THE MOUNTING BACKLOG OF CASES: A BARRIER TO JUSTICE

ABSTRACT

The article delves into the pervasive problem of the mounting backlog of cases in the Indian legal system. Currently, there are over 71,000 pending cases in the Supreme Court, 6,088,032 cases in High Courts, and 43,492,773 cases in district and taluka courts[1]. The article highlights the detrimental effects of this backlog on the timely resolution of disputes and the overall functioning of the judiciary. It examines the causes contributing to the backlog and proposes comprehensive judicial reforms as a solution. The article also emphasizes the negative impact of the backlog on victims and society, thus highlighting the need for urgent action to address the backlog and promote timely resolution, in the pursuit of justice.

KEYWORDS

Pendency, National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), Burden on the Judiciary, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Delayed proceedings, Access to justice, Case prioritization, Vacant judicial positions, Role of legal aid, Efficient allocation of resources, Technology-driven solutions, Specialized courts and tribunals, and Judicial Reforms

INTRODUCTION

The recent resolution of the Berhampore case, India’s oldest and lengthiest legal dispute, by the Calcutta High Court after an arduous 72-year journey highlights the formidable challenges posed by longstanding cases within the Indian judicial system. The significance of this case, also cited in the National Judicial Data Grid, sheds light on the adverse consequences of prolonged judicial delays, affirming the well-known maxim that delayed justice equates to denied justice. When the wheels of justice grind slowly, the cherished principles of fairness, equality, and the rule of law are compromised, leaving individuals in a state of perpetual uncertainty and fostering scepticism towards the efficacy of the legal system. Hence, the imperative of timely and expeditious delivery of justice becomes ever more apparent as a crucial factor in upholding fundamental rights and maintaining public trust.

METHOD AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The method employed in this study is designed to ensure the comprehensive and reliable gathering of information related to the research topic. The multi-method approach combines qualitative and quantitative data, primary and secondary sources, and various research methods to address the research questions and obtain a nuanced perspective. The following sections outline the key components of the research methodology:

1. Research Design: The research design for this study is a mixed-methods approach, integrating both qualitative and quantitative research methods. This approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic by combining the strengths of both qualitative and quantitative data.

2. Data Collection: Extensive reading and analysis of articles, and reports from authoritative bodies, and journals to understand existing knowledge and theories. Law commission reports are examined to gain insights into the legal landscape and ongoing reforms. Reading Surveys which are conducted to gather quantitative and qualitative data on public opinions and experiences, to identify trends and patterns. Interviews with legal professionals and stakeholders provide first-hand accounts and expert opinions, while speeches by jurists and judges offer insights into their thoughts and interpretations.

3. Data Analysis: The research methodology involves content analysis of scholarly articles, law commission reports, and primary sources to identify key themes, arguments, and perspectives. Qualitative data from interviews and speeches are analyzed using thematic analysis to identify patterns and relationships. Quantitative data from surveys are analyzed using statistical methods to identify relationships, trends, and patterns in the data.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In my research, I employ diverse sources and methodologies to gather comprehensive and reliable information. To begin, I extensively read articles and journals related to the topic at hand. These scholarly publications provide valuable insights, analysis, and discussions from experts in the field. They serve as a foundation for understanding the existing knowledge and scholarly debates surrounding the subject of interest.

Additionally, I explore reports from law commissions (Reports No. 77, 79, 131, 213, 221, 222, 230, and 245) which are authoritative bodies entrusted with the task of examining and suggesting legal reforms. By studying these reports, I gain a deeper understanding of the legal landscape, ongoing reforms, and the specific challenges related to my research topic.

Furthermore, I rely on public or private surveys (Daksh, Vidhi, OECD, WJP, Gallup etc) that shed light on public opinions, experiences, and perceptions relevant to the research area. These surveys provide quantitative and qualitative data, allowing me to identify trends, patterns, and attitudes within the population. By analysing survey results, I can uncover the societal impact of the issue and gain insights into the perspectives of various stakeholders. In addition to written sources, I also incorporate interviews and speeches of jurists and judges into my research methodology.

