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

# SC Judge: Stop Blaming Us For Case Backlog

**By Senior Legal Correspondent, Legal Policy Review | April 11, 2026**

**New Delhi:** Addressing the mounting crisis of judicial pendency in India, Supreme Court Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah issued a strong call to action on Saturday, urging the public and policymakers not to place the sole blame for the massive case backlog on the shoulders of the judiciary. Speaking at a legal symposium on April 11, 2026, Justice Amanullah emphasized that the staggering delays in the Indian justice system are the result of a multifaceted institutional failure involving government litigation, inadequate infrastructure, frequent adjournments by the bar, and persistent judicial vacancies. His remarks highlight a critical need for a collaborative, systemic overhaul rather than a narrow critique of judicial efficiency.

## The Core Argument: A Systemic Failure Beyond Judicial Control

Justice Amanullah’s forceful defense of the judiciary comes at a time when public frustration over delayed justice is reaching a boiling point. The prevailing narrative often paints judges as the primary bottlenecks in a sluggish system. However, the Supreme Court judge dismantled this perception by pointing to the deeply entrenched structural issues that hamstring court proceedings on a daily basis. [Source: Hindustan Times]

“It is easy to point fingers at the bench when a case languishes for a decade, but the reality is far more complex,” Justice Amanullah articulated during his address. He noted that judges are currently operating under crushing dockets, often hearing anywhere from 40 to 60 matters in a single day. This relentless pace leaves little room for the deep, contemplative jurisprudence required for complex constitutional or civil matters.

The judge underscored that a trial’s lifespan is dictated by multiple stakeholders: the police who file charge sheets, the state authorities who grant sanction for prosecution, the lawyers who manage the pace of the hearings, and the physical infrastructure of the courts themselves. When any single link in this chain breaks down, the entire system grinds to a halt, unfairly leaving the presiding judge as the public face of the delay. [Additional: National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) historical analysis].

## The Staggering Numbers Behind the Crisis

To understand the gravity of Justice Amanullah’s remarks, one must look at the sheer volume of cases clogging the Indian judicial machinery. As of early 2026, the National Judicial Data Grid reports that the total number of pending cases across all tiers of the Indian judiciary has crossed an unprecedented threshold, making it one of the most overburdened systems globally.

**Current Judicial Pendency Snapshot (Estimates as of April 2026):**

| Judicial Tier | Approximate Pending Cases | Percentage of Total Backlog |
| :— | :— | :— |
| **Supreme Court of India** | 80,000+ | ~0.15% |
| **High Courts (Across 25 courts)** | 6.2 Million | ~12% |
| **District and Subordinate Courts** | 44.5 Million | ~87.85% |
| **Total** | **~50.78 Million** | **100%** |

*Data Context: Based on extrapolated figures from the National Judicial Data Grid and Ministry of Law and Justice reports leading up to 2026.*

These figures validate the Supreme Court judge’s assertion. Even if judges were to work without vacations and double their current output, the mathematical reality of clearing over 50 million cases without addressing the inflow and structural bottlenecks is virtually impossible.

## The Government as the Biggest Litigant

One of the most critical factors contributing to the backlog, as highlighted indirectly by judicial scholars following the judge’s remarks, is the role of the State. **The Central and State governments together account for nearly 46% to 50% of all litigation in India.**

Various departments routinely file appeals in routine service matters, tax disputes, and land acquisition cases, often regardless of the merits of the case or the financial logic of pursuing it. This “compulsive litigation” syndrome clogs the dockets of both the High Courts and the Supreme Court.

“Justice Amanullah’s observations hit the nail on the head regarding state litigation,” says Dr. Meera Sanyal, a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Legal Policy and Judicial Reform. “Until the government internalizes a functional National Litigation Policy that penalizes frivolous appeals by state departments, the courts will continue to function as glorified dispute resolution centers for bureaucratic ego clashes. You cannot blame a judge when the state files thousands of meritless appeals simply to avoid departmental responsibility.”

Despite repeated directives from the Supreme Court imposing costs on government departments for frivolous litigation, the trend has largely persisted into 2026, creating a bottleneck that judges alone cannot clear.

