The persistent issue of judicial delay in India is a national crisis that critically undermines public faith in the rule of law and the constitutional guarantee of justice. While the common public and political narrative often unfairly targets the dedication of the judiciary—portraying judges as inefficient—the reality is that the root cause lies in a systemic failure of the Executive branch to provide the essential infrastructure and manpower required for a functioning judicial system.

The core problem is not one of judicial temperament or efficiency, but a profound and structural disproportionate strength of the judicial cadre relative to the colossal caseload. Judges routinely “burn the midnight oil,” meticulously writing detailed judgments and devoting themselves entirely to their complex cases, often at great personal cost.

The crisis is one of inadequate resources and systemic neglect, where the Executive has “miserably failed to be vigilant and foresee the future.” This inaction has forced the Supreme Court to repeatedly intervene on matters that are fundamentally the government’s mandate, thereby underscoring the true bottleneck: the administrative and resource deployment failure of the Executive. The agonizing outcome is the painful reality that “justice delayed is justice denied.”

The gravity of the judge-strength crisis is best articulated through the consistent recommendations of the Law Commission of India, a non-statutory body constituted by the Government to research and recommend legal reforms. The issue has been highlighted in a series of reports, most notably the 120th Report (1987) and the 245th Report (2014).

The 120th report and the ‘50 Judges per Million’ target

The foundational recommendation for augmenting judicial strength emerged from the Law Commission’s 120th Report on Manpower Planning in the Judiciary (1987). This report adopted a demographic approach, observing that India’s judge-to-population ratio at the time was a mere 10.5 judges per million citizens (based on the 1971 census).

The Report starkly contrasted this figure with developed nations, where the ratio was significantly higher: 41.6 in Australia, 50.9 in England, 75.2 in Canada, and 107 in the United States.

The Law Commission suggested that, while a desirable long-term ratio might be closer to 107 judges per million, India must immediately and gradually increase the judge strength to 50 judges per million population. The Supreme Court later endorsed this view, setting a time frame for this increase in landmark judgments.

The 245th Report of Law Commission

In the landmark case of Imtiyaz Ahmed vs. State of U.P. (2012), the Supreme Court, in an effort to move towards a more scientific assessment of judicial manpower, specifically asked the Law Commission to evolve a new methodology. In response, the Law Commission submitted its 245th Report titled, “Arrears and Backlog”.

The 245th Report noted that the judge-to-population ratio, while politically useful, was not a perfectly scientific criterion for determining judge strength. This was because the rate of case filing per capita varies substantially across different regions based on socio-economic conditions.

The ‘Rate of Disposal’ Method: The Commission proposed a more pragmatic and scientific approach: the Rate of Disposal Method. This method calculates the number of additional judges required by assessing: The annual “flow” of new cases (filing rate), The average rate at which a judge disposes of cases and the total existing backlog (cases pending beyond a set maximum time standard).

Using this methodology, the 245th Report concluded that, as of 2014, 942 additional judges were required in the High Courts alone just to clear the existing backlog and prevent new backlogs from forming.

The Supreme Court, directed the implementation of this scientific approach, along with the recommendations of the National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC), which proposed a ‘weighted’ disposal approach to account for the nature and complexity of cases.

The consequence of Executive inaction

Despite the Law Commission’s consistent recommendations, backed by Supreme Court directives in cases like All India Judges Association vs. Union of India and Imtiyaz Ahmed vs. State of U.P., the growth in judicial strength has been painfully slow. Even a decade after the 245th Report, the judge-to-population ratio has only marginally risen to approximately 21 judges per million in 2024 (based on data from the sanctioned strength and Census 2011), still drastically short of the 50 per million target first proposed in 1987.

This failure directly places overwhelming pressure on the existing, highly dedicated judges. Any attempt to pressure the judiciary into rushed case disposal is highly dangerous, as “hurried justice is justice buried”—sacrificing the quality of judicial reasoning for sheer numbers.

The crisis is compounded by the Executive’s failure to provide adequate infrastructure, including courtrooms, staff, and technology. The financial burden of augmenting the judiciary, though significant, is repeatedly highlighted as a reason for delay, despite the constitutional obligation to ensure justice.

To genuinely restore public faith in the justice delivery system, the dialogue must shift. It must move from criticizing the dedicated men and women on the bench to demanding accountability from the Executive for its primary mandate: providing the judicial system with the staff, infrastructure, and financial backing necessary to truly administer justice without denial.

(The writer is a senior advocate)