CAUSES FOR INCREASING CASE BACKLOGS

The reasons for pending cases, contributing to the backlog in judicial systems, can vary across different jurisdictions. Here are some common factors that contribute to the accumulation of pending cases:

Government is the biggest litigant: The government is the most active litigator, which means it is involved in legal disputes with individuals, private enterprises, and other government agencies. This is owing to its responsibilities to enforce laws, make policy, and provide public services, which causes disagreements and legal problems. Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana termed governments as the “biggest litigants”, accounting for nearly 50 per cent of pending cases, and said the “docket explosion” is due to non-performance of various wings of the executive and the legislature not realising its full potential. [2]

Procedural Delays: Lengthy and complex legal procedures can contribute to case backlogs. Procedural rules, including filing requirements, documentation, and formalities, can cause delays at various stages of the legal process. Frequent adjournments, multiple hearings, and time-consuming processes can also extend the duration of cases. According to NJDG, admission constitutes 68.37%, 37.58% of Orders, 21.86% of Hearings, and 8.53% of final hearings are stages of pending cases in High Courts. [3]

3. Frequent changes in laws and regulations, along with complex legal frameworks, can lead to delays in case resolution as legal professionals and the judiciary need time to adapt, interpret, and apply new laws. This delay can be attributed to various factors, including an increase in the number of cases under specific sections of laws, such as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 498 A of the Penal Code. Additionally, the enactment of new legislations like the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Right to Information Act has contributed significantly to the overall caseload, accounting for nearly 40% of the cases. Studies and investigations, such as the Law Commission Report 213 on Fast Track Magisterial Courts for Dishonoured Cheque Cases in 2008, have identified government legislation as a key factor in the rising number of cases, often filed without considering costs or judicial load.

4. High Caseload and Limited Court Time: The issue of high caseload and limited court time contributes significantly to delays in legal proceedings. When courts are burdened with a large number of cases and have limited hours available for hearings, it becomes difficult to allocate sufficient time to each case. As a result, there are delays in scheduling hearing dates and resolving disputes. According to Parliamentary Questions raised during the Winter Session of Rajya Sabha in 2018, it was revealed that 27% of the sanctioned positions for judges/judicial officers were vacant. Additionally, 20% of the sanctioned posts for non-judicial staff in the Indian court system were also vacant. [4] This vacancy in judicial and non-judicial positions further exacerbates the strain on the courts and contributes to delays in the legal process

5. Lack of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Options: Inadequate promotion and utilization of ADR mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration, can contribute to the backlog of cases. ADR provides an alternative route for dispute resolution that can help alleviate the burden on the courts. When parties are unaware of or discouraged from using ADR, more cases end up in the formal court system. Moreover, Access to Justice Survey 2015-16 by Centre for Development, Planning and Research, Pune, India; Out of the litigants who opted for ADR methods, 96.3% of litigants belong to the lower income groups with annual income below Rs3,00,000, this means lack of negotiation, arbitration and mediation centres affect them the most.

6. Administrative and Infrastructure Challenges: Insufficient administrative support, outdated technology, and inadequate court facilities can impede the efficient processing of cases. Administrative bottlenecks and infrastructure limitations, such as outdated record-keeping systems, can slow down the progress of cases and contribute to the backlog, the lack of basic facilities for judicial service delivery in Subordinate Courts is evident-as against the total sanctioned strength of 20,558 judicial officers, at the time of publication in 2016 (the sanctioned strength is 22,704 as of December 2017, as per the last Court News, published by the Supreme Court), only 15,540 courtrooms were available in 2016. There is also a glaring shortage of residential accommodation for judicial officers. As against the total sanctioned strength of 20,558 judicial officers, the residence was available only for 12,020 judicial officers (58.5%) in 2016, thus, constituting a shortfall of residences for 8,538 (41.5%) judicial officers. There is a massive shortage of non-judicial staff in the Indian court system. 1,72,641 staff members were available at the end of the year 2016, with a shortfall in manpower to the tune of 41,775 resulting in a vacancy rate of 20% of the sanctioned post as per the Report on Subordinate Courts of India. [5]

7. Insufficient Judicial Resources: Insufficient numbers of judges, court staff, and necessary infrastructure can have a significant impact on the capacity of the judicial system to effectively manage its caseload. When resources are strained and stretched thin, the limited capacity and increased workload lead to delays in case proceedings.

Although there has been a 53% increase in expenditure on the judiciary by the combined efforts of the Union and State Governments from 2016-17 to 2018-19, the financing of the judiciary is primarily carried out by State Governments, accounting for 92% of the funding. Surprisingly, the Union Government’s share (8%) is even lower than the budgetary spending by individual states such as Uttar Pradesh (16.2%) and Maharashtra (9.2%) in the overall national judiciary budget.

