Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court has called for the urgent establishment of a dedicated Judicial Reforms Commission to tackle the mounting backlog of cases in India’s legal system. Speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s (SCBA) first National Conference on Saturday, Justice Nagarathna argued that the current system is trapped in an “equilibrium of delay” where various stakeholders find rational reasons to prolong litigation.
The conference, themed “Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice,” served as a platform for the judge to outline a structural shift in how India approaches its judicial backlog. Rather than simply asking for better conduct from lawyers or judges, she proposed an inter-institutional body to overhaul the system.
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that for any reform to be effective, it must involve every tier of the legal machinery. She proposed that the Judicial Reforms Commission include:
- Representatives from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and District Judiciary.
- The Attorney General and Solicitor General.
- Institutional leadership from the Bar, including the Bar President.
- Government representatives to facilitate high-level dialogue.
“In order to break this equilibrium, what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission… rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, or asking advocates not to seek adjournments,” the judge stated.
In a candid analysis of why cases drag on for decades, Justice Nagarathna identified how individual stakeholders benefit from the status quo, even if it harms the system as a whole:
- Lawyers: She noted that some practitioners may prefer adjournments because they benefit from “per appearance” fees and extended timelines.
- Litigants: Many find it strategically advantageous to prolong proceedings to maintain a status quo.
- Government Departments: To avoid “bureaucratic risk,” officials often choose to appeal lost cases rather than accept a defeat, shifting the responsibility to the courts.
- Judges: Specifically at the trial level, judges often act with extreme “procedural caution” to avoid appellate reversals, rather than exercising aggressive control over their dockets.
Justice Nagarathna pointedly addressed the role of the State, describing the government as the “largest generator of litigation.” She observed a contradiction in the government’s public stance, noting that while officials express concern over backlogs, they simultaneously feed those backlogs through “relentless litigation.”
“A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat,” she observed, adding that disputes that could be settled early often unnecessarily travel through multiple judicial levels.
The judge also questioned the transparency of current judicial data. She suggested that “defective filings” should not be included in court pendency statistics until they are procedurally ready for a hearing.
Furthermore, she highlighted that judicial capacity is severely limited by a lack of public investment. Key bottlenecks identified include:
- Delays in the appointment of judges.
- Inadequate physical and digital infrastructure.
- Insufficient use of modern technology.
To modernize the delivery of justice, Justice Nagarathna recommended a suite of measures, including improved case management, strict curbs on unnecessary adjournments, the creation of specialized benches, and the promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
She concluded by urging all parties—lawyers, litigants, and the government—to adopt more ethical and practical litigation policies to ensure the judiciary can function effectively as a pillar of democracy.
