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

# SC Judge: Don’t Blame Judiciary for Backlogs

**By Legal Correspondent, National News Desk | April 11, 2026**

Supreme Court Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah urged stakeholders on Saturday to stop holding judges solely responsible for India’s mounting judicial pendency. Speaking at a legal symposium in New Delhi, the apex court judge highlighted that the systemic backlog—now hovering near a staggering 51 million cases nationwide—is the result of multifaceted failures, including severe infrastructure deficits, persistent judicial vacancies, and frivolous government litigation. His remarks arrive at a critical juncture in April 2026, as the legal fraternity debates sweeping reforms to accelerate justice delivery. Justice Amanullah emphasized that clearing the docket requires collaborative action across the bar, the bench, and the state. [Source: Hindustan Times]

## The Core Argument: A Shared Responsibility

For decades, the standard narrative surrounding the Indian legal system has heavily critiqued the judiciary for its slow pace. However, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s recent remarks forcefully challenge this one-dimensional perspective. Addressing a gathering of legal scholars, senior advocates, and policymakers, he dismantled the myth that judicial inefficiency is the primary driver of pendency.

“The narrative that judges are entirely at fault for the delays in our justice delivery system is not only factually incorrect but also fundamentally unfair,” Justice Amanullah stated, pointing toward the immense pressure under which trial court and high court judges operate.

Data from the **National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)** as of early 2026 reveals that district and subordinate courts bear the brunt of the crisis, accounting for over **44 million pending cases**, while High Courts grapple with roughly **6.2 million**. The Supreme Court itself has a docket of approximately **82,000 cases**. Against this backdrop, Justice Amanullah noted that Indian judges dispose of an astronomically high number of cases annually compared to their global counterparts, yet the influx of new filings consistently outpaces disposals due to systemic bottlenecks outside the judiciary’s direct control. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: National Judicial Data Grid, Ministry of Law and Justice]

## Chronic Vacancies and the Judge-to-Population Ratio

One of the most glaring issues vindicating Justice Amanullah’s stance is the chronic shortage of judges. Despite continuous reminders from the Supreme Court Collegium, the appointment process remains sluggish, often caught in procedural back-and-forths between the judiciary and the executive.

* **Dismal Ratios:** The Law Commission of India, in its 120th Report, had recommended a ratio of 50 judges per million population. As of 2026, India continues to languish at approximately **21 judges per million**, a figure woefully inadequate for a country with a population exceeding 1.4 billion.
* **High Court Deficits:** Several of the country’s largest High Courts—including Allahabad, Bombay, and Patna—operate with **30% to 40% vacancy rates** against their sanctioned strength.
* **Subordinate Judiciary:** At the district level, inadequate infrastructure discourages the expansion of sanctioned judicial posts. Many lower courts lack basic amenities, from digitized record rooms to adequate staff for stenography and clerical duties.

“You cannot expect a factory to produce tenfold its capacity when it is operating with half its workforce and outdated machinery,” noted Dr. Aranya Sen, a public policy researcher specializing in judicial reforms. “Justice Amanullah is pointing to a structural deficit that executive inaction has allowed to fester.” [Source: Public Policy Research independent analysis, 2026]

## The State as the Largest Litigant

Perhaps the most significant external factor contributing to the judicial backlog is the government itself. Central and state governments, along with their various agencies and public sector undertakings (PSUs), are widely recognized as the largest litigants in India. They account for nearly **50% of all pending cases**.

Justice Amanullah’s defense of the judiciary implicitly touches upon the failure of the **National Litigation Policy**, which was intended to transform the government into an efficient and responsible litigant. Instead, the reality in 2026 reflects a continued culture of compulsory appeals.

Government departments routinely appeal decisions to higher courts, regardless of the merits of the case, largely to avoid allegations of corruption or bias by internal auditors. This defensive approach clogs the courts with frivolous tax disputes, service matters, and inter-departmental conflicts.

“When two departments of the same state government are fighting a ten-year legal battle over land acquisition, it consumes valuable judicial time that could have been allotted to a citizen awaiting bail or a victim seeking compensation,” explains Senior Advocate R.K. Raghavan. “The judiciary is essentially acting as an expensive arbitrator for executive branch dysfunction.”

## Adjournment Culture and the Role of the Bar

The legal profession itself must shoulder a portion of the blame, a sentiment subtly echoed in the broader context of Justice Amanullah’s remarks. The “adjournment culture” remains a pervasive issue within the Indian legal system.

Lawyers frequently seek extensions on procedural grounds, delaying trials and prolonging the agony of litigants. In many district courts, local bar association strikes over administrative grievances bring judicial work to a complete standstill for days, further disrupting the calendar.

Recent amendments to the **Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)** and civil procedure codes have attempted to cap the number of allowable adjournments, but enforcement remains inconsistent. Judges who strictly deny adjournments often face non-cooperation or boycotts from local bar associations. Therefore, expecting judges to unilaterally speed up trials without the proactive cooperation of the bar is, as Justice Amanullah suggests, an incomplete solution.

## Technological Interventions in the 2026 Landscape

While defending the judiciary, it is also crucial to acknowledge the strides the institution has taken to modernize itself. Under the ongoing **e-Courts Phase III project**, the judiciary has aggressively pursued digitization. By April 2026, hybrid hearings have become a standard feature not just in the Supreme Court and High Courts, but increasingly in district hubs.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s adoption of **Artificial Intelligence (AI)** for the real-time translation of judgments into regional languages and the summarization of voluminous case files has improved internal efficiency. However, technology alone cannot resolve substantive legal disputes or bypass the need for human application of mind.

The integration of technology highlights that the judiciary is willing to evolve. Yet, as experts point out, digital infrastructure must be matched by physical infrastructure. “A digital courtroom is useless if the state does not provide adequate internet bandwidth or if the public prosecutor is overwhelmed with a portfolio of 500 active cases,” states an internal report from the Ministry of Law and Justice. [Source: Additional Knowledge / Ministry of Law and Justice E-courts vision document]

## Expert Perspectives on Systemic Overhaul

Legal luminaries have largely validated Justice Amanullah’s observations. Speaking on the condition of the broader judicial ecosystem, former High Court Chief Justice V.K. Sharma noted, “Justice Amanullah is holding up a mirror to the entire constitutional apparatus. We treat the judiciary as a dumping ground for the failures of the legislature to draft clear laws and the executive to implement them fairly. When laws are ambiguous, litigation spikes.”

To alleviate the burden, experts recommend a multi-pronged approach:
1. **Strict Implementation of Litigation Policies:** Penalizing government departments for frivolous appeals.
2. **Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):** Mandatory pre-litigation mediation for commercial and family disputes, scaling up the success of the Mediation Act enacted in recent years.
3. **Financial Autonomy:** Granting the judiciary greater control over its budget to rapidly deploy infrastructure and hire support staff without waiting for executive approvals.

## Conclusion: Charting a Collaborative Path Forward

Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s statement serves as a necessary corrective to the public discourse surrounding India’s judicial backlog. By declaring “don’t blame judges alone,” he has shifted the spotlight onto the systemic, infrastructural, and procedural deficiencies that hamstring the delivery of justice.

As India moves further into 2026, solving the crisis of 51 million pending cases cannot be achieved by merely pressuring the existing roster of judges to work faster. It requires an integrated overhaul. The executive must curb its appetite for litigation, the legislature must expedite judicial appointments and increase funding, and the bar must prioritize the swift resolution of cases over procedural delays. Until all pillars of the justice system act in concert, the constitutional promise of speedy justice will remain frustratingly out of reach. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: Analytical Synthesis of Current Legal Trends]