Menu

Judicial Delays and Fast-Tracking Justice in India: Exploring Measures to Improve the Efficiency of India’s Legal System, Including the Use of AI in Courts

Publications, Research paper

ABSTRACT


The Indian judiciary, known for its independence and extensive jurisdiction, faces a significant challenge—judicial delays. With a backlog of over 4.4 crore cases, the slow dispensation of justice impacts the rule of law and public confidence in the legal system. This paper explores the causes of judicial delays, examines recent legal reforms and technological advancements, including the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in courts, and suggests solutions to improve judicial efficiency. Further, it evaluates the implications of slow judicial processes on economic growth, individual rights, and governance. A comparative study of international best practices is also included, providing a comprehensive analysis of methods to expedite justice delivery.

KEYWORDS: 

Judicial Delays, Fast-Track Courts, Legal Reforms, AI in Courts, Indian Judiciary, Justice Delivery, Judicial Efficiency, E-Courts, Alternative Dispute Resolution

INTRODUCTION


Judicial delays have long plagued the Indian legal system, resulting in prolonged litigation, denial of justice, and increased costs. The phrase “justice delayed is justice denied” holds significant relevance in India, where cases often take years, if not decades, for resolution. The growing backlog not only affects litigants but also erodes public confidence in the judiciary. This paper aims to analyze the factors contributing to delays and evaluate the steps taken by the judiciary and legislature, with a particular focus on AI-driven innovations, to expedite the process. Additionally, it considers how inefficient legal proceedings influence economic development and social stability, making timely judicial intervention a necessity.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY


The research follows a doctrinal methodology, analyzing statutes, judicial precedents, and secondary literature, including reports from the Law Commission of India and Supreme Court judgments. Comparative analysis with international judicial systems is also undertaken to derive best practices. Empirical data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) and Ministry of Law reports are used to examine the scale of judicial delays and evaluate the impact of recent reforms.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Several studies and reports have examined judicial delays in India. The 230th Law Commission Report (2009) and the Malimath Committee Report (2003) provide crucial insights into judicial backlogs. The 245th Law Commission Report highlights inefficiencies in procedural laws that cause delays. Scholarly articles discuss the impact of procedural inefficiencies, while recent Supreme Court rulings highlight the judiciary’s approach to tackling delays. Additionally, the literature on AI-driven legal solutions is examined to assess its potential in expediting case resolution. Global reports, such as the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business rankings, also indicate how delayed judicial processes hinder business investments in India.

CAUSES OF JUDICIAL DELAYS

  1. Huge Pendency of Cases: 

As of 2024, more than 4.4 crore (44 million) cases are pending across various courts in India, creating a significant backlog that hampers the timely dispensation of justice. A substantial proportion of these cases—nearly 87%—are stuck in subordinate courts, which handle the bulk of civil and criminal litigation. The High Courts account for over 60 lakh (6 million) pending cases, while the Supreme Court has a backlog exceeding 70,000 cases. The pendency issue is particularly severe in district courts, where a majority of cases remain unresolved for years due to a combination of judicial vacancies, procedural delays, and infrastructural challenges. In some states, the average time for case resolution extends beyond five to ten years, leading to a crisis where justice is often delayed and, in many cases, effectively denied.

  1. Shortage of Judges: One of the most pressing issues contributing to judicial delays in India is the severe shortage of judges across all levels of the judiciary. The judge-to-population ratio in India remains significantly lower than international standards. According to the Law Commission of India (1987), the ideal ratio should be 50 judges per million people, yet as of 2024, India has only about 21 judges per million, highlighting a stark deficiency. This shortage directly impacts case disposal rates, as an overwhelming number of cases are assigned to an insufficient number of judges, leading to prolonged litigation and increasing pendency.Despite the sanctioned strength of judges being periodically increased, a large percentage of positions remain unfilled. As per recent data
  • Supreme Court: Sanctioned strength of 34 judges, but vacancies arise due to delays in appointments.
  • High Courts: Over 1,100 sanctioned judges, but nearly 300 positions remain vacant.
  • District & Subordinate Courts: The sanctioned strength is over 25,000, yet more than 5,000 seats remain unoccupied, exacerbating delays at the grassroots level.

