Judicial reforms commission needed to cut court backlog, says Justice Nagarathna
Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme “Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice” here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing “From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts,” said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the Government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings. “A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponements because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A Government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
“A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay,” she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the Government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the Government as the “largest generator of litigation”, noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
“The Government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation,” she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in the appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the Government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
