Judicial pendency

Also called: Pendency of cases · Topic: Justice Delivery: Subordinate Courts, Tribunals, Legal Aid and Judicial Reforms · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

Judicial pendency is the backlog of cases in Indian courts: cases that have been filed but not yet decided. More than 5 crore cases are pending across all courts, and the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) tracks the count.

It matters because a decision that comes too late helps no one ("justice delayed is justice denied"). Long delays can break the Art. 21 right to a speedy trial. They also keep undertrials (people held in jail whose trial has not finished, and who are presumed innocent) behind bars for years.

Explanation

How pendency is measured

• National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG): an online database that shows pending and decided cases for each court. It is updated in close to real time, and anyone can check it.
• It was built under Phase II of the e-Courts project (2015-2023).

• The Supreme Court joined the NJDG in September 2023. Before that, the grid covered only High Courts and district courts.

• Limit: the NJDG is only as good as the data that courts enter. Wrong entries and outdated case status make the figures less reliable.

How big it is and where it sits

• 31 December 2025 (Law Ministry reply in Parliament):
• High Courts had 63,70,904 pending cases [2].
• District and subordinate courts had 4,43,45,599 pending cases [2].

• Together that is about 5.07 crore. District courts hold about 87% and High Courts about 13% [2].

• Supreme Court: only a small fraction, under 1 lakh cases.

• September 2021 (PRS): over 4.5 crore cases were pending. 87.6% were in subordinate courts and 12.3% in High Courts [4].
• Old cases (2021):
• Nearly 45 lakh cases had been pending for more than 10 years in High Courts and subordinate courts together [4].
• High Courts: 21% of cases were over 10 years old and 41% were over 5 years old [4].

• Subordinate courts: 23% were over 5 years old and 8% were over 10 years old [4].

• Trend:

• Pendency grew by about 2.8% a year between 2010 and 2020 [4].

• In the COVID year 2019-20 it jumped by 20% in High Courts and 13% in subordinate courts [4].

• Key point: most pendency is at the bottom of the system, in the district courts. That is where most citizens first meet the courts.

Why cases pile up

• Vacancies:
• Sanctioned strength is the number of judge posts approved by law. Working strength is the number of judges actually in office. The vacancy is the gap between the two.

• Both High Courts and district courts have large gaps.

• Low judge-population ratio (judges for every 10 lakh people):

• India has only about 21 judges per million people.

• The target of 50 per million was set in 1987 [7].

• Frequent adjournments (the court postponing a hearing to a later date):

• The law allows no more than three adjournments per party (CPC, Order XVII Rule 1).

• In practice courts often ignore this limit.

• Government as the biggest litigant (a litigant is a party to a case):

• Central and state governments, their departments and public sector bodies are party to a very large share of cases.

• Many of these are routine appeals that the government files even after losing on settled law.

• Weak infrastructure: courts lack enough courtrooms, judges' housing, record rooms and digital equipment.

• Other causes:
• Slow police investigation and late charge-sheets in criminal cases.
• Absent witnesses and slow serving of summons.
• Court vacations, especially in the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Heavy use of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs, under Art. 136). An SLP asks the Supreme Court to hear an appeal against any court's or tribunal's order, and too many of them clog the top court.

Steps taken to cut pendency

• Filling posts: 157 High Court judges were appointed in 2025, and 1,156 between May 2014 and 27 November 2025 [2][3].
• Arrears Committees were set up in all 25 High Courts and in district courts. They target cases pending for more than five years [2][3].
• Time limits in criminal law: under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (in force from 1 July 2024), a judgment should come within 30 days of arguments ending. This can be extended to 45 days.
• e-Courts project:
• Virtual courts (online courts where no one has to appear in person) take petty cases such as traffic challans out of the regular courts. They have handled over 6 crore cases [5].
• About 3.20 crore cases were heard by video conference up to 31 May 2024 [6].
• Phase III (₹7,210 crore, four years) aims at digital, paperless courts [1].

In the Constitution and practice

• Art. 21 (right to life and personal liberty): a speedy trial is part of this right.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979): thousands of undertrials in Bihar jails had been held longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged crime.
• The Supreme Court held that a speedy trial is part of Art. 21.

• It also linked free legal aid (Art. 39A, added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976) to a fair trial.

• Machal Lalung (NCERT Class 11, Judiciary): he was held in Assam for 54 years without a trial and was freed in 2005. It is the extreme example of pendency.

• Who appoints judges:
• Art. 217: the President appoints High Court judges on the collegium's recommendation.
• Art. 233: the Governor appoints district judges in consultation with the High Court.
• Art. 234: the Governor appoints other subordinate judges under rules made with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court.

