The absence of a uniform legal framework for court deposits reflects a larger governance gap in India's judicial administration. Discuss with reference to the Supreme Court's recent call for legislative reform.

Litigants are routinely directed to deposit a part of the decretal amount to obtain a stay pending appeal, yet no statute governs what happens to that money thereafter. Holding that a "deposit is not payment", the Supreme Court has now urged a uniform law on the subject [1][2].

The regulatory vacuum

• No central law or rule fixes the percentage to be deposited, the bank or instrument chosen, the interest rate earned, or the terms of withdrawal and reinvestment — each is decided case by case [2].
• In 2026 INSC 1017, the Court held that a conditional deposit does not stop interest from running, leaving the depositor to bridge the gap between the decree rate and whatever the bank pays [1].

Why this is a governance gap, not a technicality

• Equality: similarly placed litigants are treated differently depending on the forum — an Article 14 concern arising from unwritten procedure [2].
• Pendency: ownership of accrued interest being unsettled, one dispute spawns a second round of post-judgment litigation [2].
• Economic cost: large sums stay locked for years at inconsistent rates, eroding real value for the decree-holder, who cannot touch the money during the stay [2].
• Accountability: third-party funds are managed ad hoc, without a common custodian or audit trail [2].

The reform path opened

• The Court referred the question to the Law Commission of India, whose reports are only recommendatory and reach Parliament through the Government [3].
• A faster interim route is rule-making — Article 145 for the Supreme Court, Article 227 for High Courts — as custody and accounting are procedural.
• Models exist: the US Court Registry Investment System pools court deposits, while India's DEA Fund already pools unclaimed bank deposits with per-claimant refund and interest [4].
• Statute is still needed to bind tribunals such as NCLT, NCLAT and DRTs.

Court deposits show how an uncodified practice quietly produces inequality, delay and financial loss. Uniformity should bind the custody and accounting of deposits while leaving judges discretion over the amount, protecting weaker litigants. Acting on the Court's reference would serve both Article 14 and the promise of speedier justice.