Legal Reforms And Access To Justice: Addressing Infrastructural Challenges In The Judiciary

Recognizing these challenges, on 2^nd February 2025, the Supreme Court of India organized the “National Conference on Addressing Challenges Faced by the State Judiciary” wherein urgent need for judicial infrastructural reforms were called for. Issues such as gulf between institution and disposal of cases, identification of case types which are flooding the judicial docks, identification of bottleneck in case disposal, strategies to reduce case backlogs at different levels were highlighted.

One of the stark realizations should be that some infrastructural issues plague not just the Courts at District levels but also the State High Courts and the Supreme Court too. Issues such as high pendency of cases, shortage of judges, basic amenities etc. It becomes imperative to analyze the pressing infrastructural issues and explore reforms that can strengthen the judicial system.

Key Challenges faced by the Judiciary

One of the biggest issues of India's judicial systems is the massive backlog of cases. Although the backlog always existed, however it has substantially worsened over the years. With increase in the population which further increases the disputes between them, there has been no parallel rise in the judicial infrastructure to cater to meet the rising demands. Appointment of judges, Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanisms, providing Legal Aid Services, etc. has not been up to the mark which has increased the burden of the Courts.

It is incredible to believe that 46,00,471 cases have been pending in the District Courts for more than 10 years since their institution. Such systematic pendency is a glaring indicator of the poor and untimely dispensation of justice. This statistic is a consequence of several factors including old and dilapidated physical infrastructure. Many courtrooms lack basic facilities such as courtrooms, digital computer rooms, water facilities, separate toilets for women, etc., which not only hampers judicial productivity but also undermines the credibility in the litigants.

Shortage of judges and support staff is another challenge which burdens the existing infrastructure. It is particularly concerning that the Supreme Court with a pendency of 80,982 cases is not working at full strength with two vacancies yet to be filled. Appointment of judges to the sanctioned posts should be the topmost priority of the government. This problem is further compounded by the lack of support staff such as clerks, stenographers, etc. which burdens the judges with administrative tasks and detracts them from their primary responsibility. Where the staff is adequate, they lag in training and technical skills required for the modern judicial processes. As the focus is shifting towards digitalization of judicial process and implementation of e-courts, there exists a pressing need for adequately trained technical support staff to facilitate this transition.

Delay in dispensation of justice by shortage of judicial appointments is further exacerbated by excessive and frivolous litigation by the Government. The Government is the largest litigator in the country with 70% of its litigation being frivolous and a major contributor in wasting the Courts' time as remarked by Justice BR Gavai in 2023. Ministry of Railways, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Defense are among the largest litigators. It is to be noted that in such a vast decentralized structure, everything from local panchayat to Prime Minister's Office comprises government and Article 12 of the Constitution of India which explains the definition of State includes Public Sector Undertakings, Nationalized Banks etc. Thus, it is extremely necessary to devise a mechanism where one size fits all approach is not undertaken to reduce such litigations.

Issues of accountability, inter departmental disputes, routine appeals, etc., are most popular. Ligation for publicity and shunning accountability is also an issue. Such issues not only waste judicial resources and public exchequer, but also undermine the public trust and confidence of genuine litigants.

One of the other significant issues at policy levels is the poor planning of allocated funds by the State Governments, delay in approval of capital expenditures by the State Governments. Earlier there were issues of inadequate and delayed funds for the judiciary but over the last decade, the Central Government prioritized initiatives such as construction, upgradation or renovation of existing court buildings and premises, etc., however the Central Sector Scheme started in 1993 does not cover the maintenance or routine upkeep. As of 2024, Rs. 7,558 crores has been released under this scheme yet this has not proved to be effective due to factors such as irregular flow of funds, poor Centre- State coordination (as the scheme is implemented by the states), lack of transparency and accountability and insufficient attention paid to outcomes.

