The Indian Judiciary is considered the guardian of constitutional values and the final arbiter of justice. Yet, it is burdened with one of the heaviest caseloads in the world. The latest data released recently by the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) highlights the gravity of the problem. The number of cases pending in the Supreme Court has reached 88,417, the highest ever, when the Court is currently functioning with its full sanctioned judicial strength of 34 Judges.

           The gap between admissions and disposals of cases is not new, but has become more severe in the years following the pandemic. The Supreme Court is functioning with its full sanctioned strength of 34 Judges and has adopted measures such as summer benches during “partial working days”, yet the pendency of cases continues to rise. This reflects that the Supreme Court itself is grappling with a rapidly increasing number of cases, raising serious questions about access to justice, the rule of law and the credibility of judicial administration.

Key highlights from the National Judicial Data Grid report:

• • All-time high pendency: As of August, 88,417 cases are pending in the Supreme Court — 69,553 civil and 18,864 criminal.
  • Filing vs disposal gap: Over 7,000 new cases were filed in August, while 5,667 were disposed of, with a disposal rate of 80.04%.
  • Backlog despite full strength: The Supreme Court is functioning with its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges, yet pendency continues to rise.
  • Summer bench initiative: CJI B.R. Gavai increased the number of benches during the court’s summer holidays (renamed partial working days). Between May 23 and July, 21 benches sat, led initially by the CJI and five senior-most judges.
  • Historical trend: Pending cases had similarly peaked in mid-2023 with over 82,000 cases awaiting hearing. The problem has worsened post-pandemic, especially in 2023.

Development

·         Built by the National Informatics Centre (NIC) with inputs from the Supreme Court’s Computer Cell.

·         Features an interactive analytics dashboard to visualise trends.

Significance

·         Policy Input: Identifies bottlenecks in laws and judicial administration (e.g., rising land disputes linked with state land records).

·         Transparency: Litigants can track real-time case status.

·         Accountability: Enables judges and administrators to monitor performance and delays.

Causes of Rising Pendency:

1.       Expanding Role of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court was originally designed as a constitutional court focusing on matters of law and interpretation. Over time, it has become a court of routine appeals and special leave petitions (SLPs). Nearly 40% of SC cases are SLPs, adding to its docket and leaving less time for constitutional matters.

2.      Shortage of Judges

o    India has 21 judges per million populations, far below the Law Commission’s recommendation of 50.

o    Judicial vacancies persist:

§  High Courts: 30–35% posts vacant.

§  Subordinate Courts: Over 20% unfilled.

o    Globally, India lags behind: the US has 100+ judges per million, and European countries average 50–70 per million.

3.      Procedural Inefficiencies

o    Adjournments and frequent case transfers delay resolution.

o    Outdated legal provisions and multiple appeal layers prolong litigation.

4.     Weak Infrastructure

o    Many district courts lack modern courtrooms, adequate staff, and reliable digital systems.

o    Per-judge staff ratio in India is very low compared to advanced jurisdictions.

5.     Underutilisation of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution)

o    Mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration remain underdeveloped.

o    In commercial matters, courts still bear the burden of cases that could be settled outside.

6.     Administrative Delays

o    Delay in judicial appointments due to prolonged Collegium–Government consultations.

o    Outdated case management systems without digital prioritisation tools.

Challenges Posed by Pendency:

1.       Justice Delayed is Justice Denied

o    A 2009 Law Commission Report warned that clearing India’s backlog would take 464 years at current disposal rates.

o    Delayed justice erodes faith in the rule of law and the authority of courts.

2.      Economic Losses

o    Contested tax revenues blocked due to legal delays equal 4.7% of GDP.

o    Nearly ₹50,000 crore worth of projects remain stalled because of unresolved disputes.

o    Slow judicial outcomes reduce investor confidence and discourage business.

3.      Impact on Society and Governance

o    Weakens the rule of law, leading to weaker deterrence against crime.

o    Contributes to lower per capita income, unemployment, and poverty.

o    Reduces efficiency of public infrastructure and governance.

4.     Human Rights Concerns

o    Indian prisons are at 150% occupancy, with a majority being undertrials awaiting resolution.

o    Prolonged incarceration without trial violates constitutional rights under Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty).

Constitutional and Judicial Responses:

Ad-Hoc Judges (Article 224A)

·         Allows retired High Court judges to be reappointed temporarily with presidential approval.

·         Revived in Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), but only when vacancies exceed 20%.

·         Historically underused—only three instances before 2021.

Collegium Concerns

·         A 2023 resolution highlighted that the top court “cannot afford even one vacancy” due to rising pendency.

·         Urged urgent filling of posts at all levels.

Supreme Court Initiatives

·         Summer Benches (2025): 21 benches worked during “partial working days” to clear backlogs.

·         E-Courts: Promotion of digitisation, online filing, and hybrid hearings.

Solutions to Reduce Pendency

1.       Fast-Tracking Pending Cases

o    Time-bound disposal of PILs older than 10 years.

o    Categorisation of routine vs. constitutional cases.

2.      Expanding Judicial Strength

o    Filling all vacancies on priority.

o    Hiring retired judges for specific categories of cases.

3.      ADR and Mediation

o    Make mediation mandatory before litigation in commercial disputes.

o    Encourage Lok Adalats, arbitration, and conciliation.

4.     Increasing Court Productivity

o    Longer working days and reduced vacation periods.

o    Performance evaluation for judges and staff.

5.     Technological Integration

o    Expansion of NJDG with AI-based predictive tools.

o    Online filing, digital summons, and automated scheduling.

o    Use of big data analytics to identify systemic bottlenecks.

6.     Legal and Administrative Reforms

o    Repeal outdated laws to cut down unnecessary litigation.

o    Introduce Business Process Reengineering (BPR) to streamline procedures.

Conclusion:

The pendency crisis in the Supreme Court and across Indian courts highlights the urgent need for structural judicial reform. Despite initiatives like NJDG, e-Courts, and partial working benches, the inflow of cases continues to outstrip disposal rates.

A multi-pronged approach is needed:

·         Strengthening judge strength and infrastructure.

·         Making ADR mainstream.

·         Using technology for case management.

·         Ensuring no judicial vacancies remain unfilled.

Without such systemic interventions, India risks not only a collapsing judicial system but also a weakening of its constitutional promise of justice—social, economic, and political.