MAJOR ISSUES IN INDIAN JUDICIARY
1. The Crushing Burden of Pendency
This is widely seen as the single greatest challenge.
Massive Backlog: The judicial system is overburdened with an enormous number of
pending cases, estimated to be over 5 crore (50 million) across the Supreme Court,
High Courts, and subordinate courts.
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied": This backlog leads to extreme delays, with
civil cases often taking decades to resolve. This delay erodes public faith in the
system and allows procedural tactics to win over substantive justice.
Impact on Undertrials: The delay in criminal cases is a severe human rights issue. A
vast majority of India's prison population (over 75%) consists of undertrials—people
awaiting trial, many of whom may be innocent or have already spent more time in jail
than their potential sentence.
Counter-Arguments & Nuances
Government as the Biggest Litigant: A significant portion of the backlog is cases
filed by the government (e.g., tax disputes, service matters, appeals). The judiciary
isn't solely responsible for the inflow.
Police & Investigation: Delays are often caused by poor or delayed police
investigations and the non-service of summons, which are issues external to the
judiciary.
Increased Legal Awareness: A rise in pendency can also be a positive sign of a
healthy democracy where more people feel empowered to approach the courts for
justice, increasing the system's workload.
Key Initiatives & Reforms
e-Courts Mission Project: The government's flagship program to digitize the
judiciary. Phase III aims to create a fully paperless system, with e-filing, virtual
hearings, and a unified national database.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Strong promotion of mechanisms like
mediation, arbitration, and conciliation to settle disputes outside of traditional
courts. The Mediation Act, 2023, was passed to give legal backing to this.
Lok Adalats: Organized by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), these
"People's Courts" settle millions of petty cases and disputes (like traffic challans, bank
recovery) in a single day through compromise.
Gram Nyayalayas Act (2008): An act to establish mobile rural courts at the
grassroots level to provide justice at the doorstep, though its implementation has been
slow.
Fast-Track Courts (FTCs): Special courts set up to expedite trials for specific,
sensitive cases, such as those under the POCSO Act (for crimes against children).
2. Issues in Judicial Appointments and Vacancies
The problem of pendency is directly linked to the number of judges available to hear cases.
High Vacancies: There are significant, persistent vacancies across all levels of the
judiciary, from the lower courts to the High Courts. A low judge-to-population ratio
further compounds this problem.
The Collegium System: The current method of appointing judges to the Supreme
Court and High Courts is the Collegium System (a system of judges-appointing-
judges).
Criticism of the Collegium: This system is heavily criticized for being opaque, non-
transparent, and unaccountable. It has faced allegations of fostering "nepotism"
and "uncle-judge syndrome."
Executive-Judiciary Tussle: The government attempted to replace the collegium
with the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) through the 99th
Constitutional Amendment. However, the Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in
2015, calling it an infringement on judicial independence, leading to a persistent
stalemate and friction between the executive and judiciary on appointments.
Counter-Arguments & Nuances
Defense of the Collegium: The judiciary's primary defense of the collegium is the
"Independence of the Judiciary." This system was created by the Supreme Court
(in the Second Judges Case) to protect the judiciary from executive interference,
especially after the experiences of the 1970s Emergency.
Executive Delays: The judiciary often alleges that the executive (the government)
deliberately delays clearing the names recommended by the Collegium, thereby
contributing to the vacancies.
Lack of Consensus: The executive and judiciary have been unable to agree on a new
Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointments, leading to a persistent
stalemate.
Key Initiatives & Reforms
National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act (2014): This was the
government's biggest reform, creating a commission with members from the
judiciary, executive (Law Minister), and civil society ("eminent persons") to manage
appointments.
Result: The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC Act in 2015, calling it
unconstitutional and a threat to judicial independence.
All-India Judicial Service (AIJS): A long-proposed (but not yet implemented)
government initiative to create a national-level service (like IAS/IPS) to recruit judges
for the subordinate courts, aiming to attract top talent and standardize recruitment.
3. Inadequate Infrastructure and Technological Lag
The "hardware" of justice in India is often outdated and insufficient.
Poor Court Facilities: Many subordinate courts, especially in rural areas, operate
from dilapidated buildings, lacking basic amenities like staff rooms, toilets, or reliable
electricity.
Slow Tech Adoption: While the e-Courts Mission Project has been initiated to
digitize the judiciary, its implementation is uneven. There is a significant digital
divide between tech-savvy High Courts and lower courts, which still rely on
cumbersome paper-based processes.
