"Pendency in India is a district-level problem more than a national one." Examine this statement in light of the 100 hotspot districts initiative.

More than 5.8 crore cases are pending across Indian courts. Yet the Ministry of Law and Justice has found that just 100 judicial districts hold over half of all district-court pendency [1]. This concentration largely supports the statement. But many of the reasons these districts fall behind lie at the national and State level.

Why pendency is a district-level problem

• Spatial concentration: 100 districts carry over half the district-court backlog, so targeted effort brings outsized gains [1].
• Local causes differ: 19 NLUs from 16 States will diagnose what drives delay in each district (infructuous cases, adjournments, case profile) instead of applying one national prescription [1].
• Law Commission logic: the 245th Report (2014) rejected judge-to-population ratios because case filings vary widely by region. It favoured a district-wise rate-of-disposal method [2].
• Trial-level tools: plea bargaining, summary trials, mediation and ADR all work at the level of the local trial court [1].

Why it remains a national problem

• Judge shortage: India has about 21 judges per million people, against the 50 recommended by the Law Commission's 120th Report (1987) [2].
• Infrastructure gap: in 2022 there were 20,814 court halls against a sanctioned strength of 24,520 judicial officers [3].
• Federal fault-lines: States must provide land for courts. The Standing Committee (2014) flagged uneven use of central funds and sought an audit of the centrally sponsored scheme [4].
• Human cost: about 73% of prisoners were undertrials in 2024 [5]. Criminal delay is a nationwide pattern.
• Institutional limit: NLUs can diagnose delay, but recruitment and case listing rest with the High Courts.

Way forward

• High Courts should set district judge strength using NLU findings and the rate-of-disposal method [2].
• States should give priority to courtrooms in the 100 districts, and the Department of Justice should audit the centrally sponsored scheme [4].
• The Ministry should publish an NJDG baseline for each district so progress can be measured.

Pendency therefore shows up most heavily in particular districts, but national shortfalls in judges, courtrooms and funding produce it. The hotspot initiative is a sound diagnostic start. Paired with filling vacancies and State-led infrastructure, it can deliver on Article 21's promise of speedy justice and on SDG 16's aim of equal access to justice.