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

# Stop Blaming Judges For Case Backlog: SC Judge

By Senior Legal Correspondent, Justice Watch India, April 11, 2026

Supreme Court Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on Saturday urged the public and policymakers to stop solely blaming the judiciary for India’s mounting case backlog. Speaking on the complexities of the legal system, Justice Amanullah highlighted that systemic bottlenecks—including inadequate infrastructure, severe judicial vacancies, and the outsized role of the government as the nation’s largest litigant—contribute heavily to the pendency crisis. The remarks underscore an urgent need for a multi-stakeholder approach to reform the Indian justice delivery mechanism. Rather than placing the burden of delay entirely on presiding judges, genuine reform requires sweeping institutional changes across the board. [Source: Hindustan Times | Additional: Public Judicial Records].

## The Context of Justice Amanullah’s Remarks

The Indian judiciary has long grappled with a reputation for sluggishness, often visualized by the towering piles of physical files in courtrooms and decades-long property disputes. However, the narrative that pins this solely on judicial inefficiency ignores the ground realities of how courts operate. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s recent comments bring a much-needed perspective to a debate that frequently scapegoats the very individuals working overtime to keep the system afloat.

According to reports, judges across the nation—from the subordinate districts to the apex court—are handling dockets that are physically impossible to clear within standard working hours. A single magistrate in a lower court often oversees a daily roster of 100 to 150 cases. Under such immense pressure, focusing on the quality of justice while battling the ticking clock becomes a Herculean task. Justice Amanullah’s call for a wider lens on the issue demands that we evaluate the structural deficits that plague the system, rather than pointing fingers at the bench.

## Decoding the 50-Million Mountain

To understand the frustration of the bench, one must look at the staggering numbers. As of early 2026, data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) indicates that the total number of pending cases across all tiers of the Indian judiciary has crossed the 53 million mark.

Of this massive figure, an overwhelming **85% of cases are bottlenecked in the subordinate or district courts**. The High Courts account for the bulk of the remainder, while the Supreme Court handles a fractional, yet highly complex, percentage of the backlog.

“When a citizen reads that 50 million cases are pending, the immediate psychological response is to blame the judge sitting in the chair,” explains Dr. Meera Sanyal, a senior constitutional researcher at the Center for Legal Policy. “What the public data doesn’t immediately show is the intake rate. Indian courts dispose of millions of cases annually, but the influx of new litigation outpaces disposal by a significant margin. You cannot bail out a sinking ship with a teaspoon, no matter how fast you work.” [Source: Original RSS | Additional: National Judicial Data Grid Statistics].

## The Government as the Nation’s Biggest Litigant

One of the most critical points implicitly supported by Justice Amanullah’s defense of the judiciary is the role of the State. The central and state governments, along with their various agencies and public sector undertakings, account for nearly **50% of all pending litigation** in India.

Many of these cases involve inter-departmental disputes, service matters, or routine appeals against lower court judgments where the government refuses to accept a loss, opting instead to exhaust the entire appellate process out of bureaucratic inertia. This tendency clogs the arteries of the justice system with frivolous or easily resolvable disputes.

“The State is a compulsive litigant,” notes Rohan Desai, a Senior Advocate at the Delhi High Court. “If government departments established robust internal grievance redressal mechanisms and adopted a National Litigation Policy that penalized unnecessary appeals, the burden on the courts would halve almost overnight. Blaming the judge for a backlog caused by a tax department’s refusal to concede a minor point of law is deeply unfair.”

## The Severe Shortage of Judicial Manpower

A functional justice system requires adequate manpower, yet India suffers from a chronic shortage of judges. The judge-to-population ratio in India hovers around **21 judges per million people**. In stark contrast, the Law Commission of India recommended decades ago that the ratio should be at least 50 judges per million to ensure timely justice delivery.

As of early 2026, nearly 30% of sanctioned posts in various High Courts remain vacant due to prolonged friction in the appointment process between the Supreme Court Collegium and the executive. In the lower courts, the situation is similarly dire, with thousands of magistrate and district judge positions lying empty due to delayed state-level examinations and administrative hurdles.

