Pendency is a governance failure as much as a judicial one. Discuss with reference to India and Sri Lanka.

India has over 4.5 crore pending cases, 87.6% of them in subordinate courts [2]; Sri Lanka cites a backlog of 1.1 million cases, with criminal trials usually running beyond 17 years [1]. Delay on this scale is not merely a courtroom problem — it reflects how the State staffs, funds and organises its justice system.

The judicial dimension

• Case-ageing, not just volume: about 21% of Indian High Court cases have waited over ten years [2]; such cases decay as witnesses and records are lost.
• Disposal capacity is structurally short — even with zero fresh filings, Indian courts would need roughly three years to clear existing arrears [2].
• Docket management, adjournment discipline and dedicated benches for the oldest matters lie squarely within judicial control.

The governance dimension

• Unfilled sanctioned posts: 5,146 of 24,018 subordinate court judgeships in India lay vacant — about 21% [3]. Empty chairs are an appointments failure shared by executive and judiciary.
• Infrastructure and process inputs: Sri Lanka's reform package adds courthouses, appellate courts outside the capital, magistrates and 10,000 police recruits [1] — recognition that slow investigation feeds slow trials.
• Economic stakes: weak contract enforcement deters investment, which is why governance and institutional reform sit at the core of Sri Lanka's IMF Extended Fund Facility programme [4].

Sri Lanka 2026: where the two overlap

• Parliament raised the retirement age of all judges by two years (158 of 225 votes), benefiting 411 sitting judges [1]. It retains experience but creates no new posts, and may defer fresh recruitment.
• The Bar Association and the opposition read it as executive encroachment [1] — a fear rooted in the 2013 removal of the Chief Justice, which the UN called a "calamitous setback" for the rule of law [5].

Pendency thus tests both benches and cabinets. Timely appointments to sanctioned posts, judicial infrastructure, published court-wise disposal data, and tenure changes applied prospectively would deliver efficiency without eroding independence — securing both the speedy trial promised under Article 21 and SDG-16's pledge of access to justice.