Low Budgetary Allocation: The judiciary consistently receives a very small fraction
(often less than 1%) of the total Union and State budgets, which is insufficient for the
modernization and expansion required.
Counter-Arguments & Nuances
Uneven Progress: The tech lag is not uniform. The Supreme Court and many High
Courts are highly advanced, using AI for translation (SuVAS), live-streaming
proceedings, and processing e-filings. The problem is percolation to the district and
taluka (local) levels.
Responsibility of States: Infrastructure for subordinate courts is primarily the
responsibility of the state governments, leading to vast differences in funding and
quality from one state to another.
Key Initiatives & Reforms
FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records): A Supreme
Court initiative to ensure that judicial orders (especially bail orders) are
communicated securely and instantly to jails, preventing delays in releasing prisoners.
SuVAS (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software): An AI-powered tool used by
the Supreme Court to translate its judgments into various regional languages,
improving access to justice.
Live-Streaming of Proceedings: The Supreme Court and several High Courts have
begun live-streaming their proceedings, bringing unprecedented transparency to their
functioning.
Centrally Sponsored Scheme: The central government runs a scheme to provide
funds to state governments specifically for the development of infrastructure in
district and subordinate courts.
4. The Problem of Access and Cost
For the average citizen, the judicial system remains distant, complex, and expensive.
High Cost of Justice: The high fees of lawyers, coupled with various procedural
costs, make accessing the courts prohibitive for a large section of the population.
Complex Procedures: The legal process is filled with complex procedures and
archaic "legalese," which is incomprehensible to the common person, making them
entirely dependent on lawyers and susceptible to exploitation.
Ineffective Legal Aid: While India has a robust legal aid framework on paper
(through the National Legal Services Authority, NALSA), its practical
implementation is often weak. The quality of legal aid lawyers is inconsistent, and
public awareness of these services is low.
Counter-Arguments & Nuances
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The Indian judiciary's most famous innovation.
The Supreme Court relaxed the rule of locus standi (the right to bring a case),
allowing any citizen to bring a petition for the public good (even via a postcard). This
is a powerful tool for access, not against it.
NALSA's Success: While imperfect, NALSA and its state-level bodies do provide
free legal aid to millions of eligible people and are the driving force behind the highly
successful Lok Adalats.
Key Initiatives & Reforms
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): This is the single biggest initiative. It
has a statutory mandate to provide free legal services to weaker sections of society
(women, children, SC/ST, people with low incomes).
Tele-Law Service: A government program that uses video conferencing and
telephone services to connect marginalized citizens in rural areas with a panel of
lawyers for pre-litigation advice.
Pro Bono Legal Services Portal: A digital platform created by the Department of
Justice that connects lawyers willing to provide free (pro bono) services with those
who need them.
5. Lack of Transparency and Accountability
Holding the judiciary itself accountable is a major structural challenge.
Opaqueness in Functioning: Besides appointments, the internal administration of
the judiciary, such as the listing of cases and formation of benches, is often opaque
and not subject to public scrutiny.
Ineffective Accountability Mechanism: There is no simple or effective mechanism
to deal with judicial misconduct or corruption. The only constitutional method to
remove a senior judge is impeachment, a complex political process that has proven
nearly impossible to complete.
Internal "In-House Mechanism": The judiciary has an "in-house mechanism" to
handle complaints, but it is often seen as a self-regulating exercise with little to no
external transparency or punitive power.
Counter-Arguments & Nuances
Protection from Vexatious Complaints: The difficulty of the impeachment process
is intentional. It is designed to protect judges from political pressure or frivolous
complaints, thereby securing their independence to make decisions (even unpopular
ones) without fear.
Balancing Act: The judiciary must balance transparency with the need for judicial
confidentiality. For judges to deliberate freely and frankly, their internal discussions
and draft judgments must be protected from public scrutiny.
Key Initiatives & Reforms
CJI's Office under RTI: In a landmark 2019 judgment, the Supreme Court declared
that the Office of the Chief Justice of India is a "public authority" under the
Right to Information (RTI) Act, a major step towards transparency, though with
some caveats.
In-House Mechanism: The judiciary has an internal "in-house mechanism" (as per
the K. Veeraswami case) to investigate complaints of misconduct against sitting
judges. While criticized for being opaque, it is the primary tool used for self-
regulation.
"Restatement of Judicial Values" (1997): An internal code of ethics adopted by the
judges themselves, guiding their conduct.
