Comparative judicial administration models, such as the US Court Registry Investment System, can inform India's court fund management reforms. Elaborate.

Ruling in 2026 that a conditional court deposit "is not payment" and does not stop interest from running, the Supreme Court flagged the absence of uniform rules on money deposited by litigants and asked the Law Commission of India to examine a uniform framework, including approaches adopted abroad [1]. Comparative models therefore offer ready design templates, though they must be adapted, not copied.

The Indian gap

• No central rule governs the bank, instrument, interest rate or release of sums deposited to obtain a stay pending appeal; practice is case-to-case [1].
• Result: asymmetric treatment of similarly placed litigants across courts and tribunals, and fresh post-judgment litigation over interest-accounting that adds to pendency [1].
• Crores remain locked at inconsistent rates, eroding real value for both payer and decree-holder.

What the CRIS model demonstrates

• US federal registry funds are pooled and invested in Treasury securities through a single system administered by the Administrative Office of the Courts, with maturities staggered so settled cases can be paid out weekly [2].
• Where parties seek an interest-bearing instrument, CRIS is the only allowed mechanism, and deposit or disbursal requires a court order [2] — uniformity of custody without diluting judicial control.

Adapting it to India

• A domestic analogue exists: the RBI's Depositor Education and Awareness (DEA) Fund, which pools bank deposits untouched for ten years yet preserves each depositor's claim, refundable with interest and with no last date [3]; PSB transfers to it exceeded ₹60,000 crore by February 2026 [4], proving pooled custody works at scale.
• Reform should standardise custody and accounting, while leaving the quantum of deposit to judicial discretion, which protects weaker litigants.
• The statute must expressly settle ownership of accrued interest, else the dispute merely migrates.

Comparative experience thus supplies the architecture, not the answer. Since Law Commission reports are recommendatory and acted upon at the Government's discretion [5], interim rules of procedure can deliver early gains, with legislation later binding tribunals — advancing the equal, timely justice the Constitution promises.