• So filling posts in district courts is the job of the High Courts and state governments. The Supreme Court has set processes and timelines for this [2].

• Art. 235: the High Court controls the district courts. Delay at the district level is therefore partly a High Court management problem.

• Judge strength:
• Law Commission, 120th Report (1987): India had about 10.5 judges per million people. The Commission asked for 50 per million [7].
• All India Judges' Association v. Union of India (21 March 2002): the Supreme Court told the states to raise judge strength from 10.5 or 13 per million to 50 per million within five years [7].
• Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of UP (2012; 2017): the Supreme Court asked the Law Commission for a scientific way to fix how many judges each court needs.
• Law Commission, 245th Report (2014): said a population ratio is too crude. It proposed a rate of disposal method: count how many cases one judge decides in a year, then work out how many judges are needed to clear new cases plus the backlog.

• In 2017, the Supreme Court adopted an interim workload-based formula for district courts. It came from the National Court Management Systems Committee.

• Adjournments: Order XVII Rule 1 of the CPC, 1908, as amended in 2002, allows a party no more than three adjournments. Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005) upheld this limit but allowed more in exceptional cases.

• Government litigation: the National Litigation Policy (2010) aimed to make the government an "efficient and responsible litigant" and to cut needless appeals. It was never properly put into practice.
• Infrastructure:
• A Centrally Sponsored Scheme (cost shared by the Centre and the states) has funded court buildings and judges' homes since 1993-94.
• A National Judicial Infrastructure Authority was proposed in 2021 by CJI N.V. Ramana. It has not been set up.

Don't confuse with

• Pendency vs old cases targeted by Arrears Committees: pendency counts every undecided case. The Arrears Committees in all 25 High Courts look only at cases pending for more than five years [2][3].
• Sanctioned strength vs working strength: sanctioned strength is the number of posts approved. Working strength is the number of judges actually in office. Vacancies are the gap between the two.
• Judge-population ratio (120th Report, 1987) vs rate of disposal method (245th Report, 2014): the first counts judges per million people. The second counts how many judges are needed from the actual caseload.
• e-Courts Phase III vs judicial infrastructure scheme: Phase III is a Central Sector Scheme (the Centre pays the full cost) [1]. The infrastructure scheme (since 1993-94) is Centrally Sponsored (the Centre and the states share the cost).

Prelims Hooks

• Where pendency sits: about 87% is in district and subordinate courts, not in High Courts or the Supreme Court. On 31 December 2025, district courts had about 4.43 crore pending cases [2].
• NJDG: built under e-Courts Phase II. The Supreme Court joined it in September 2023.
• Case–principle pairs:
• Hussainara Khatoon (1979): speedy trial is part of Art. 21.
• All India Judges' Association (2002): reach 50 judges per million within five years [7].
• Imtiyaz Ahmad (2012/2017): fix judge strength scientifically.

• Salem Advocate Bar Association (2005): upheld the three-adjournment limit.

• Reports: 120th Report (1987) asked for 50 judges per million [7]. 245th Report (2014) asked for the rate of disposal method.

• Adjournments: a party gets no more than three (CPC Order XVII Rule 1, 2002 amendment).
• Machal Lalung: held 54 years without trial in Assam and freed in 2005.

Mains Points

• Pendency is mainly a capacity and management problem:
• About 87% of the backlog is in district courts [2]. The ratio is still about 21 judges per million, against the target of 50 set in 1987 and ordered in 2002 [7].
• Vacancies, adjournments and the government's routine appeals add to the delay.

• Reforms: fill posts on time, size courts with the disposal-rate formula (245th Report), enforce the three-adjournment rule, and give the National Litigation Policy legal force.

• Delay is a rights issue, not just an efficiency issue:

• Undertrials held too long lose their Art. 21 right to a speedy trial (Hussainara, 1979). Machal Lalung's 54 years is the extreme case.
• Legal aid (Art. 39A) and the BNSS time limits (2024) help.

• These must come with more judges and better infrastructure, for example through the proposed National Judicial Infrastructure Authority.

• Technology helps, but it has costs, and federal coordination is needed:

• Gains: virtual courts took over 6 crore petty cases [5], and there were 3.2 crore video-conference hearings [6].
• Costs: the digital divide and unreliable NJDG data.
• Federal gap: district courts are staffed by the states and controlled by the High Courts (Arts. 233-235), while digital courts are a central scheme. This creates coordination gaps that a permanent judicial infrastructure body could close.

Related concepts

• National Judicial Data Grid
• Judge-population ratio
• e-Courts project
• Virtual courts
• Justice delayed is justice denied

Read more

• Pendency, judicial capacity and the e-Courts project