Don’t blame judges alone for case backlog: SC judge Ahsanuddin Amanullah

# SC Judge: Don’t Blame Judges For Case Backlog

By Senior Legal Correspondent | Legal News Desk | April 11, 2026

**New Delhi**—Supreme Court Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah has forcefully urged policymakers, media, and the public not to hold judges exclusively responsible for India’s staggering judicial backlog. Speaking at a high-level legal symposium on Saturday, April 11, 2026, the apex court judge highlighted that systemic bottlenecks—ranging from crippling infrastructure deficits and excessive government litigation to prolonged police investigations and frequent adjournments—play a far greater role in delaying justice. As the nation grapples with millions of pending cases across various tiers of the judicial system, Justice Amanullah’s remarks reignite a critical, long-overdue debate on the comprehensive institutional reforms urgently needed to streamline the delivery of justice in India. [Source: Hindustan Times].

## The Burden of Pendency: A Multi-Stakeholder Crisis

The narrative surrounding the Indian judicial system has long been dominated by the staggering number of pending cases. As of early 2026, data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) indicates that the total number of pending cases across all courts has crossed the 50-million mark. However, Justice Amanullah’s address sought to dismantle the persistent myth that this backlog is solely a product of judicial inefficiency or a lack of work ethic among the magistracy and higher judiciary.

“To lay the entirety of the blame at the doorstep of the judiciary is not only unfair but analytically incorrect,” Justice Amanullah noted during his address, emphasizing that a judge is only the final arbiter in an extensive chain of legal and investigative processes. When any link in this chain breaks down—be it the police, the prosecution, the defense counsel, or the state apparatus—the inevitable result is a delay in the courtroom.

The reality of the Indian legal system is that judges are managing dockets that would be considered physically impossible in most developed jurisdictions. A standard district court judge in India routinely handles between 50 to 100 matters in a single day. This volume necessitates a rapid triage system, leaving little room for the deep, uninterrupted deliberation required for complex trials. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: Ministry of Law and Justice Annual Reports].

### Breakdown of Judicial Pendency (Estimated Data 2026)

| Judicial Tier | Approximate Pending Cases | Primary Case Types |
| :— | :— | :— |
| **Supreme Court of India** | ~80,000 | Constitutional matters, SLPs, Appellate reviews |
| **High Courts (State Level)** | ~6 Million | Writ petitions, Criminal appeals, Civil revisions |
| **District & Subordinate Courts** | ~44 Million | Bail applications, Cheque bounce (NI Act), Family disputes |

## The State as the Primary Litigant

One of the most critical points raised by Justice Amanullah, echoing sentiments frequently expressed by former Chief Justices, is the disproportionate volume of litigation generated by the state itself. Various estimates and Law Commission reports suggest that government departments and state-owned enterprises are a party to nearly 45% to 50% of all civil litigation in India.

This phenomenon is driven by a bureaucratic reluctance to resolve disputes at the departmental level, largely out of fear of vigilance inquiries or allegations of corruption. Consequently, trivial service disputes, minor tax anomalies, and routine contractual disagreements are mindlessly appealed up to the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

Dr. Aparna Viswanathan, a constitutional lawyer and legal researcher, explains the gravity of this issue: *”When the government fails to implement a robust National Litigation Policy, the courts are choked with inter-departmental disputes and frivolous appeals against its own employees. The judiciary is effectively forced to act as the HR and administrative grievance redressal mechanism for the state, consuming thousands of judicial hours that should be spent on citizen-centric justice.”* [Additional: Expert Analysis/Public Legal Commentary 2026].

## Judicial Vacancies and the Infrastructure Deficit

You cannot deliver swift justice in courtrooms that do not exist, presided over by judges who have not been appointed. Justice Amanullah’s remarks implicitly point toward the persistent friction between the judiciary’s collegium system and the executive branch, which often leads to prolonged delays in the appointment of High Court judges.

As of early 2026, several major High Courts are operating with only 60% to 70% of their sanctioned judicial strength. The situation is equally dire at the subordinate court level, where state governments hold the primary responsibility for conducting judicial service examinations and providing physical infrastructure.

Beyond mere manpower, physical and digital infrastructure remains woefully inadequate in rural and semi-urban jurisdictions. Subordinate courts frequently lack basic amenities, secure record rooms, and digital transcription services. A judge without a fully staffed registry, a dedicated stenographer, and adequate research assistance cannot optimally dispose of cases, no matter how efficiently they work. [Additional: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice].

