‘Adjournments, Appeals Driving Delays’: Justice Nagarathna Calls For Judicial Reforms Commission

Speaking at the first national conference organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on the theme “Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice,” Justice Nagarathna said that meaningful reform requires coordinated institutional intervention rather than isolated efforts.

Participating in a panel discussion titled “From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts,” she proposed that the reforms commission should have broad-based representation. This, she said, must include members from the Supreme Court, High Courts and district judiciary, as well as representatives from the Bar, including the Attorney General and Solicitor General, along with government stakeholders to facilitate an inter-institutional dialogue.

Highlighting the root causes of judicial delay, Justice Nagarathna pointed to what she described as a “systemic equilibrium” where each stakeholder acts in a manner that is individually rational but collectively harmful to the justice system. “A litigant gains from the status quo to prolong proceedings. A lawyer or advocate often benefits from adjournments and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by preferring appeals over accepting adverse decisions,” she observed.

She added that judges, particularly at the trial level, tend to exercise procedural caution to avoid appellate reversals, often at the cost of proactive case management. “Each of these decisions is individually rational, but it ultimately leads to systemic delay,” she noted.

Justice Nagarathna emphasised that breaking this cycle requires structural reform through a dedicated judicial commission, rather than relying solely on behavioural changes such as discouraging adjournments, enforcing timelines or urging courts to function beyond capacity.

Addressing the issue of pendency statistics, she questioned the practice of including defective filings in official data, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.

The judge also underscored the significant role played by the government in contributing to judicial backlog, describing it as the “largest generator of litigation.” She pointed out that government authorities frequently file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be resolved at an earlier stage. “The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation,” she remarked.

Justice Nagarathna further highlighted structural constraints affecting judicial capacity, including delays in judicial appointments, inadequate infrastructure and limited adoption of technology.

To address these challenges, she suggested a range of reforms, including improved case management practices, stricter control over unnecessary adjournments, greater use of technology, prioritisation of cases, and expansion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. She also recommended the establishment of specialised benches to handle specific categories of cases more efficiently.

In addition, she called upon members of the Bar to adhere to professional and ethical standards, urged litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and advised the government to adopt a more pragmatic litigation policy. She stressed that timely funding and expeditious judicial appointments are equally critical to strengthening the justice delivery system.