Context

• India’s justice delivery system faces an enduring crisis marked by enormous case pendency, procedural delays, and structural weaknesses in the subordinate judiciary.
• With 4.69 crore cases pending in district courts, the burden falls heavily on lower courts, which form the backbone of the judicial hierarchy.
• Recent Supreme Court observations highlight a sense of stagnation in this tier, aggravated by judges lacking basic training and experience.
• Addressing this crisis requires targeted structural reforms, improved training frameworks, and modernisation of procedural laws.

Obstacles to Efficiency in Subordinate Courts

• Clerical Burdens and Structural Inefficiencies
  • A major obstacle to efficiency in subordinate courts is the excessive clerical workload imposed on judges.
  • Under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the Civil Rules of Practice, judges must call every suit, issue summons, receive vakalathnamas, and handle routine filings.
  • These tasks occupy crucial morning hours, often from 10:30 a.m. to noon, leaving judges minimal time for hearing cases or writing judgments.
  • This misallocation of judicial time contributes directly to pendency.
  • A practical solution is the appointment of a dedicated judicial officer at the lowest rank in each district to perform ministerial functions for all courts of a particular cadre.
  • Such a system would free subordinate judges from clerical tasks and substantially improve productivity and case disposal.
• Judicial Competence and Training
  • Another systemic challenge is the decline in the experience and preparedness of newly appointed judges.
  • Traditionally, district munsifs and magistrates were selected from lawyers with a decade or more of practice under senior advocates, ensuring familiarity with courtroom dynamics and legal reasoning.
  • Today, many judges enter directly from law school with little exposure to real litigation, making it difficult to handle complex matters or pass reasoned orders.
  • To remedy this, there is a need for mandatory training for new judges at High Court benches, where they can observe proceedings, understand judicial conduct, and study how orders are drafted.
  • This work culture through observation would significantly strengthen the subordinate judiciary’s competence and improve the quality of decision-making.

Problematic Legislation and Procedural Complications

• Mandatory Pre-Suit Mediation in Commercial Courts
  • Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, interpreted as mandatory in Patil Automation v. Rakheja Engineers, requires pre-suit mediation.
  • However, commercial parties usually exchange notices before approaching court, making mandatory mediation unnecessary and adding an extra procedural layer that delays access to justice.
• Cooling-Off Period in Mutual Consent Divorce
  • The six-month cooling-off period often works against couples seeking prompt resolution.
  • Inconsistent application across courts leads to avoidable proceedings and even incentivises false declarations about separation duration.
• Ambiguities in the New Rent Act
• Confusion over whether a registered lease is required for rent court jurisdiction results in forum-shopping and contradictory rulings.
• For small residential tenancies, where parties rely on oral agreements to avoid registration fees, this statutory uncertainty increases litigation and delays.

Archaic Procedural Law as a Tool for Delay

• Partition Suits: Two-Step Decree Process
  • Requiring both a preliminary decree and a final decree in partition suits creates unnecessary delays, especially since final decree proceedings do not commence automatically.
  • A single decree or automatic continuation would streamline these cases.
• Execution Proceedings under Order XXI
  • Order XXI contains 106 rules, many of which are hyper-technical and enable judgment debtors to stall execution.
  • The prolonged difficulty in enforcing decrees undermines public confidence and forces litigants into years of post-decree litigation.
• Time Limits for Written Statements
  • The 90-day limit for filing written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 has not accelerated trails.
  • While suitable for money suits, strict timelines in title disputes often compromise the quality of pleadings without improving disposal rates.

The Role of the Higher Judiciary and the Path Forward

• Reducing pendency is not solely the responsibility of subordinate courts. Higher courts must also ensure timely disposal of appeals and revisions.
• The objective should be reasonable termination of proceedings rather than hastening the commencement of new ones.
• Reform requires a combination of measures:
  • Modernising procedural law to eliminate outdated steps.
  • Improving recruitment standards by selecting experienced lawyers as judges.
  • Strengthening judicial training, especially at the entry level.
  • Reassigning ministerial functions to dedicated officers to free judges for core adjudication.
  • Simplifying execution mechanisms to ensure decrees have real enforceability.
• Without these interventions, pendency will continue to rise and public confidence in the justice system will erode further.

Conclusion

• India’s judicial backlog stems from structural inefficiencies, outdated procedures, and inadequate training within the subordinate judiciary.
• Clerical burdens, flawed statutory mechanisms, and archaic provisions of the CPC continue to obstruct timely justice.
• Comprehensive reform, combining modern procedural frameworks, experienced judicial appointments, and smarter administrative design is, essential.
• Only by enabling subordinate judges to focus on their core judicial functions can India deliver timely, accessible, and effective justice.