Judicial efficiency demands better infrastructure, systemic reforms needed

One of the well-documented weaknesses in India’s judicial system is the mammoth backlog of court cases. With 55 million cases pending, the problem has been attributed mostly to chronic manpower shortages — mainly judges but also subordinate staff members such as stenographers and clerks. As of 2026, India has 22 judges per million people, against the 50 recommended by the Law Commission way back in 1987. Often overlooked is the other factor hampering judicial efficiency: Basic infrastructure. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s move to constitute a Judicial Infrastructure Advisory Committee to assess requirements across the country is well meant. The committee is to make a case for a dedicated government allocation of ₹40,000 crore to ₹50,000 crore to upgrade justice delivery. This is not the first time a chief justice has recognised the problem. In 2016, one of them famously broke down in public while enumerating the vacancies and infrastructure shortages afflicting the judiciary. Another suggested a National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation to develop facilities in trial courts.    

 

Any recommendatory committee will have its work cut out. Even a cursory examination suggests serious physical and digital deficiencies, especially in lower courts, which, unsurprisingly, account for 85 per cent of the case backlog. Despite the push for e-courts, fewer than half the lower courts have studio-based video-conferencing facilities, and less than a third can provide judges with computers on the dais. Many court buildings lack basic facilities such as clean (or any) toilets, drinking water, comfortable waiting areas, or digital information systems. Higher up, the situation is only marginally better. At a recent Supreme Court hearing, the judges commented on poor amenities in terms of housing and transport given to tribunal judges. The tribunals, ironically institutions meant to fast-track the judicial process, suffer no less from all-round shortages. Several of them function from temporary or shared offices. The National Company Law Tribunal and its appellate counterpart, for instance, both make do with cramped, makeshift premises in a government complex in central Delhi. The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal operates from a nearby hotel, as does the Delhi State Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal.

 

The gaps are obvious; bridging them remains the challenge. The chief justice has spoken of creating a “rights-centred digital approach rather than superficial digitisation”. It is unclear what this might entail, especially when even newly constructed premises tend to be inadequate and poorly maintained. The issue demands both systemic reform and greater infrastructure expenditure. For instance, growing politicisation in judicial appointments has played its role in exacerbating shortages across levels. Further, there appears to be no system for monitoring the functioning of lower and subordinate courts, where judges are often missing for days. Compounding this is the states’ reluctance to spend on upgrading facilities. The Centre runs a “Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Judicial Infrastructure”. But states often fail to contribute their matching 40 per cent share. Most states have allocated less than 2 per cent of their budgets to judicial infrastructure. Accountability, as much as higher infrastructure spending, is the order of the day. However, it remains to be seen whether the executive and the judiciary can come together to improve outcomes.