Examining the allocation of funds for the judiciary in government budgets reflects a rather discouraging scenario, indicating the level of priority given to the judiciary. The proportion of the Union Government’s expenditure dedicated to the judiciary is a mere 0.08% of its total budgetary spending, while the collective spending of all states on the judiciary amounts to only 0.61% of their total spending. Consequently, the overall public expenditure on the judiciary stands at less than 0.4% of the combined gross budgetary expenditure of the Union and State Governments. [6]

8. Complexity and Nature of Cases: Certain categories of cases, such as intricate commercial disputes, constitutional matters, and those involving multiple parties, tend to experience prolonged resolution times. These cases often demand extensive legal research, expert opinions, and lengthy arguments, thereby contributing to extended timeframes and exacerbating the existing backlog. Illustratively, the renowned Keshavananda Bharti case spanned approximately six months, presided over by a 13-judge bench, while the total judge strength of the Supreme Court at the time was 14. Similarly, in the RC Cooper case, an 11-judge bench dealt with the proceedings for 37 working days, amidst the absence of other court responsibilities, apart from routine admissions. Another noteworthy instance, the LC Golaknath v. State of Punjab case, witnessed a continuous hearing by a seven-judge bench from August 4, 1981, until the year’s end. These landmark constitutional cases demanded meticulous attention and deliberation from the court.

9. Appeals to Higher Courts: The process of appealing a lower court’s decision involves extensive documentation, thorough review by the reviewing court, and a time-consuming evaluation of evidence and legal arguments. Procedural complexities and the introduction of an additional layer of litigation also contribute to delays. Appeals constitute 19.89%, first appeal 8.75%, second appeal 5.41% of matters pending in the high court and the number is even higher in Supreme Courts. [7]

EFFECTS OF DELAYED JUSTICE ON VICTIMS AND SOCIETY

“Justice delayed is justice denied” is a widely recognized phrase that emphasizes the importance of timely and efficient delivery of justice. It implies that any delay in the legal process or the administration of justice can result in the denial of justice itself. When justice is delayed, it can lead to numerous negative consequences for individuals, society, and the overall functioning of the legal system.

Denial of Rights: The delay in delivering justice can result in the infringement of fundamental rights for individuals involved in legal proceedings. Every person is entitled to a fair and prompt trial, where their case is heard, evidence is presented, and a judgment is rendered. The protraction of the legal process can impede the realization of these rights, leaving individuals in a state of uncertainty, anxiety, and prolonged legal battles.

In the seminal case of, Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar[8] the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of prolonged pretrial detention and its implications for the denial of justice. The court established that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that if a person is unreasonably detained while awaiting trial, it amounts to a violation of their rights. The judgment underscored the imperative of expeditious trials, the provision of legal aid, and the release of undertrial prisoners who have been held in custody for extended periods without trial.

Similarly, in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[9] although not directly dealing with delayed or denied justice, the judgment played a pivotal role in expanding the interpretation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to a fair and reasonable procedure is an integral component of the right to life. This decision has been widely referenced in subsequent cases addressing delays in legal proceedings, emphasizing the significance of expeditious justice.

Erosion of Trust: A swift and efficient justice system is vital for instilling trust and confidence in society’s legal institutions. Delays in delivering justice can undermine people’s faith in the system’s ability to provide fair and impartial judgments. This loss of trust can have significant ramifications, as it can lead to a decreased respect for the law and a lack of confidence in the overall justice system.

The Uphaar Cinema case serves as a glaring example of the alarming delay in justice. It took six years to establish that 59 individuals lost their lives due to criminal negligence on the part of the cinema management and the Delhi government. The negligence and violation of safety rules were evident from the outset, but the slow pace of the Indian justice system prolonged the proceedings. Similarly, in the notorious Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, the main culprits were eventually sentenced to death after exhausting all legal avenues, including multiple petitions, review petitions, and mercy pleas. However, it took nearly seven years for the perpetrators to be executed in Tihar Jail, Delhi, following the crime.

