India’s judicial reform debate usually returns to a familiar demand: appoint more judges. The demand is justified. Courts are overburdened and district courts carry the heaviest pressure of ordinary justice. But the debate often misses another question: how much judicial time is lost to administrative work that should not require a judge’s direct attention?

A judge’s core function is adjudication. Yet, the working life of a court also depends on scheduling, records, staff coordination, digital systems, infrastructure, data reporting, case-flow monitoring, public interface and compliance with administrative instructions. If these functions are weak, even a well-intentioned court struggles to move cases efficiently.

This is where court managers should matter.

The post of court manager was created in India in 2010 under the 13th Finance Commission to assist judges with administrative tasks. The idea was to bring trained management professionals into courts so that judges could focus more fully on adjudication. A DAKSH paper notes that court managers were introduced to support judges with administrative duties, but have still not been fully absorbed into the system in several states.

The imagination was ambitious. Court managers were expected to support diverse areas of court management, including planning, information systems, court and case management, human resource management, core systems and IT systems. My own research with Nidhi Suthar on court managers notes that the post was created to improve court functioning, but the reality has remained weaker than the policy imagination.

This gap between imagination and reality is costly.

India has invested heavily in court digitisation. e-Courts Phase III - approved with an outlay of ₹7,210 crore - aims to move towards digital, online and paperless courts, digitise records, support e-filing and e-payments, and improve court services. But technology does not manage itself. A case-status portal is useful only when data is accurate. Digitised records are useful only when they improve retrieval and listing. e-Sewa Kendras help only when they are staffed, maintained and integrated into the everyday work of courts.

Judges cannot be expected to personally manage every administrative link in this chain.

Court managers can become the missing bridge between judicial leadership and administrative execution. Their role should not be ornamental. They should help district judges and court administrations with case-flow analysis, pendency reports, cause-list discipline, digital-service monitoring, infrastructure planning, user-service feedback, records management, coordination with vendors, staff training needs and implementation of court development plans.

The Supreme Court’s National Court Management Systems initiative already recognises the need for court development planning, case management, human-resource development and policy systems for improving the quality, timeliness and efficiency of courts. A 2012 government note on the National Court Management Systems Committee referred to court development planning and human resource development as part of the reform agenda.

Court managers fit naturally into this architecture. Yet, they remain underused.

Part of the problem lies in role clarity. If court managers are appointed but not given defined responsibilities, access to data, authority to coordinate or a place in decision-making, they become assistants without institutional power. If judges are unsure how to use them, or if staff see them as outsiders, the post becomes marginal. If they are hired contractually without career pathways, the system loses continuity and expertise.

This is not a small administrative problem. It affects justice delivery.

Consider case-flow management. Courts need to know which categories of cases are stagnating, where adjournments are clustering, which stages produce delay, how old matters are moving and whether digital tools are improving or merely recording delay. Court managers trained in data and process analysis can help translate raw case information into actionable administrative insight.

Consider court-user services. Litigants need information about case status, certified copies, next dates, e-filing, digital payments, mediation, legal services and basic court navigation. A judge should not have to supervise the daily functioning of every help desk or digital counter. Court managers can monitor service quality, identify gaps and report them to the district judge.

Consider infrastructure. Court buildings require planning for waiting areas, records rooms, ramps, toilets, security, signage, e-Sewa Kendras and digital connectivity. These are not luxuries; they affect access to justice. Court managers can help prepare evidence-based court development plans rather than leaving infrastructure needs to ad hoc escalation.

Consider staff training. Court staff are central to records, counters, digital entries and public interface. Court managers can identify training gaps in e-filing, case-status updating, document management and communication. They can help coordinate capacity-building without disturbing judicial work.

The objection is predictable: courts are not corporations; justice cannot be reduced to management language. Their purpose is justice, not profit. But every constitutional institution still needs administration. Poor administration weakens justice. Delayed records, unclear listings, weak data, underused technology and confused court users do not protect judicial independence; they weaken public trust.

Professional court management should not interfere with judicial decision-making. It should protect it by freeing judges from avoidable administrative burdens. The role must, therefore, be carefully designed. Their work should be bound by clear rules, reporting lines and accountability. They should support the district judge, registry and court administration in measurable non-judicial functions.

India needs four reforms.

First, court managers should have standardised job descriptions across states. Their functions should include case-flow support, data analysis, digital systems monitoring, court-user services, infrastructure planning and administrative coordination.

Second, they should be integrated into the National Court Management Systems framework. Court development plans, human-resource strategies and case-management systems require trained professionals who can implement them at the district level.

Third, court managers should receive specialised training in court administration. An MBA alone is not enough. They need exposure to procedural law, judicial ethics, court records, e-Courts systems, public administration, data analysis and access-to-justice principles.

Fourth, their performance should be assessed through institutional outcomes: quality of data reporting, reliability of digital updates, reduction in administrative bottlenecks, user-service improvement, staff training coordination and support to case-flow monitoring.

India’s judiciary needs more judges, better buildings and stronger digital systems. But it also needs administrative capacity. The judge-centred model of court administration has limits. When judges are expected to adjudicate, supervise staff, monitor infrastructure, manage digital services, respond to administrative demands and still reduce pendency, the system is asking too much from one role.

Court managers were created to address this gap. The post should not remain an experiment remembered only in policy documents and scattered state-level practices. It should become a serious component of judicial reform.

The next stage of court reform should ask a practical question: what work must only a judge do and what work can trained court administrators do better?

If India wants faster and more accessible courts, it must stop treating management as secondary to justice. In many district courts, better management may be one of the most direct ways to make justice move.

Dinesh Kumar Jangra is an academic, researcher and military veteran.