The Union government’s decision to replace the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 marks one of the most significant legal reforms in independent India. The move acknowledged a simple but powerful reality that colonial-era laws cannot indefinitely govern a modern constitutional democracy aspiring to become a global economic and technological power.

The reform of criminal law reflected the belief that legal systems must evolve with changing social realities, technological developments and administrative necessities.

However, while criminal law reform has rightly received national attention, an equally pressing issue remains largely ignored: the urgent need to repeal and comprehensively replace the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). If colonial criminal laws required replacement, there exists an even stronger justification for modernising colonial civil procedure.

In 2026, the CPC has effectively survived for 118 years. The India of 1908 was an entirely different nation - be it administratively, economically, technologically or constitutionally. There were no digital records, no electronic communication systems, no online commercial transactions, no modern infrastructure disputes and no litigation explosion of the dockets as are being witnessed today. Despite multiple amendments over the decades, the structural foundation of the CPC continues to remain rooted in a colonial procedural philosophy designed more for administrative continuity than efficient dispute resolution.

Civil disputes involving property, injunctions, tenancy, inheritance, contracts, commercial transactions, recovery proceedings and execution matters often continue for years and, sometimes, decades. Procedural complexity has itself become a source of delay. In many cases, litigants begin to perceive procedure not as an aid to justice but as an obstacle to justice.

One of the most glaring examples is Order XXI of the CPC dealing with execution proceedings to ensure enforcement of decrees. However, in practice, Order XXI frequently transforms into a parallel round of litigation. Objections, resistance applications, possession disputes, third-party claims, repeated warrants, stay applications and miscellaneous proceedings often convert execution into what is effectively a “mini trial” after conclusion of the original suit itself.

The result is alarming. A litigant may spend years obtaining a decree and then spend additional years merely trying to enforce it. A justice delivery system where decrees remain practically unenforced risks weakening public confidence in the judiciary itself. The Bhagavad Gita reminds us: “योगः कर्मसु कौशलम्” (skill and efficiency in action constitute true excellence). A justice system that delivers judgments but struggles to enforce them cannot claim procedural efficiency in its truest sense. Law must not merely pronounce justice; it must ensure that justice reaches the ground effectively and within reasonable time.

There is, therefore, a compelling case for radical restructuring of execution law. Order XXI in its present form requires either substantial minimisation or complete replacement with a simplified and technology-driven enforcement mechanism. Modern execution systems should focus upon strict timelines, digital asset disclosures, immediate identification of attachable properties and limited permissible objections so that decrees attain actual enforceability.

Similarly, the structural drafting pattern of the CPC itself requires reconsideration. The present CPC contains sections, orders, rules, schedules and scattered procedural frameworks spread across different chapters. Even experienced practitioners at times find seamless interpretation difficult because procedural provisions are dispersed through multiple layers. The complexity becomes even more challenging for ordinary litigants. A modern civil procedure code must, therefore, prioritise simplicity and accessibility. Procedure should not become so technically layered that only specialists can meaningfully navigate it. Simplified drafting, coherent sequencing of provisions, consolidation of overlapping procedures and plain-language structuring are urgently necessary. The objective of civil procedure should be adjudicatory efficiency, not procedural obscurity.

Civil procedure reform must also move beyond purely theoretical amendments and incorporate practical courtroom management innovations. One such reform could involve mandatory visual classification of old pending files through colour-coded identification systems. For instance, civil cases crossing a particular age threshold may be marked with distinct red covers or digital red-tag indicators so that their pendency becomes immediately visible not only to presiding judges and court staff, but equally to litigants, lawyers, inspecting authorities and higher courts. In such a framework, the very cover of the file would itself communicate urgency and priority. The system would create constant institutional visibility for old matters and discourage unnoticed stagnation of long-pending cases.

In an era where governance increasingly relies upon dashboard-based accountability and real-time monitoring, procedural law cannot remain detached from practical administrative innovations capable of improving efficiency. Such visual prioritisation mechanisms may appear simple, yet institutional systems often improve through precisely such practical reforms rather than merely through abstract legislative declarations.

Another area requiring urgent attention is the functioning of fast track courts, which were conceptualised to ensure speedy disposal of cases. However, experience has increasingly demonstrated that merely designating a court as “fast track” does not automatically ensure expedition. Civil adjudication - particularly in injunction, property and execution matters - requires substantial judicial experience, procedural control and practical understanding of litigation management.

In many situations, entry-level judicial officers are expected to manage complex dockets requiring advanced procedural balancing. While young officers are undoubtedly capable and hardworking, institutional experience remains indispensable in handling complicated civil litigation efficiently. Fast track courts dealing with significant civil disputes should, therefore, preferably be entrusted to senior judicial officers possessing adequate adjudicatory experience. Speed in civil justice does not emerge merely from numerical disposal pressure; it emerges from mature procedural control, effective courtroom management and experienced judicial supervision.

The need for civil law reform is not merely a legal necessity but also a democratic and economic imperative as India aspires to become a global superpower. Commercial growth depends significantly upon enforceability of contracts and predictability of dispute resolution. Investors evaluate not merely market opportunities, but also the efficiency of civil adjudication systems. Delayed civil justice directly affects economic confidence. A nation cannot aspire toward 21st century economic leadership while relying upon procedural frameworks substantially rooted in 1908.

Institutions lose effectiveness if their foundational structures are not periodically modernised. Procedural laws governing civil justice also require comprehensive updating to maintain institutional credibility. A justice system cannot continue indefinitely upon procedural assumptions framed 118 years ago for a completely different India.

Naturally, reform does not imply reckless abandonment of procedural safeguards. Principles of natural justice, fair hearing, judicial independence and due process must remain inviolable. Speed cannot replace fairness. Yet, fairness itself suffers when litigation becomes endless. As the Bhagavad Gita declares: “यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति…” (whenever systems decline from their true purpose, renewal becomes necessary). India has modernised one half of its justice system; the other half can no longer wait.

Mohit Kumar Prasad is a Senior Judge at the District and Sessions Court, Agra.