## Infrastructure Deficits and The Vacancy Crisis

Another pillar of Justice Amanullah’s defense rests on the chronic underfunding of judicial infrastructure and the persistent vacancies across the system. The judge-to-population ratio in India remains woefully inadequate. While the Law Commission of India historically recommended a ratio of 50 judges per million people, the current reality hovers stubbornly around **21 to 23 judges per million**.

Furthermore, filling these vacancies remains a highly contentious and protracted process. The administrative friction between the Supreme Court Collegium and the Executive branch over judicial appointments frequently leaves crucial High Court benches operating at 60% or even 50% capacity for months at a time.

At the subordinate court level, where the vast majority of the 44.5 million cases reside, the situation is even more dire. Many district courts lack basic facilities, reliable internet for e-filing, and adequate support staff, including stenographers and researchers. When a judge lacks the basic administrative support to draft and upload orders swiftly, the wheels of justice inevitably slow down.

## The Adjournment Culture and the Role of the Bar

Justice Amanullah’s comments also gently but firmly point toward the legal fraternity itself. The “adjournment culture” in Indian courts is a well-documented phenomenon. Lawyers frequently seek delays due to conflicting schedules, unpreparedness, or as a deliberate tactical maneuver to frustrate the opposing party.

While modern procedural codes limit the number of adjournments a party can seek, enforcement remains a challenge. Judges who strictly deny adjournments frequently face strikes or boycotts from local bar associations, creating a hostile environment that stifles judicial efficiency.

“We must engage in some introspection as members of the Bar,” notes Senior Advocate Vikramaditya Singh, a seasoned practitioner at the Supreme Court. “Every time a lawyer asks for an accommodation, it sets a case back by months, given the crowded dockets. Judges are often forced to balance strict discipline with the principles of natural justice, ensuring that a litigant doesn’t suffer because of their counsel’s absence. It is an impossible tightrope.”

The Supreme Court has recently started taking a stricter stance on imposing heavy costs for unmerited adjournments, but uprooting a decades-old courtroom culture requires sustained cooperation from the Bar Councils across the country.

## Technological Interventions and e-Courts Phase III

While outlining the problems, the discourse surrounding Justice Amanullah’s remarks also brings to light the ongoing solutions, specifically technological interventions. By 2026, the implementation of **e-Courts Phase III** is well underway, aiming to digitize the entire judicial process from FIR registration to final judgment.

This phase integrates Artificial Intelligence (AI) for case management, aiming to cluster similar cases to be heard simultaneously by benches, thereby saving thousands of judicial hours. Furthermore, hybrid hearing models, which became a necessity during the early 2020s, have now been institutionalized.

However, technology is merely a tool, not a panacea. As judicial experts point out, digitizing a flawed process only results in a faster flawed process. If the substantive laws remain archaic and procedural laws allow for endless interlocutory appeals, technology will only scratch the surface of the backlog.

## Conclusion: A Collaborative Path Forward

Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s candid statement is a much-needed reality check for a nation eager for rapid justice delivery. [Source: Hindustan Times]. His remarks successfully shift the focus from a simplistic “judge-blaming” narrative to a comprehensive evaluation of the justice delivery ecosystem.

The key takeaways from this evolving discourse are clear:
1. **Government Restraint:** The State must dramatically reduce its footprint as the country’s largest litigant through alternate dispute resolution and strict adherence to litigation policies.
2. **Infrastructure Investment:** Financial allocations to the judiciary must be increased to enhance courtroom infrastructure and clear the backlog of judicial and administrative vacancies.
3. **Bar Accountability:** The legal fraternity must actively work to end the culture of endless adjournments and cooperate with bench management strategies.

If India is to ensure that the constitutional promise of swift and fair justice is kept, it requires all pillars of the democracy—the Executive, the Legislature, and the Bar—to shoulder the burden equally. Blaming the judiciary alone is not just unfair; as Justice Amanullah rightly pointed out, it is a distraction from the real, systemic reforms that are urgently required.