Beyond the gavel: The costly courtroom delays

The Indian judicial system, known for its resilience and robustness, is grappling with a critical challenge: pendency in litigation. Despite technological and procedural advancements, courts are burdened with an ever-increasing docket of cases. The ordeal of litigants and lawyers waiting in courtrooms, hoping for their matter to be heard amidst an overwhelming cause list, is emblematic of this issue.

The Burden of Long Cause Lists

Each court session begins with a cause list—a schedule of cases listed for the day. While intended to streamline proceedings, these lists are often unmanageably long, sometimes containing hundreds of cases, while, only a fraction of cases are heard by day’s end. According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), India’s trial courts are handling over 4 crore pending cases, High Courts over 59 lakhs, and the Supreme Court more than 70,000. There are multiplicity of Tribunals and Commissions, where the pendency is fat long too. These staggering figures underscore the magnitude of the problem. For litigants and their counsel, this translates into hours or days of waiting with no certainty of being heard.

Reasons Behind the Delays

1. Judicial Vacancies: India’s judge-to-population ratio is approximately 21 judges per million people, far below the recommended 50 per million. Vacancies persist across all levels, with nearly 5,000 positions vacant in subordinate courts and over 400 in High Courts. Many courts operate at only half capacity, severely impacting case disposal rates. The pandemic exacerbated this issue, reducing the number of sitting days and increasing backlog. 
2. Excessive Filings: The sheer volume of new filings, including routine matters and complex disputes, compounds backlog. The system also struggles against filing of false cases. 
3. Inefficient Scheduling and lack of Time Management mechanism: Poorly prioritized cause lists often let minor matters overshadow substantive hearings, delaying case progress. Additionally, absence of a structured time management mechanism, even in Supreme Court and High Courts, exacerbates inefficiencies. This imposes substantial human and financial costs on both advocates and litigants as they have to wait whole day in Court for their hearing, only for it to be postponed.
4. Prolonged Proceedings: Frequent adjournments and procedural delays contribute to over 60% of delays in civil cases, as per a study by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.
5. Incomplete Digitization: While the pandemic accelerated digitization, the transition remains incomplete. Online hearings, especially at trial court level, still face significant challenges. E-filing systems, which could streamline processes, are often reported to be inoperable or difficult to navigate. Additionally, there is no standardized digital mechanism for summoning records from lower to appellate courts. Existing digitization efforts are hindered by limited access, unresolved privacy concerns, and doubts about their efficiency delaying comprehensive reform.

The Human Cost of Pendency

The key aspect driving my concern is human cost of pendency and lack of effective court time management mechanism, thereby costing dearly to stakeholders. For litigants, prolonged delays result in financial and emotional strain. Frequent adjournments mean repeated travel costs, missed workdays, and mounting legal expenses. A report by Daksh revealed that litigants spend a substantial amount per court hearing, which costs are much higher in metropolitan areas. 

On the other side of coin, Lawyers wait in courtroom for hours, sometime days, for their matters to reach for hearing, which can very well be addressed by effective time management mechanism. The uncertainty of hearing also undermines public confidence in the judiciary. While the disputes, even the false ones, linger for decades, affecting generations, non-hearing of a case on the date of hearing is a antithesis to justice. 

Comparative Perspective

India’s pendency problem, while not unique, is unparalleled in scale. Examining how other countries manage their judicial systems offers valuable insights:

United Kingdom:

• Scale and Nature of Pendency: In 2023, the U.K. received approximately 3.5 million cases across criminal, civil, and tribunal courts, with 1.023 million cases pending at year-end. This backlog was primarily a result of COVID-19 pandemic.
• Government Interventions: Post-pandemic, the U.K. government allocated substantial funds to modernize and digitize courtrooms. Initiatives included increasing number of judges, extending court hours, and granting additional powers to certain judicial officers. 
• Use of Technology: Advanced case management systems, e-filing platforms, and video conferencing tools provide real-time updates, enabling effective scheduling and reducing procedural delays are used.
• Streamlined Processes: Strict procedural timelines and limited adjournments ensure cases progress swiftly. Specialized courts like family and commercial courts, further reduce delays.

United States:

• Scale and Nature of Pendency: As of 2024, over 3.5 million cases were pending across 71 federal courts, with immigration cases forming a large portion of the backlog. State courts also grapple with delays, particularly in high-volume jurisdictions.
• Vacancies and Resource Constraints: A shortage of judges and public prosecutors exacerbates delays. Federal courts often experience prolonged vacancies, impacting case disposal rates.
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): The U.S. extensively uses ADR mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, to divert cases from formal courts. 
• Technological Integration: Digital case management tools, electronic filing systems, and virtual hearings have been widely adopted improving efficiency and accessibility, particularly in remote areas.

Singapore:

• Case Management: Singapore’s judiciary employs a rigorous case management with timelines strictly enforced. Early intervention mechanisms ensure disputes are addressed before they escalate.
• Technology and Automation: Fully digitized judicial processes, including AI-driven tools for scheduling and document review, expedite resolutions.
• Specialized Courts: Dedicated courts for specific areas ensure expertise and faster decision-making.
• Community Mediation: Singapore emphasizes resolving disputes through mediation at the community level, reducing the inflow of cases into formal courts.

Potential Solutions

1. Efficient Case Management: Courts should adopt modern techniques to prioritize and schedule cases better. Assigning specific time slots for cases can reduce unnecessary waiting and provide predictability to the system.
2. Judicial Appointments: Filling vacancies and increasing number of judges and judicial officers are essential steps forward. 
3. Technology Integration for Effective Time Management: Digital cause lists, virtual hearings, and real-time updates can help litigants and lawyers plan more effectively. Comprehensive digitization, including uniform e-filing systems, is crucial. Implementing a robust time management mechanism for court hearings can save significant hours for all stakeholders.
4. Streamlined Procedures: Reducing adjournments and adhering to time-bound resolutions can improve efficiency. Stricter norms for granting adjournments should be implemented.
5. Promoting ADR Mechanisms: Mediation, arbitration, and conciliation should be encouraged to resolve disputes outside formal courts, freeing judicial resources.

Conclusion

The long wait in courtrooms due to extended cause lists reflects the broader issue of judicial pendency. With over 4 crore cases pending, systemic reforms are critical and essential to uphold rule of law and restore public trust in the judiciary. Increasing judicial capacity, adopting technology, and radically improving daily court management are vital steps.