Impunity and Inequality: Delayed justice can result in a sense of impunity for wrongdoers. If perpetrators of crimes or those responsible for injustices are not held accountable on time, it can perpetuate a culture of impunity, where individuals believe they can escape consequences for their actions. All the corruption cases are a prime example where political influence and power overshadows the judicial system of the country and hardly any positive outcome comes. This can contribute to a sense of inequality and injustice, particularly for marginalized communities that may already face systemic disadvantages like being educationally backward, economically weak, and women etc. National Judicial Data Grid data states that only 14% of litigants in India are female. [10]

4. Social Disruption: When the delivery of justice is delayed, it can have far-reaching negative consequences for society as a whole. The resulting delays in resolving these disputes can impede economic development and hinder social progress. Moreover, individuals directly involved in such cases bear the burden of the delays, as they must invest significant amounts of their time, resources, and emotional well-being in navigating the legal process. A notable example illustrating this issue is Daksh’s Access to Justice Survey conducted in 2014-2015, which highlights the significant impact of attending court hearings on productivity, resulting in a loss equivalent to 0.48% of the Indian GDP.[11]

5. Diminished Deterrent Effect: Timely justice serves as a deterrent against future wrongdoing. Swift punishment or the resolution of legal matters sends a clear message that illegal actions will not go unpunished, which helps deter potential offenders. However, when justice is delayed, the deterrent effect is weakened, as the passage of time may diminish the impact and significance of the consequences for the accused.

The Jessica Lal murder case is a prominent criminal case in India that gained significant attention when a young model and bartender, was shot and killed at a party in New Delhi. The prime accused, Manu Sharma, who belonged to a powerful political family, was initially acquitted by a trial court in 2006 due to a lack of evidence. This verdict sparked widespread outrage and led to public protests, as it was widely believed that Sharma’s influential background had influenced the judicial process and led to a denial of justice. The failure to hold the accused accountable despite strong public sentiment and evidence sent a discouraging message to victims, witnesses, and society at large. It raised questions about whether the legal system could effectively deter individuals from committing crimes if they had the backing of political power. However, the case took a significant turn when the Delhi High Court intervened and, in 2006, overturned the trial court’s verdict, convicting Manu Sharma and sentencing him to life imprisonment. The subsequent conviction provided a measure of closure for the victim’s family and the public, re-establishing faith in the legal system’s ability to deliver justice.

EFFECTS OF DELAYED JUSTICE ON VICTIMS

1. Legal and financial burdens: Lack of access to legal resources and representation can exacerbate financial and legal problems for individuals. The inability to navigate legal processes, mounting legal expenses, or inadequate understanding of available legal options can lead to feelings of hopelessness and despair. According to Access to Justice survey 2015-16, Daksh organisation, civil litigants spend Rs 497 per day on average for court hearings and incur a loss of Rs 844 per day. On the other hand, criminal litigants spend Rs 542 per day and incur a loss of Rs 902. Moreover, according to the same survey, the lowest income group (with an annual income of less than `1 lakh) is seen to be most optimistic about their cases being resolved within 1 year. 44% of litigants cited expense as a major deterrent for filing appeals in the High Court if their cases were not resolved in their favour.

2. Systemic inequalities: Socioeconomic disparities, discrimination, and unequal distribution of resources can restrict access to quality education, healthcare, employment opportunities, and basic social services. These factors, combined with limited access to justice, may create a cycle of disadvantage and frustration that contributes to mental health issues and feelings of helplessness. “There is a relationship between legal problems and poverty. Legal problems, left unaddressed, can cause an economic or social shock that pushes vulnerable persons into poverty. For example, […] wrongful termination of employment, financial debt or denial of social safety net benefits can cause vulnerable persons to fall into poverty. Unresolved legal problems can also prevent an individual in poverty from escaping it.” Prettitore, 2015, p. 1[12]

3. Stigma and social isolation: Facing legal or financial difficulties can lead to social stigma and isolation, worsening mental health issues and increasing the risk of suicide. In the infamous “Nirbhaya case” or the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case, one of the accused, Ram Singh, initially faced charges of rape and murder. However, it was later discovered during the trial that Ram Singh was not present on the bus during the incident. Tragically, he committed suicide while in police custody, raising doubts about his involvement. Subsequent investigations revealed that another accused, Vinay Sharma, had falsely implicated Ram Singh thus establishing his innocence. Similarly, false dowry cases and fake allegations of sexual harassment are sometimes used as tactics to manipulate the legal process, leading to serious repercussions for the individuals involved. In cases of false dowry allegations, the accused often face social stigma and isolation, even if they are innocent. Similarly, false allegations of sexual harassment can result in public scrutiny, damaged reputations, and social isolation for the accused individuals. These false cases not only harm the innocent but also undermine the credibility of genuine victims and erode trust in the legal system. Efforts should be made to address this issue by ensuring fair investigations, protecting the rights of the accused, imposing penalties for false claims, and raising awareness about the impact of false cases on individuals and society.

