Pendency, judicial capacity and the e-Courts project

Detail

1. What pendency means and how big it is

• Judicial pendency means the backlog of cases: cases filed in court but not yet decided.
• National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG): an online database that shows pending and decided cases for each court, updated in close to real time. Anyone can check it.
• It was built under Phase II of the e-Courts project.

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

• Size of the backlog:

• More than 5 crore cases are pending across all courts.
• About 85-87% are in district and subordinate courts. About 13% are in High Courts. A small fraction (under 1 lakh) is in the Supreme Court.
• 31 December 2025 (Law Ministry reply in Parliament): High Courts had 63,70,904 pending cases. District and subordinate courts had 4,43,45,599 [3].
  • Together that is about 5.07 crore. District courts hold about 87% of it and High Courts about 13%.

• September 2021 (PRS): over 4.5 crore cases were pending. 87.6% were in subordinate courts and 12.3% in High Courts [5].

• Old cases:

• In 2021, nearly 45 lakh cases had been pending for more than 10 years in High Courts and subordinate courts together [5].
• In High Courts, 21% of cases were over 10 years old and 41% were over 5 years old [5].

• In subordinate courts, 23% were over 5 years old and 8% were over 10 years old [5].

• Trend: pendency grew by about 2.8% a year between 2010 and 2020. In the COVID year 2019-20 it rose by 20% in High Courts and 13% in subordinate courts [5].

• Why the subordinate courts matter most: district courts (Arts. 233-237) are where most citizens first meet the justice system. Under Art. 235, the High Court controls the district courts, so delays at this level are partly a High Court management issue.

2. "Justice delayed is justice denied"

• Meaning: a decision that comes too late helps no one. The person may have lost their freedom, property or life by then.
• Where the idea comes from: Magna Carta (1215) says the king will not "deny or delay" right or justice to anyone.
• Machal Lalung (NCERT Class 11, Judiciary):
• He was arrested in Assam and held for 54 years without a trial.
• He was freed in 2005.

• NCERT's activity in the same chapter says courts face "time and staff constraints".

• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979):

• The case was about thousands of undertrials in Bihar jails. Many had been held longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged crime.
• The Supreme Court held that a speedy trial is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Art. 21.

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

• Undertrial: a person held in jail whose trial has not finished. They are presumed innocent.

3. Causes of delay

(a) Vacancies

• Sanctioned strength: the number of judge posts approved by law. Working strength: the number of judges actually in office. Vacancy: the gap between the two.
• High Courts and district courts both have large gaps (verify current figures on the Department of Justice's judicial manpower page).
• Who fills the posts:
• High Courts: the President appoints judges on the collegium's recommendation under Art. 217.
• District judges: the Governor appoints them in consultation with the High Court (Art. 233).
• Other subordinate judges: the Governor appoints them under rules made with the State Public Service Commission and the High Court (Art. 234).

• So filling vacancies in district and subordinate courts is the job of the High Courts and state governments. The Supreme Court has set processes and timelines for this [3].

• Appointments: 157 High Court judges were appointed in 2025. 1,156 were appointed between May 2014 and 27 November 2025 [3][4].

(b) Low judge-population ratio

• Judge-population ratio: the number of judges for every 10 lakh (1 million) people. It is a rough measure of whether a country has enough judges.
• Law Commission, 120th Report (1987):
• India then had about 10.5 judges per million people.

• The Commission recommended raising this to 50 per million [9].

• 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 [9].

• The deadline was five years [9].

• Today: the ratio is still only about 21 per million.

• Change of method:
• 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: find 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 formula based on judicial workload (from the National Court Management Systems Committee) for district courts.

(c) Frequent adjournments

• Adjournment: the court postponing a hearing to a later date.
• Order XVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, as amended in 2002, allows no more than three adjournments to a party during a suit.
• Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005): the Supreme Court upheld this limit, but said courts can grant more in exceptional cases.
• In practice the limit is often ignored. Hearings are put off again and again.

(d) Government as the biggest litigant

• Litigant: 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.
• National Litigation Policy (2010): it aimed to make the government an "efficient and responsible litigant" and to cut needless appeals. It was never properly put into practice (verify current status).

(e) Weak infrastructure

• Courts lack courtrooms, judges' housing, record rooms and digital equipment.
• Centrally Sponsored Scheme for judicial infrastructure (since 1993-94): the Centre and the states share the cost of district court buildings and judges' residences. Later phases added lawyers' halls, toilets and digital computer rooms.
• National Judicial Infrastructure Authority (proposed 2021): proposed by CJI N.V. Ramana. It would be a national body, led by the judiciary, to plan and fund court infrastructure. It has not been set up.

(f) Other causes

• Slow police investigation and late charge-sheets in criminal cases.
• Absent witnesses, and delays in serving summons.
• Court vacations, especially in the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Routine appeals and SLPs: a Special Leave Petition (Art. 136) is a request to the Supreme Court to hear an appeal against any court's or tribunal's order. Its heavy use clogs the top court.
• New criminal laws (from 1 July 2024): the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 sets time limits. For example, a judgment should come within 30 days of arguments ending, extendable to 45 days. The aim is to cut criminal trial delay.

(g) Steps taken to clear old cases

• Arrears Committees have been set up in all 25 High Courts and in district courts. They target cases pending for more than five years [3][4].

4. The e-Courts project

• e-Courts project: a national e-governance project (a Mission Mode Project) to bring computers and the internet into the courts, especially district and subordinate courts. The Department of Justice runs it with the e-Committee of the Supreme Court [2].

Origin

• 2005: the e-Committee released the National Policy and Action Plan for Implementation of ICT in the Indian Judiciary. ICT means information and communication technology.

