a basic feature of the Constitution.
Government Initiatives to Reduce Judicial Pendency in India
The Government of India has undertaken several institutional, technological, and procedural initiatives to address the growing backlog of cases and improve the efficiency of the justice delivery system.
1. e-Courts Mission Mode Project
The e-Courts Project, implemented by the Ministry of Law and Justice in collaboration with the Supreme Court, aims to digitise court functioning across all levels.
-
It provides e-filing, e-payments, online case status tracking, and virtual hearings.
-
Video-conferencing facilities have improved access to justice, especially for undertrial prisoners and remote litigants.
-
Digital case management has helped reduce delays caused by manual record-keeping.
2. National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms (2011)
This mission focuses on improving access to justice and reducing pendency through systemic reforms.
-
Emphasises timely disposal of cases, judicial accountability, and performance standards.
-
Encourages simplification of procedures and adoption of technology.
3. Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs)
Fast Track Courts have been set up to ensure speedy trials in sensitive and high-priority cases.
-
These courts focus on cases related to sexual offences, crimes against women and children, and long-pending criminal cases.
-
They operate with dedicated judges and timelines for disposal.
4. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms
The government promotes mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and Lok Adalats to reduce the burden on courts.
-
Lok Adalats dispose of large volumes of cases, especially in motor accident claims, family disputes, and petty offences.
-
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandates pre-litigation mediation for certain disputes.
5. Tele-Law Programme
The Tele-Law initiative provides free legal advice through Common Service Centres (CSCs), particularly in rural and underserved areas.
-
It connects citizens with panel lawyers via video or telephone.
-
Helps resolve disputes at an early stage, reducing litigation inflow.
6. National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India (Proposed)
The government has proposed setting up a National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India (NJIAI) to address infrastructural gaps.
-
It aims to standardise, fund, and modernise court infrastructure across states.
-
Focus areas include court buildings, residential facilities, and digital infrastructure.
7. Judicial Appointments and Capacity Expansion
Efforts are ongoing to increase judicial strength through faster recruitment in lower courts and coordination with the Collegium for higher judiciary appointments.
-
Centrally Sponsored Schemes support states in increasing judge strength and court infrastructure.
-
Emphasis is placed on reducing vacancies to balance workload.
Required Systemic Reforms
Filling Judicial Vacancies
A time-bound, mission-mode recruitment process is needed, with a long-term goal of achieving 50 judges per million population.
Improving Court Efficiency
Adjournments should be strictly regulated, and specialised courts expanded for commercial, family, and minor offence cases.
Leveraging Technology
Full implementation of e-Courts, including AI-based case categorisation and scheduling, can enhance efficiency.
Strengthening ADR
Mandatory pre-litigation mediation for civil and commercial disputes can significantly reduce court burden.
Rationalising Higher Court Workload
The Supreme Court should limit SLPs to constitutional and nationally significant matters, while High Courts must enforce performance benchmarks.
Conclusion
India’s judicial pendency crisis stems from structural manpower shortages, infrastructural gaps, and procedural inefficiencies. Addressing it requires systemic reforms, enhanced judicial capacity, technological adoption, and effective use of ADR mechanisms. Ensuring timely justice is essential for constitutional governance, economic development, and public trust in the Rule of Law.