A judge managing a courtroom designed for a certain capacity cannot magically compensate for the missing colleagues next door. When courts function at only 70% capacity, the pendency inevitably spirals, leaving the presiding officers to take the public relations hit for an administrative failure they do not control. [Source: Original RSS | Additional: Law Commission of India Reports].

## Infrastructure Deficits and Working Conditions

Justice Amanullah’s remarks also compel a closer look at the physical and digital infrastructure of Indian courts. While the Supreme Court and major metropolitan High Courts boast modern facilities, the reality in the district and taluka courts—where the vast majority of Indians seek justice—is grim.

Many lower courts lack basic amenities, including stable internet connections, adequate seating for litigants, secure record rooms, and even functional washrooms. The physical storage of documents has led to a logistical nightmare where retrieving a case file can delay a hearing by days.

While Phase III of the e-Courts project has made commendable strides by 2026—introducing cloud storage, hybrid hearing capabilities, and AI-assisted translation tools like SUVAS—the digital divide remains a potent obstacle in rural jurisdictions. You cannot expect modern efficiency from a system tethered to 19th-century infrastructure.

## The Bar’s Responsibility and Procedural Delays

Justice delivery is a two-way street involving the Bench and the Bar. A significant factor in the prolongation of trials is the culture of adjournments. Lawyers frequently seek delays citing unread briefs, conflicting schedules, or tactical advantages to wear down the opposing party.

Furthermore, procedural laws, despite several amendments, are routinely weaponized to stall proceedings through interlocutory applications and endless cross-examinations. Some regional bar associations frequently engage in strikes, bringing court work to a standstill for days.

“Judges are often helpless when the Bar refuses to cooperate,” remarks retired Justice K.V. Sharma. “If a judge denies an adjournment, they face the wrath of the local bar association, sometimes leading to boycotts. Imposing costs for frivolous delays is discouraged by a culture that prioritizes the lawyer’s convenience over the litigant’s right to speedy justice.” [Source: Additional: Legal Expert Interviews].

## Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Missing Relief Valve

To ease the pressure on traditional courts, there has been a heavy push toward Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms like mediation, conciliation, and Lok Adalats. While Lok Adalats successfully dispose of millions of pre-litigation and compoundable cases annually—primarily traffic challans and utility disputes—complex commercial and civil litigation still defaults to traditional courts.

The Mediation Act, fully operationalized by 2026, aimed to make pre-litigation mediation mandatory for civil suits. However, the lack of trained mediators and a societal preference for adversarial litigation over collaborative settlement has blunted its impact. Until ADR becomes the default culture rather than an alternative, the primary burden will continue to fall on the judiciary.

## The Human Cost of the Blame Game

The ultimate casualty of the systemic backlog—and the misdirection of blame—is the Indian citizen. Undertrials constitute nearly 75% of India’s prison population. These are individuals waiting for their day in court, often languishing behind bars for periods longer than the maximum sentence their alleged crimes would carry.

When society incorrectly focuses its ire on the individual judge, it inadvertently provides cover for the executive and legislative branches to ignore the structural rot. Meaningful justice requires budgetary allocations, political will to fill vacancies, and a shift in how the government approaches its own legal battles.

## Conclusion: A Call for Collective Accountability

Supreme Court Judge Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s assertion is a crucial reality check for the world’s largest democracy. Solving the 50-million case pendency requires moving past the simplistic narrative of the “lazy judge.”

The future outlook demands a holistic approach: the executive must actively reduce state litigation and expedite judicial appointments, the legislature must simplify procedural laws and increase the judicial budget, and the Bar must commit to a culture of swift trials rather than lucrative delays. Only when all stakeholders acknowledge their role in the backlog can India build a justice system that is truly swift, equitable, and efficient. Blaming the gavel for the flaws of the courtroom is a luxury the nation can no longer afford.