Three phases

Phase	Period	Main focus	Key outputs
Phase I	2007 onwards	Computerisation	Computers, LAN and basic case software in court complexes
Phase II	2015-2023	Citizen services	Case Information System (CIS) software; NJDG; e-filing and e-payment; virtual courts for traffic challans; video-conference (VC) hearings, used much more during COVID-19
Phase III	2023-2027	"Digital, online and paperless courts"	₹7,210 crore; digitising all court records including old ones; cloud storage; paperless digital courts; AI and OCR tools; online dispute resolution; e-Sewa Kendras in every court complex; more virtual courts

• Phase II results:
• VC links: video conferencing connected 493 court complexes with 347 jails, so undertrials could appear without being moved [7].
• VC hearings: until 31 May 2024, district and subordinate courts heard 2,33,67,497 cases by video conference and High Courts heard 86,35,710, about 3.20 crore in all [7].

• Training: over 14,000 judicial officers were trained on Ubuntu-Linux. Over 3,900 court staff were trained as Case Information System administrators.

• Phase III approval:

• The Union Cabinet approved it on 13 September 2023.
• It is a Central Sector Scheme (fully funded by the Centre) for four years from 2023, with an outlay of ₹7,210 crore [2].
• Its goal is "maximum ease of justice". Every court complex is to get an e-Sewa Kendra, so that e-filing and e-payment reach everyone [2].

Virtual courts

• Virtual court: an online court where neither the litigant nor the lawyer has to appear in person. A judge decides the case on a digital platform. It is used for petty matters such as traffic challans [6].
• August 2024 figures:
• Virtual courts were working in 21 States/UTs [6].
• They had handled over 6 crore cases [6].

• In over 62 lakh cases, online fines worth ₹649.81 crore were collected [6].

• Why this matters: small cases leave the regular courts, so judges get more time for serious matters.

e-Sewa Kendras

• e-Sewa Kendra: a help desk inside the court complex. It helps lawyers and litigants with e-filing, case status, e-payment and online payment of traffic fines.
• August 2024: there were 1,394 in district courts and 36 in High Courts [8].
• They are meant for people in remote areas and for those who cannot afford the technology [8].

Supreme Court AI tools

• SUVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software), 2019: an AI tool that translates judgments from English into Indian languages.
• SUPACE (Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court's Efficiency), 2021: an AI tool that helps judges with legal research and with reading case files. It assists judges but does not decide cases.
• The link between courts, police, jails and forensic labs (ICJS, the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System) is covered in §11.

Risks

• Digital divide: many litigants and lawyers in villages have no internet, smartphones or digital skills. Online-only systems can shut them out. e-Sewa Kendras are the main fix.
• Data quality: the NJDG is only as good as the data courts enter. Wrong entries and outdated case status make the figures less reliable.
• Privacy: court records hold personal data about victims, children and parties. Putting them on the cloud and using AI raises concerns about data protection and surveillance. The right to privacy is part of Art. 21 (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017).
• Over-reliance on AI: errors or bias in AI tools could affect fairness. Human judges must stay in control.

Prelims Hooks

• Supreme Court and NJDG: the Supreme Court joined the National Judicial Data Grid in September 2023. Earlier the grid covered only High Courts and district courts.
• Where pendency sits: about 87% is in district and subordinate courts, not High Courts or the Supreme Court. On 31 December 2025, district courts had about 4.43 crore pending cases [3].
• Two reports on judge numbers: the Law Commission 120th Report (1987) asked for 50 judges per million. The 245th Report (2014) asked for a rate of disposal method instead of a population ratio.
• Case–principle pairs:
• All India Judges' Association (2002): reach 50 judges per million within five years [9].
• Hussainara Khatoon (1979): speedy trial is part of Art. 21.

• Imtiyaz Ahmad (2012/2017): fix judge strength scientifically.

• Adjournments: the CPC limit is three adjournments per party (Order XVII Rule 1, 2002 amendment). It was upheld in Salem Advocate Bar Association (2005).

• e-Courts Phase III:
• It is a Central Sector Scheme, not a Centrally Sponsored one.
• It has ₹7,210 crore for four years.
• The Cabinet approved it on 13 September 2023 [2].

• Trap: the judicial infrastructure scheme (since 1993-94) is the Centrally Sponsored one.

• e-Courts policy: the e-Committee of the Supreme Court drafted the 2005 National Policy and Action Plan. The Department of Justice carries out the project.

• AI tools: SUVAS translates. SUPACE helps with research. Do not swap them.
• Machal Lalung: held 54 years without trial in Assam and freed in 2005. The case is cited for "justice delayed is justice denied".

Mains Points

• Pendency is mainly a capacity and management problem:
• About 87% of the backlog is in district courts [3].
• The ratio is still about 21 judges per million, against the target of 50 set in 1987 and ordered in 2002 [9].
• Vacancies, adjournments and the government's habit of 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.
• Better legal aid (Art. 39A), plea bargaining, Lok Adalats and the BNSS time limits (2024) all help.

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

• e-Courts as a trade-off:

• Gains: over 6 crore traffic cases moved to virtual courts [6], 3.2 crore VC hearings [7], and open data through the NJDG.
• Costs: the digital divide, unreliable data, and privacy risks after Puttaswamy (2017).

• Balance: e-Sewa Kendras [8], a data-protection framework for court records, and AI that only assists human judges.

• Federalism in justice delivery:

• Subordinate courts are run by the states and controlled by the High Courts (Arts. 233-235).
• Their funding comes from the Centre and the states together.
• A central scheme for digital courts (Phase III) next to state-led staffing creates coordination gaps. A permanent judicial infrastructure body could close them.