Court Culture As A Missing Variable In Judicial Reform

Judicial reform in India cannot be reduced to vacancies, infrastructure and technology. These matter, but the everyday culture of courts decides whether formal reforms actually improve access, quality and trust.

India's judicial reform debate usually begins with pendency. This is understandable. The National Judicial Data Grid shows a huge burden on district and taluka courts, with lakhs of cases pending for more than 10 years. It also shows a recurring gap between institution and disposal in the monthly movement of cases.

The standard explanation is familiar: there are not enough judges, courtrooms, staff, funds or digital systems. These are real constraints. The e-Courts Phase III project, approved as a four-year Central Sector Scheme with an outlay of Rs 7,210 crore, shows that the state recognises the need for digital infrastructure in the justice system.

But a difficult question remains. Why do courts operating under broadly similar laws and procedures differ in their everyday functioning? Why does one court complex feel more organised, predictable and accessible than another? Why does technology improve work in some settings but remain underused in others? Why does the same procedural law produce different experiences for litigants, lawyers and staff?

One answer lies in court culture.

Court culture is not a decorative phrase. It refers to the accepted routines, work values, informal norms and behavioural practices through which courts actually function. Formal law tells courts what must be done. Court culture shapes how it is done. It affects punctuality, file movement, listing practices, communication, adjournment behaviour, staff responsiveness, use of technology, sensitivity towards litigants and the seriousness with which each working day is treated.

The Law Commission of India recognised this concern as early as 2009, when it observed that there had been a general erosion of work culture and that the judiciary had also been affected by it. The point deserves renewed attention because judicial reform is now heavily framed through vacancies, case statistics and digital transformation. These are necessary, but they do not fully capture the working life of a court.

A court is not only a legal forum. It is also an organisation. It has people, roles, routines, resources, incentives and informal practices. Judges, lawyers, court staff, prosecutors, police officials and litigants do not operate in isolation. Their behaviour interacts daily. Delay, confusion and mistrust are often produced through this interaction.

This is why court culture should become a measurable variable in judicial reform.

In my doctoral research on subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, court culture was studied as the sum of court characteristics and court work practices. It was measured through two dimensions: professionalism and Machiavellianism. Professionalism referred to discipline, adherence to work values and working in the best interest of case stakeholders. Machiavellianism referred to manipulation, deception and withholding appropriate information to get work done.

The findings were institutionally significant. Court culture had a significant positive relationship with court performance. Professionalism was positively related to court performance, while Machiavellianism was negatively related to it. Court performance itself was measured through access to justice, quality of judicial activity and public trust.

This matters because much of the public debate treats court performance as a disposal problem. Disposal is important. A system that cannot decide cases within a reasonable time cannot deliver justice effectively. But disposal alone cannot exhaust the meaning of performance. A court must also be accessible, fair, transparent, orderly, sensitive and trusted.

Court performance measurement has often relied on quantitative indicators such as disposal rate and backlog. My research notes that these measures do not fully capture qualitative dimensions such as access to justice, public trust, independence and quality of judicial activity. This is not an argument against data. It is an argument for better data.

A court may dispose of more cases but still be difficult for ordinary litigants to navigate. A litigant may receive a final order but remain confused throughout the process. A digital case-status system may exist, but if information is not updated properly, the promise of transparency remains incomplete. A court building may be improved, but if staff behaviour, listing discipline and communication remain weak, access to justice remains limited.

Court culture also explains why resources alone do not produce uniform results. My research found that court resources, including physical infrastructure, ICT infrastructure and human resources, had a significant positive relationship with court performance. It also found that court resources moderated the relationship between court culture and court performance.

In simple terms, better resources help courts perform better, but their effect is stronger when the culture of work supports professional functioning. Computers, case-information systems and digital records are useful only when people use them carefully. More staff will help only when roles are clear, training is adequate and accountability is real. Infrastructure improves access only when the court user is treated as a rights-bearing participant, not as an inconvenience.

The National Court Management Systems initiative also reflects the need to think about courts as institutions requiring management, data, planning and human-resource systems. The Supreme Court's NCMS page lists policy and action plans, case management systems, human-resource development strategy and the National Framework for Court Excellence as part of court management work. This direction should now be deepened by adding court-culture assessment to reform practice.

Such assessment need not interfere with judicial independence. It should not evaluate the correctness of judgements or pressure judges on outcomes in individual cases. It should focus on administrative and procedural experience: punctuality, clarity of information, respectful treatment, records movement, digital updating, case-flow practices, communication with litigants, staff training and the user's ability to understand what is happening.

High Courts can begin with periodic court-culture surveys at the district level. These surveys should include lawyers, court staff and litigants. Questions should be concrete. Are case-status updates reliable? Are cause lists predictable? Are adjournments explained? Are litigants treated with dignity? Is information available without unnecessary dependence on intermediaries? Are digital systems being used as routine work tools or only as formal compliance? Are court premises safe and accessible for women, senior citizens and persons with disabilities?

The results should not be used to shame courts. They should be used for diagnosis. A court with weak digital updating may need staff training. A court with poor user experience may need better information counters.

Court staff need structured training in technology and public interface. Bar associations must confront practices that normalise adjournments and procedural confusion. These cannot remain routine litigation strategies at the cost of timely justice.

The idea is not to blame one actor. Delay is often systemic. Judges work under heavy caseloads. Lawyers, court staff, litigants, police and prosecution all shape how courts function. A culture-based approach helps because it treats the court as an ecosystem, not a judge-centred institution alone.

This approach also protects public trust. Courts command authority because they decide according to law. But citizens experience that authority through process. If the process is opaque, intimidating, costly and uncertain, trust weakens even before judgement. If the process is disciplined, respectful and intelligible, trust can survive even an adverse outcome.

India's judicial reform conversation must therefore move from a narrow pendency frame to a performance frame. Pendency asks: how many cases are pending? Performance asks a wider question: how well does the court serve justice through access, quality, timeliness and trust?

The next stage of judicial reform should include three audits together: a vacancy audit, a resource audit and a culture audit. The first tells us whether enough judges and staff are available. The second tells us whether courts have adequate buildings, technology and support systems. The third tells us whether the daily practices of the court convert these resources into justice.

Without the third, the first two will remain incomplete.

A citizen does not experience judicial reform through sanctioned strength or project outlay alone. She experiences it when her case information is clear, her presence is respected, the file is traceable, the listed matter moves meaningfully, the courtroom functions with discipline and the process gives her reason to trust the institution.

Court culture is therefore not a soft issue. It is a performance variable. It decides whether legal rules, public money and digital systems become justice in practice.

Author is a chair professor of the future of work and a military veteran. Views are personal.