This judicial vacancy crisis has been addressed in several landmark cases. In Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 688, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the lack of adequate judicial officers was a primary cause of case pendency and urged the government to take immediate steps to fill vacancies. The Court also emphasized the need for increasing the sanctioned strength of judges to meet the rising caseload.

Similarly, in All India Judges’ Ass’n v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, the Supreme Court underscored the critical importance of filling judicial vacancies promptly to ensure efficient justice delivery. The Court recommended structural reforms to streamline judicial appointments and called for an improved recruitment and training process for judges at the district and subordinate levels.

Without immediate action, the shortage of judges will continue to be a significant barrier to achieving timely and efficient justice delivery in India.

  1. Procedural Complexities: Archaic procedures and frequent adjournments contribute to delays. Procedural laws under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) create unnecessary hurdles in case progression.
  1. Underutilization of Technology:

 The slow adoption of technology in the Indian judiciary has been a significant roadblock in addressing judicial delays. While initiatives such as the e-Courts project and digitization of case records have been introduced, their implementation has been uneven across different levels of courts, particularly in district and subordinate courts, where a vast majority of cases are pending. The lack of advanced case management systems, AI-driven legal research tools, and virtual court proceedings has prevented the judiciary from achieving optimal efficiency.

According to Abhinav Chandrachud in “Artificial Intelligence and the Indian Judiciary,” 14 Ind. J.L. & Tech. 112 (2023), the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in judicial processes could play a transformative role in reducing pendency and enhancing efficiency. AI-powered tools such as predictive analytics, automated legal research, and intelligent case management systems could significantly reduce the workload on judges and legal practitioners.

  • Potential AI Applications in the Judiciary
  • AI-Assisted Legal Research: Advanced Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools can help judges and lawyers retrieve relevant case laws and precedents instantly, reducing research time.
  • Automated Case Prioritization: AI can help courts prioritize urgent cases and allocate hearing schedules efficiently, ensuring that older and more time-sensitive cases are addressed first.
  • Smart Summarization of Legal Documents: AI algorithms can quickly analyze and summarize lengthy legal documents, helping judges and lawyers process information faster.
  • Virtual Courtrooms & Video Conferencing: AI-powered transcription services can automate case recording, and virtual courtrooms can expand access to justice for remote litigants

Despite efforts to introduce e-courts and digital case management systems, their slow implementation continues to hamper judicial efficiency. As Abhinav Chandrachud points out, AI-powered innovations can significantly improve case disposal rates and reduce judicial pendency. For this to become a reality, there must be greater investment, better training, and an urgent policy shift toward making India’s courts digitally empowered.

  1. Infrastructure Constraints: One of the critical factors contributing to judicial delays in India is the lack of adequate infrastructure in courts. Overcrowded courtrooms, inadequate administrative resources, and poor digital filing mechanisms significantly impact case disposal rates. The problem is particularly severe in district and subordinate courts, where the majority of pending cases are concentrated.
  1. Delays in Government Litigation: A significant portion of cases involve government departments, contributing to pendency. Frequent appeals by government agencies further burden the courts.

ROLE OF AI IN FAST-TRACKING JUSTICE

  1. Automated Legal Research: AI-powered tools such as machine learning algorithms can streamline legal research, reducing time spent on case preparation.
  2. Predictive Analytics for Case Management: AI can analyze past judgments and suggest probable case outcomes, helping judges manage caseloads efficiently.
  3. Virtual Courtrooms and E-Filing: AI can improve e-courts by automating filings, document reviews, and scheduling hearings.
  4. Chatbots and Legal Aid: AI-driven chatbots can assist litigants with basic legal queries, reducing the burden on courts.
  5. Efficient Contract and Dispute Resolution: AI-powered dispute resolution mechanisms can expedite arbitration and mediation proceedings.
  6. AI-Based Case Prioritization: AI can help courts prioritize cases based on urgency, complexity, and impact.
  7. Automated Translation Services: Given India’s linguistic diversity, AI-powered translation tools can make legal proceedings more accessible across different states.