4. Mental health challenges: Poor access to mental health services and resources can significantly impact vulnerable individuals as they may be more prone to mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, or stress, which can increase the risk of suicide. For example, findings from the 2008 Australian Law Survey indicated that people “with combined mental and physical illness/disability of a high severity were more than 10 times as likely to report legal problems as those with no illness/ disability and vice versa”[13] (Coumarelos et al., 2013, p. 8)

5. Lack of awareness and education: Limited knowledge about available legal rights and resources may prevent individuals from seeking help or knowing how to navigate the justice system. Insufficient education and awareness about mental health, suicide prevention, and coping mechanisms may also contribute to a lack of effective support. Therefore, conducting public awareness campaigns and educational programs to familiarize citizens with their legal rights and available dispute-resolution mechanisms can help reduce the reliance on courts for every dispute.

SUGGESTIONS

1. Judicial Reforms: Implementing judicial reforms to enhance the efficiency and productivity of the court system is of paramount importance. These reforms can include increasing the number of judges, modernizing court infrastructure, implementing technology-driven case management systems, and streamlining procedural rules to expedite case disposal. India has seen success with the implementation of e-courts, which digitize processes and facilitate electronic filing and communication. Specialized commercial courts and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have also been established to alleviate the burden on regular courts. Fast-track courts and special tribunals prioritize cases involving serious crimes and marginalized sections of society. However, there is still a need for further improvements to address the backlog of cases and enhance the overall efficiency of the judiciary.

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): By promoting the use of mediation, arbitration, and conciliation, ADR diverts disputes away from the formal court system, alleviating its burden. ADR processes are typically faster and more flexible, allowing parties to reach mutually satisfactory resolutions without the need for lengthy court proceedings. Moreover, ADR empowers the parties involved by giving them greater control over the outcome and promoting a sense of ownership in the resolution process. ADR has been effective in eliminating the backlog of cases at all levels of the judiciary; in the previous three years, Lok Adalats alone has disposed of more than 50 lakh cases per year on average. [14]

3. Case Management Techniques: Efficient case management techniques are crucial for addressing delays in the legal system. Various factors contribute to these delays, including prolonged hearings, repetitive testimonies, party absences, tactical manoeuvres by lawyers, non-compliance with court orders, and stagnant cases. To tackle these challenges, it is important to establish clear timelines for each stage of litigation, closely monitor case progress, introduce supervisory oversight, implement a centralized system for file retrieval, and discourage unnecessary adjournments. Regular case management hearings help track pending cases and ensure timely resolution. By actively monitoring progress, the judicial system can identify bottlenecks and take proactive measures to expedite the legal process.

4. Increased Use of Technology: Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, highlighted the significance of embracing technology in the judicial system during an event commemorating the 73rd anniversary of the Supreme Court. He emphasized that the budgetary allocation of ₹7,000 crore for the third phase of the e-courts project will ensure the widespread reach of courts to every citizen. The substantial increase in budget allocation from the ₹639.411 crores and ₹1,670 crores spent in the first two phases reflects the commitment to enhance accessibility and efficiency in the Indian judicial system. [15] The implementation of electronic filing systems, video conferencing for hearings, and digital case management platforms plays a pivotal role in streamlining court processes and improving efficiency. By reducing paperwork, facilitating remote participation, and expediting communication, these technological advancements contribute to the prompt disposal of cases.

5. Legal Aid and Support: In the case of Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, [16] P.N. Bhagwati established the following principles regarding legal aid:

Free legal aid is an essential component of a fair trial.
The provision of free legal assistance, funded by the state, is a fundamental right of an accused individual as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
The state has a responsibility to ensure the availability of such means to provide free legal aid to the individuals concerned, even if it incurs costs.

6. Specialized Courts/ Tribunals and Proactive Case Listing and Prioritization: To expedite the resolution of cases, it is beneficial to establish and expand specialized courts and tribunals that deal with specific types of cases, as these bodies possess focused expertise and tailored procedures, leading to quicker case disposal. Additionally, cases involving divorce, guardianship, motor vehicle issues, and others necessitate prompt trials. Moreover, identifying and giving priority to cases involving vulnerable individuals, matters of public interest, and long-pending cases can help alleviate the backlog and ensure the timely delivery of justice.