Even when the funds are available, some courts have not adopted technological overhaul. Courts still rely on paper- based system for managing legal documents and case files which brings in the issue of storage and retrieval thereby making the process slow and inefficient. This outdated approach delays proceedings as the physical copies are required to be submitted and exchanged between the parties and the judges. Digitalization initiatives such as e-filings of cases, proceedings via video conferencing and virtual courts have been undertaken yet lower judiciary is yet not equipped with the necessary infrastructure and trained personnels to operate such digital means.

A list of other challenges persists beyond the ones mentioned such as poor accessibility for marginalized groups, those suffering from disability, belonging from rural areas and economically and backward sections of the society. Many courts are not disabled friendly however the former CJI Justice DY Chandrachud held that we are making progress in the right direction for making judiciary accessible to people with disabilities. Language barriers complicate proceedings with complex legal jargons which are difficult to navigate especially for those without legal representation. Limited awareness and access to free legal aid further exclude vulnerable groups from the justice system, reinforcing systemic inequalities.

Reforms and Recommendations

To build an efficient and responsible judicial system, such issues need to be addressed with well- planned reforms. A multi- faceted approach needs to be adopted at all levels for faster dispensation of justice and restoration of public confidence in the judicial system. Immediate and sustained actions are required such as establishment of National Judicial Infrastructure Authority (NJIA) as proposed by the former CJI Justice N.V. Ramanna in 2021 to develop judicial infrastructure in trial courts. This would be a central body for planning, creating, managing and maintaining functional infrastructure for the Indian Courts. Establishing such an authority would be a welcome step towards ensuring efficient utilization of funds and freedom from bureaucratic obstacles.

To clear the backlog of cases, the government must ensure timely compliance with court orders a significant number of contempt cases are filed against government's inaction. The then CJI NV Ramanna has also emphasized that pendency of cases can be tackled if Gram Panchayats perform their duties properly and when land revenue authorities follow procedure to acquire land. He has also urged the government to draft clear and unambiguous laws as significant litigation arises out of vague laws.

The Law Commission has acknowledged Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Mechanisms for appropriate and allocation utilization of judicial time resulting in timely justice. Information and data regarding the judicial vacancies should be collected from National Court Management Systems and appointments made in the vacancies available and set up additional ADR mechanisms. A data driven approach is crucial for optimizing judicial efficiency and case management system. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Imtiyaz Ahmed v. State of U.P. & Ors. highlighted the need for scientific assessment of judicial workload by determining the total hours needed for case resolution. Integration of technology driven case management systems can improve the efficiency of the judges and aid the faster dispensation of justice.

Budgetary allocation should be overseen by the NJIA to ensure that a consistent flow of resources is maintained for infrastructural improvements of the Judiciary. Budget distribution should be based on real time data focusing on case pendency, technological upgrades and judicial vacancies. Implementation of financial resources should be at the hands of members of NJIA who are well versed with the problems plaguing the judiciary to make informed decisions rather than the government allocating resources arbitrarily.

The higher judiciary is undertaking a commendable job in timely understanding the need for inclusion of technology in the various facets of judicial processes such as case management systems, electronic case filing, record repositories, etc. Phase-I of the e- courts project (2011-15) aimed at providing bandwidth speed, online case status, online cause list, video conferencing, live streaming of court proceedings, e-payment of fees, issuing of summons, etc. Phase-II ended in 2023 and aimed at bringing in digital revolution in District and Subordinate Courts and improve the experience of lawyers, litigants and other stakeholders. e-Court projects are a welcome step yet these resources should be better utilized in lower courts where infrastructural improvements are most needed.

Judicial reforms must not only be limited to policy discussions but have a fruitful result at the grassroot level. We must ensure that courts at all levels, and in particular lower courts in rural areas receive the necessary infrastructural and technological support. The time to act is now as the third pillar of the world's largest judiciary can no longer suffer from such fundamental shortcomings. Innovative and sustainable measures should be adopted to reduce pendency which will restore public trust that their cases will not be pending before the courts for years. Timely, transparent and effective disposal of cases is essential to uphold the rule of law as pursuit of justice should not be hindered by infrastructural inefficiencies.

Authors: Awaneesh Kumar, Student at Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar. Views are personal.