RECENT INITIATIVES FOR FAST-TRACKING JUSTICE

  1. E-Courts and Virtual Hearings: The Supreme Court and High Courts have embraced digital proceedings post-COVID-19.
  2. Fast-Track Courts (FTCs): Special courts for cases like sexual offenses and economic frauds expedite justice.
  3. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats have been promoted for quicker settlements.
  4. Criminal Law Reforms (2023-24): New laws replacing IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act aim to streamline procedures.
  5. Use of Artificial Intelligence: AI-driven legal research tools and automated case management systems are being integrated into courts.
  6. National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG): A comprehensive database that helps track case pendency across courts in real-time.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS


Countries like the United States and the United Kingdom employ specialized courts and AI-powered case management to enhance efficiency. China’s Supreme People’s Court has implemented AI in judicial decision-making and administrative functions, significantly reducing case pendency. European nations have widely adopted Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) mechanisms, reducing the burden on courts. India’s judiciary can adopt similar best practices, such as AI-based case prioritization and virtual dispute resolution.

CHALLENGES IN AI IMPLEMENTATION

  1. Lack of Digital Infrastructure: Many courts in India still lack the necessary infrastructure to implement AI-driven systems.
  2. Ethical and Legal Concerns: AI-based decision-making raises concerns regarding bias, transparency, and accountability.
  3. Data Privacy Issues: Handling large volumes of judicial data requires robust cybersecurity measures to prevent breaches.
  4. Resistance to Change: Judges and legal practitioners may resist adopting AI due to unfamiliarity and skepticism.
  5. Initial Implementation Costs: AI adoption requires significant investment in training, software development, and infrastructure.

SUGGESTIONS

  1. Increase Judicial Appointments: Filling vacancies in lower and higher courts can significantly reduce case pendency.
  2. Strict Adjournment Policies: Courts should impose penalties for unnecessary adjournments.
  3. Expansion of Fast-Track Courts: More FTCs for civil and commercial matters can speed up litigation.
  4. Enhancing Legal Aid Services: Ensuring better access to legal representation can reduce unnecessary delays.
  5. Integrating AI in Courts: AI should be widely adopted for case management, legal research, and virtual proceedings.
  6. Better Infrastructure for Courts: Investment in digitization, courtroom technology, and staff training is needed.
  7. Reducing Government Litigation: Mechanisms to settle government disputes outside courts should be strengthened.
  8. Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating citizens about ADR mechanisms and e-courts can reduce unnecessary litigation.

CONCLUSION


Judicial delays in India undermine the effectiveness of the legal system. While recent reforms and technological advancements, including AI integration, are promising, sustained efforts are required to ensure swift justice. A multi-pronged approach, combining judicial appointments, procedural reforms, and technology-driven solutions, is essential for reducing delays and strengthening the justice delivery system.

REFERENCES

Reports & Government Documents:

  • Law Commission of India, Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (Wo)manpower, Report No. 245 (2014).
  • Law Commission of India, Reforms in the Judiciary – Some Suggestions, Report No. 230 (2009).
  • Ministry of Law & Justice, Annual Report 2022-23, Govt. of India, available at https://lawmin.gov.in.

Statutes & Rules:

  • The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, § 89, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India).
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 309, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).
  • The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).

Case Law:

  • Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702 (India) (emphasizing the need for speedy trials in criminal justice).
  • Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P., (2012) 2 SCC 688 (India) (addressing judicial vacancies and backlog).
  • All India Judges’ Ass’n v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247 (India) (on improving judicial infrastructure).

Journal Articles & Books:

  • Nick Robinson, A Quantitative Analysis of the Indian Supreme Court’s Workload, 10 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 570 (2013).
  • Marc Galanter & Jayanth Krishnan, Bread for the Poor: Access to Justice and the Rights of the Needy in India, 55 Hastings L.J. 789 (2004).

International & Comparative Law Sources:

  • UNDP, Strengthening the Rule of Law in Asia: Comparative Judicial Reforms, United Nations Development Programme (2022).
  • European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), Efficiency and Quality of Justice in Europe, 2021 Report, available at https://www.coe.int/cepej.

-Akshitha Prasad Naraharisetty

Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University