## Procedural Delays, the Bar, and Police Investigations

Justice Amanullah also drew attention to the broader ecosystem of justice delivery, which includes the Bar (lawyers) and the investigative agencies (police and forensics).

**The Culture of Adjournments:**
The procedural law in India, despite recent overhauls, is frequently manipulated to secure adjournments. Lawyers often request delays due to conflicting schedules across different courts, deliberate stalling tactics to wear down the opposition, or strikes called by bar associations. The Supreme Court has repeatedly penalized frivolous adjournments, but the practice remains deeply entrenched in trial court culture.

**Investigative Bottlenecks:**
In criminal jurisprudence, the judge cannot proceed to trial until the police file a comprehensive charge sheet. In reality, investigations are routinely delayed by:
* Overburdened police forces that juggle both law-and-order duties and investigative work.
* Severe backlogs at State Forensic Science Laboratories (FSLs), where DNA, ballistic, and cyber-forensic reports can take years to process.
* The transition phase of integrating the new criminal codes—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—which requires extensive retraining of investigating officers.

“Blaming the presiding officer for a delayed murder trial when the forensic report took three years to arrive is a fundamental misdiagnosis of the disease,” noted Ramesh Srinivasan, a Senior Fellow at a prominent Delhi-based legal policy think tank. *”Justice Amanullah is entirely correct to call out the hypocrisy of a system that starves the investigative machinery of funds and then complains about slow trials.”* [Additional: Criminal Justice System Analysis 2026].

## Technological Interventions: Progress and Limitations in 2026

To combat these historical inefficiencies, the Indian judiciary has aggressively pursued digitization. By 2026, Phase III of the e-Courts project has seen significant rollouts, including mandatory e-filing in higher courts, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for translating judgments into regional languages, and the institutionalization of hybrid (virtual and physical) hearings.

Justice Amanullah acknowledged the role of technology but offered a necessary caveat: technology can expedite the transmission of documents, but it cannot resolve substantive legal disputes or replace human adjudication. Furthermore, the digital divide remains a stark reality. While the Supreme Court and major High Courts operate with seamless Wi-Fi and digital screens, district courts in remote districts still battle with erratic internet connectivity and power outages, rendering digital-first mandates difficult to execute uniformly.

The judiciary has also integrated AI-assisted research tools to help judges quickly find precedents, significantly reducing the time taken to author judgments. However, the core issue of an overwhelmed system remains. Digitizing 50 million cases makes them easier to track, but it does not inherently reduce the number of disputes.

## Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as the Way Forward

A recurring theme in the discourse surrounding case backlog is the necessity of shifting the burden away from traditional litigation. Justice Amanullah’s defense of the judiciary indirectly calls for a stronger embrace of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms.

Following the implementation and maturation of the Mediation Act, there has been a concerted push to make pre-litigation mediation mandatory for specific categories of civil and commercial disputes.

* **Lok Adalats:** These “people’s courts” have been instrumental in disposing of millions of compoundable offenses, traffic challans, and public utility disputes in single-day mega-sessions.
* **Commercial Arbitration:** The establishment of specialized commercial courts and arbitration centers aims to keep business disputes out of the traditional civil court pipeline.
* **Decriminalization of Minor Offenses:** Economic offenses, such as minor violations of the Companies Act or the Negotiable Instruments Act (like cheque bouncing), continue to choke the magistrate courts. Legal experts advocate for further decriminalization, converting these into civil liabilities handled by tribunals or regulatory bodies.

## Conclusion: A Call for Systemic Synergy

Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s candid remarks serve as a vital reality check for India’s ongoing judicial reforms. As long as the narrative remains hyper-focused on judicial accountability without addressing the glaring deficiencies in state litigation policies, police funding, forensic infrastructure, and bar council regulations, the backlog will continue to mount.

**Key Takeaways:**
1. **Shared Responsibility:** The case backlog is a collective failure of the state apparatus, investigative agencies, the legal profession, and infrastructure—not just the presiding judges.
2. **State Litigation:** Without a stringent policy curbing frivolous government appeals, courts will remain inundated.
3. **Holistic Reforms:** True transformation requires a simultaneous upgrade of judicial vacancies, police forensics, and alternative dispute mechanisms.

Looking ahead, the executive and the judiciary must operate not as adversaries competing for administrative upper hands, but as collaborative pillars of the Constitution. For the common citizen awaiting a verdict, it matters little whether the delay was caused by an absent witness, a missing forensic report, or a vacant judicial seat. What matters is the delivery of timely justice—a goal that, as Justice Amanullah rightly points out, requires the concerted effort of the entire nation’s institutional machinery, not just the men and women wielding the gavel.