7. Judicial Training and Capacity Building: Providing regular training and capacity-building programs for judges, court staff, and legal professionals can enhance their skills and knowledge. This can contribute to more efficient case management, better understanding of procedural requirements, and improved decision-making processes. Enhancing collaboration and coordination among stakeholders, including the judiciary, legal professionals, government agencies, and other justice system participants, is vital. Strengthening investigations and prosecutions can lead to quicker resolution of cases, reducing the backlog and ensuring timely justice.

8. Legislative Reforms: Reviewing and amending outdated laws and procedural rules can help streamline the legal process and reduce delays. Certain steps can be taken to Simplify procedural laws and make plea bargaining more effective, this can expedite the resolution of cases and promote quicker justice delivery.

9. Data Analysis: Undertaking data analysis and research to identify the root causes of delays and backlogs, utilizing accurate and up-to-date statistics, along with leveraging information technology can effectively address the systemic challenges faced by the judicial system.

CONCLUSION

Throughout history, the establishment of systematic courts has been accompanied by significant challenges, including the presence of a large backlog of pending cases. Various notable examples illustrate the occurrence of this issue. For instance, during the Roman Republic, the expansion of the empire led to an overwhelming number of legal disputes. In England, the Court of Chancery faced backlogs due to complex procedures and lengthy litigation processes. The French Revolution also resulted in a substantial influx of cases for the revolutionary courts. Similarly, the American Industrial Revolution generated a surge in legal disputes related to labour and business transactions, burdening the court system.

The accumulation of pending cases in legal systems can be attributed to the exponential development of human civilization across multiple domains be it the growth of the global population, or societal complexity driven by advancements in technology, economics, governance, and social structures. All have led to more intricate legal issues that require extensive legal proceedings. Another factor contributing to the mounting load of cases is the improved access to justice and legal empowerment of individuals and marginalized groups. Legislative expansion, aimed at regulating various aspects of modern life, has generated a broader scope for legal disputes. Additionally, economic development, globalization, and technological advancements have all given rise to complex legal matters cases related to cybercrimes, intellectual property rights, privacy concerns, and digital transactions have emerged, requiring specialized knowledge and contributing to the backlog

Overall, these factors collectively challenge the capacity of the judicial system to handle the growing number and complexity of cases, resulting in the mounting load of pending cases. While numerous reports, journals, and scholarly works have meticulously elucidated the intricacies of the issue at hand, the efficacy of these proposed solutions ultimately lies in their successful implementation which entails meticulous planning, strategic execution, and the mobilization of necessary resources and stakeholders. In essence, the translation of theoretical propositions into tangible outcomes necessitates a steadfast commitment to comprehensive implementation, which is a dire need of the hour.

[1] National Judicial Data Grid, https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/hcnjdgnew/?p=main/pend_dashboard ( Last Visited on 11/06/23 )(hereinafter NJDG)

[2]NDTV,https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/at-nearly-50-cases-chief-justice-of-india-nv-ramana-terms-governments-as-biggest-litigants-2934094(Last visited on 11/06/23)

[3] NJDG, supra note 1

[4] A Report on Access to Justice, 2016 by the Centre for Research and Planning, Supreme Court of India (henceforth “Report on Subordinate Courts of India”) https://www.cbgaindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Memorandum-on-Budgeting-for-Judiciary-in-India.pdf(Last Visited on 11/06/23)

[5] Memorandum to the Fifteenth Finance Commission on Budgeting for the Judiciary in India (December 2018) by Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA) and DAKSH, https://www.dakshindia.org/memorandum-to-the-fifteenth-finance-commission/(Last visited on 11/06/23)

[6] Id

[7]NJDG, supra note 1

[8] Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar,1979 AIR 1819, 1979 SCR (3)1276

[9]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

[10]NJDG, supra note 1

[11]Access to Justice Survey Daksh India, https://www.dakshindia.org/access-to-justice-survey/( Last Visited on 11/06/23)

[12]Legal Needs Surveys and Access to Justice OECD, https://www.oecd.org/governance/legal-needs-surveys-and-access-to-justice-g2g9a36c-en.htm (Last visited on 12/06/23)

[13] Id

[14] DRISHTI IAS, https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/alternative-dispute-resolution-adr-mechanisms-paper-2 (Last Visited on 12/06/2023)

[15]Increased Budget allocation for e-courts project will ensure accessibility, efficiency of judicial systems: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/7000-crore-proposed-budgetary-allocation-for-ecourts-project-phase-3-will-enhance-judicial-efficiency-cji-chandrachud/article66470530.ece (Last visited 12/06/2023)

[16] Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1986 AIR 991, 1986 SCR (1) 590

Rhythm Sharma