Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of the PM’s Economic Advisory Council, unleashed the hornet’s nest by saying that the judiciary required reform. A lot of people took issue with him and in turn blamed the government for its role in the slow reform of the judiciary. While, the issue of reforms has often been raised, the Supreme Court struck down some of the provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. While tribunalisation of justice is a cancer in itself, the larger justice delivery is an extremely complex issue and involves multiple stakeholders. Administration of justice can only be first class if Judges of the highest quality helm it.
So, the question is are we appointing the best judges, in the best way and is the judiciary up to the task of taking India into the era of economic independence and liberation? From quality of judges to quality of administration of justice, many aspects require and upgrade and rectification. Added to this is the huge aspect of pendency of more than 5 crore pending cases. All these aspects will have an impact on how India goes forward in this century and whether we will become a developed nation.
While it is easy to be defensive and do blame sharing, but effective treatment can only begin once an acceptance seeps in about the illness. The refusal to acknowledge the judicial system’s own failings cannot be beneficial to anyone. The judiciary must also embrace accountability, efficiency, and openness to change. Judicial activism and contradictory approaches to justice dispensation create unpredictability. Different benches having different approaches result in different outcomes. Multiple examples can be seen from recent memory, like Bhushan steel matter, Nithari murder appeals, use of curative jurisdiction for setting aside arbitral awards, and abuse of public interest litigations. There are many examples, and in fact many senior counsels, openly suggest that litigation before the Supreme Court is like playing Russian roulette, you just roll the dice, and the rest is luck.
Vacancies are not being filled across all courts, and there is inordinate delay. Judicial examinations are not held by many High Courts in a scientific and timely manner. The collegium appointments take an inordinate amount of time and sometimes, the government just sits on the recommendations of the Collegium with no remedial steps taken by the judiciary. There is just silence and no discussion or resolution of the impasse on these issues which eventually just affects the administration of justice. The blame for this fractured relationship between the government and the judiciary has to be shouldered by both; the striking down of the National Judicial Appointment Commission was a profound blow to transparency and the aftereffects can still be felt till this day. Instead of a complete strike down, certain aspects could have been upheld but alas, it was a missed opportunity!
The regulation of the profession and the legal education can be improved and be done more professionally. We are not sure of the number of lawyers who are practicing within the country and a vast majority of lawyers are not even treated as practicing advocates if they join in-house legal teams! The quality of continued legal training needs to be enhanced, and mushrooming of sporadic law colleges should be checked and effectively regulated. As administration of justice, in quantitative and qualitative terms, is extremely complex, it requires a serious study and needs layered responses by all stakeholders. The need of the hour is a scientific debate and not a sensationalism.
One of the steps, which ought to have been taken long back, is the appointment of ad-hoc judges in both the High Courts (Article 224A) and the Supreme Court (Article 128). We should leverage their experience and focus on the oldest criminal appeals and aged civil matters, some pending for 40, 30, or 25 years. Dedicated benches can prioritise these old cases, and clear long-standing appeals to deliver high-impact reductions in pendency. Further, we have national law schools in almost each state, and we should have collaborations between Courts and these national law schools for structured projects and for supporting judicial administration. Initiatives regarding case-flow analysis, data dashboards, research assistance, digitised record management, amongst use of artificial intelligence, can efficiency, and reduce pendency. Another solution would be to appoint amicus curiae for very old cases. Courts should establish panels of amicus curiae which can assist in disposal of matters on a rotational basis. The courts can also consider holding special sittings on weekends or holidays for focused disposal with the help of these amicus curiae.
The collegium system has not delivered timely appointments, and we must develop a new, consensus-based mechanism that is transparent, accountable, and time-bound. Judicial appointments must be treated as a national priority, with renewed emphasis on integrity, diligence, and public service. India needs to double its judge-to-population ratio and rapidly expand court infrastructure. Adequate staffing, digital tools, modern facilities, and scientifically designed spaces are essential, as without such infrastructure, meaningful reduction in pendency is unattainable.
We should also consider creating specialised fast-track courts where parties can choose judges from a panel of ad-hoc retired judges, pay enhanced court fees, and receive expedited trials. These special courts, funded by the higher fees, would deliver faster trials, high-quality infrastructure, and reduced pressure on traditional courts. The higher fees received from these courts can be used to fund the infrastructure for traditional courts.
Implementing an effective plea-bargaining system can reduce the burden of minor and less-serious cases, resulting in a quicker resolution. Reforms must have quantifiable targets, and India should aim to reduce pendency by at least 40% within a fixed timeline. Rationalising litigation costs and awarding realistic costs will deter frivolous litigation and ensure judicial resources are optimally utilised. The growing pendency and limited judicial hours disproportionately impact young lawyers struggling for regular hearings. If hearings are scarce, livelihoods suffer, leading to frustration within the bar.
India’s progress towards becoming a developed nation is linked to the efficacy of its justice system. Reducing pendency is not optional but is an urgent national requirement. The judiciary must function efficiently, inspire public faith, and remain accessible to all. The solutions outlined above are not radical; they are practical, necessary, and long overdue. Implementing these measures will ensure that justice in India is neither delayed nor denied but delivered expeditiously and equitably.
About the authors: Shally Bhasin and Varun Pathak are Partners at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.