INTRODUCTION
The prominent way to obtain a remedy for the violation of rights is through the courts. To claim his right, an individual files a suit and when the case is decided, whether in his favour or against, he receives a decision. This is the formal procedure which a person can follow to get a remedy for their legal grievance. This is the literal method for obtaining a remedy under a law, but law is not only about upholding the letters but also the spirit.
One of the major challenges for the Indian judiciary is the number of pending cases in the courts. The vast number of pending cases implies that the spirit of the law is compromised. According to the data from the National Judicial Data Grid, over 88000 cases are pending before the Supreme Court of India.[1] Even though the Supreme Court has said that the right to a speedy and fair trial is a fundamental right.[2] The question which arises from such circumstances is, what causes such a compromise to be made in the judiciary?
SYSTEMIC BARRIERS
The overwhelming case backlogs are caused by of shortage of judges, bureaucratic hurdles and inadequate infrastructure. Though there are other reasons as well, these play a crucial part in making this situation. They create such circumstances that even the experience of all judges put together could fall short in comparison. The shortage of judges is a prominent factor because it creates a great deal of pressure on the judges. In the USA, the ratio of judges to population is 150 judges per million. Whereas in India, the ratio is 21 judges per million of the population.[3] The ratio of judges per population in India is very low. The volume of incoming litigation cannot be controlled, and a judge can only decide several cases daily. Even when the judge tries to resolve a dispute quickly, the bureaucratic hurdles slow the proceedings of a case. This leads to a dire situation where the judges are incapable of exercising their duty because of external factors.
The countries like the USA, UK and many other developed nations have found ways to integrate technology with their judicial institutions and proceedings. Whereas in India, the judiciary is still heavily reliant on the extensive bureaucracy, as it takes a lot of paperwork even in minor or petty cases. This causes hardship for common people to follow their case, and to avoid such problems, they use bribery as a means. This causes corruption within the court, especially within the staff. As Chief Justice B.R. Gavai said, “Legitimacy and public confidence are not secured through coercion of command but through the credibility earned by courts. Any erosion of this confidence risks weakening the judiciary’s constitutional role as the ultimate arbiter of rights. Transparency and accountability are democratic virtues,”.[4] This practice of giving and taking bribes within the court will lead to weakening the public trust.
The Indian judiciary has seen reforms in order to rectify these systemic barriers. The concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, such as Mediation, Conciliation, Arbitration and Lok Adalat. These methods were opted for to reduce the burden on the courts. Even then, the question which persists is whether, by opting for these methods, they can uphold the spirit of the law. The data presented by the National Judicial Data Grid makes it evident that, just simply opting for these methods is not enough.
RECTIFICATION TO ADDRESS
To uphold the public trust, transparency and accountability through the credibility earned. The judiciary must ensure that these barriers do to persist. In the process of making sure that these problems cease to exist, they must develop adequate infrastructure. A system by which the proceedings of courts are easily accessible. While maintaining its transparency, courts should be able to work in a proficient way. To do so, the integration of technology can make the proceedings of the court quicker than before and also reduce the heavy reliance on extensive bureaucracy. These changes will provide favourable outcomes if the right people exercise their powers. The decision of a case is the discretion of the judge.
The requirement for more judges of the courts is evident. In doing so, it is also important that the quality of judges is not compromised. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court made it compulsory for judiciary aspirants to have 3 years of experience in litigation. To be eligible for attempting the judicial service examination.[5] This judgement is more oriented on the quality of judges, not on the number of required of judges required. It has also put many aspirants in question as to whether they should pursue judiciary or not, especially for females. Because the time it takes is very long, not many can afford to put so much time into a chance. Rather than that, the experience can be made part of the law course, whether 3 years or 5 years. It should be made mandatory for law students to work in the courts, and the Bar Council of India should provide a framework for such regulation. The requirement of 75% attendance in classes for law students is not very productive, since they need practical exposure to apply their knowledge in the court. This will not only help in improving the quality of judges but also advocates.
The need for a quality advocate is also evident. New advocates find it hard to work. Since they lack practical exposure, only having the knowledge of the law is not sufficient. By making sure that law students will be exposed to the ground reality of courts, it will separate the good advocates and judges from the rest. This will also make sure that the students get enough experience before they enter the actual field. Which, in result, will cause the courts to work in a better and quicker way.
CONCLUSION
The Indian judiciary is still learning and growing. There is a lot of room for growth, but it has still managed to make an impression on the people. People have faith in the judiciary; that is the reason why the number of pending cases keeps piling up. The judiciary has tried to tackle this issue with the introduction of concepts like the Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism, but there is more required. India is a developing nation, and with the growth of other sectors, the judiciary will grow as well.
Author’s Name: Akashdeep (CT Institute of Law)
[1] Supreme Court National Judicial Data Grid, Supreme Court of India <https://scdg.sci.gov.in/scnjdg/> accessed 25 September 2025.
[2] Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1369.
[3] R. Sai Spandana, ‘Will More Judges Help Reduce Case Backlog?’ (Supreme Court Observer, 27 January 2025) <https://www.scobserver.in/journal/will-more-judges-help-reduce-case-backlog/ > accessed 25 September 2025.
[4] PTI, ‘Instances of corruption, misconduct within judiciary impact public confidence: CJI Gavai’ The Hindu (New Delhi, 4 June 2025) <https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/instances-of-corruption-misconduct-within-judiciary-impact-public-confidence-cji-gavai/article69655749.ece> accessed 28 September 2025.
[5] Ratna Singh, ‘Supreme Court reinstates 3-year bar experience for civil judges: what it means for judiciary aspirants’ (Bar and Bench, 25 May 2025) <https://www.barandbench.com/columns/supreme-court-reinstates-3-year-bar-experience-for-civil-judges-what-it-means-for-judiciary-aspirants> accessed 28 September 2025.
