Delay as destiny or denial of justice? The need for jurisprudential introspection

When we speak of the Indian judiciary, we often invoke metaphors of grandeur - the temple of justice, the guardian of the Constitution. Yet, behind this solemn imagery lies a troubling truth: the Indian justice system is sinking under the weight of time. The ideal of justice - swift, fair and humane - has been replaced by the grim reality of delay, denial and disillusionment.

Justice, in its truest sense, is not a ritualistic pronouncement of law but the realisation of human dignity. And yet, the scale of judicial delay has turned this dignity into a distant dream. An RTI filed before the Supreme Court Registry recently revealed staggering data. In the last five years alone, district courts have accumulated 83,62,771 pending cases, High Courts 14,61,822 and the Supreme Court 15,120. Together, nearly 98,39,713 matters have been pending between five to ten years. In sum, over 1.46 crore cases have remained unresolved for more than five years, with 7,32,872 cases festering beyond twenty years.

These are not statistics; they are stories. Behind every number lies a litigant’s fading hope, a widow awaiting inheritance relief for 15 years, an undertrial languishing without trial, a tenant fighting eviction till old age. For the privileged, delay may be inconvenience; for the marginalised, it is annihilation.

Even more disturbing is what remains untracked. The RTI response confirmed that no centralised record exists on the average time taken for case disposal. This bureaucratic silence speaks volumes. Delay has been normalised into our legal consciousness, woven into the very fabric of judicial functioning. We no longer ask why justice takes so long.

The consequences of delay are perhaps most devastating in cases involving the death penalty. Every day spent awaiting execution is a day spent in the shadow of death. The Supreme Court’s own history of death penalty jurisprudence reveals this moral crisis.

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but restricted it to the “rarest of rare” cases. Decades later, in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), the Court recognised that undue delay in execution amounts to torture, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment humanised those on death row, affirming that the right to life includes the right to die with dignity. Yet, despite these moral victories, the machinery of justice remains sluggish and wrongful convictions continue to surface with disturbing frequency.

The recent Supreme Court judgment in Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab stands as a stark reminder of the human cost of systemic failure.

A three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta set aside the death sentence of Baljinder Kumar, a man who had already spent over eleven years in jail for the alleged murder of his wife, two toddlers and sister-in-law. The Court found severe contradictions, investigative lapses and uncorroborated witness statements, concluding that the conviction was not supported by reliable evidence.

Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench, observed poignantly:

“The breakdown of the legal system becomes apparent when such haste to lay a finger of blame on somebody leads to a shoddy investigation and a poorly conducted trial. The result is a loosely tied prosecution case with glaring loopholes all across and yet the enthusiasm to deliver justice in such a heinous crime ensures that the accused person ends up on death row - albeit without sufficient evidence.”

This is not merely a statement on one man’s suffering; it is an indictment of the system itself. The Court acknowledged how societal outrage and media pressure often push investigating agencies into hurried conclusions, leading to miscarriages of justice disguised as moral victories. In doing so, the judiciary reaffirmed a timeless truth - justice cannot be achieved by speed alone; it requires precision, fairness and patience.

The case of Baljinder Kumar is not an aberration. It joins a long list of instances where the Supreme Court has had to overturn wrongful convictions after years of incarceration.

In 2023, eight men on death row were acquitted by the Supreme Court after spending years in solitary confinement a chilling revelation of how fragile justice can become when process overtakes principle.

The pattern is unmistakable: an overburdened judiciary, poorly trained investigative agencies and the absence of systemic accountability. When these forces converge, justice transforms from a promise into a punishment.

Delay in justice is not a logistical issue alone; it is a constitutional wound. The Supreme Court, in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), held that the right to a speedy trial is an essential part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21. Yet, the gap between doctrine and reality is now wider than ever.

Delay corrodes not only individual rights, but also public faith in the judiciary. Every pending case erodes the moral authority of the courts, every wrongful conviction tarnishes the legitimacy of justice and every acquittal after decades reaffirms the failure of the system. The tragedy is cyclical: delay breeds denial, denial breeds disillusionment and disillusionment breeds distrust. In a constitutional democracy, that distrust can be fatal.

Reform can no longer be incremental or procedural; it must be structural and urgent. Three pillars demand immediate attention:

1. Judicial capacity and infrastructure: The judge-to-population ratio in India remains abysmally low. Unless judicial strength increases and infrastructure is modernised, pendency will continue to outpace resolution.

2. Technology-driven case management: Artificial intelligence-based cause list management, digital filing and automated scheduling can dramatically reduce administrative inefficiencies. The judiciary must embrace technological transformation not as an experiment but as a necessity.

3. Accountability in prosecution and investigation: Every wrongful conviction represents a prosecutorial failure. Independent oversight of police investigations and mandatory performance audits of prosecutorial conduct are essential to prevent miscarriages like that in Baljinder Kumar.

Moreover, the judiciary must re-examine its own culture of adjournments, oral listings and procedural formalism. The Constitution does not promise infinite litigation; it promises timely justice.

In Baljinder Kumar @ Kala, the Supreme Court did more than correct a wrongful conviction; it held up a mirror to the system. It exposed how delay, haste and indifference together can transform justice into cruelty. The judgment reaffirms that every case delayed, every innocent person condemned, every appeal forgotten is a moral failure of the State. The words of Justice Vikram Nath echo a larger truth: when courts convict without complete evidence and delay becomes routine, we no longer uphold the Constitution; we betray it.

The RTI data, the judicial backlog and the anguish of death row inmates together form one undeniable conclusion - justice in India has become a test of endurance. If delay remains our destiny, then denial of justice will be our collective legacy.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” said Martin Luther King Jr. In India, that arc bends painfully, slowly and often too late. The time has come not just to bend it, but to quicken its pace before justice itself becomes extinct.

Sonakshi Gaur is an advocate practising at the Allahabad High Court.