Latest news with #NJDG
Indian Express
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
In defence of court holidays
Written by Shubham Shukla and Kartikey Singh On May 26, as the Supreme Court (SC) began its seven-week 'summer recess', now officially termed 'Partial Court Working Days' (PCWD), critics resort to familiar complaints about 'judicial holidays' amid rising case pendency. However, this prevailing narrative misses the point. These breaks are not indulgences; they are structural safeguards, providing a critical breathing space that sustains 'judicial reasoning' in a system strained by relentless caseloads. Though rooted in colonial-era judges' discomfort with Indian summers and a craving for Christmas breaks, judicial vacations today serve a far more vital purpose. They enable intellectual rejuvenation, meticulous 'judgment writing', and deep legal research. Case pendency and blame game India's judicial backlog — over 4.5 crore cases, as per the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) — is undeniably serious. But to attribute this crisis to judges' vacations is both analytically lazy and empirically indefensible, as also acknowledged in 2023 by the then Union Law Minister. A data-driven study based on Bombay High Court (HC) records found that court vacations have no significant impact on either 'disposal rates' or the time taken to resolve cases. This finding is not surprising when one considers institutional realities. India's SC functions almost year-round, hearing 'oral arguments' every weekday except during the mid-year and winter breaks, unlike many of its global counterparts. With 190 sitting days annually, India's apex court stands among the hardest-working top courts across the world. By comparison, according to the Supreme Court Observer, the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) sits for just 68 days, the High Court of Australia for 97, South Africa's Constitutional Court for 128, the UK SC for 149, Israel's apex court for 159, and Bangladesh's for 183. Importantly, India's top court doesn't just sit more often, it hears far more cases. In the first half of 2025 alone, nearly 21,000 cases were placed before the SC, dwarfing SCOTUS's annual intake of 5,000-7,000 and leaving courts in the UK, Australia, and South Africa far behind. Even when it comes to non-sitting days, India fares better than most: The SC has 175 non-working days, compared to the US (297), Australia (268), South Africa (237), the UK (216), Israel (206), and Bangladesh (182). Yet, despite having more holidays and fewer sitting days, these other courts do not grapple with the scale of pendency that afflicts India. The reason is structural. The judicial systems of other countries limit access to the apex court through strict docket control, selective case admission, and robust lower court infrastructure. India's SC, by contrast, embodies a more expansive judicial philosophy, functioning both as a constitutional court and as the court of last resort for a vast and diverse population. This broad access — extending even to service, bail, and land disputes — reflects a democratic commitment to judicial access, though it inevitably contributes to a much heavier caseload. The relentless grind of a judge The popular perception of judges enjoying excessive leisure during vacations is a profound misconception. It fails to account for the intense, often invisible workload they undertake daily —work that extends far beyond courtroom hours. Unlike most professionals, judges rarely take personal leave while courts are in session, reserving it only for dire emergencies or serious illness. The real labour of adjudication begins after the court rises. A recent example comes from Bombay High Court's Justice Madhav Jamdar, who dictated an 85-page Transfer of Property Act judgment in open court on December 19, 2024. But it was uploaded on the HC website on 30 May 2025 — almost six months later. In his own order, he recorded that, even while conducting daily hearings for more than two hours after court hours, he still corrects and signs orders until 11:30 pm, reads case papers until 2:00 am, and works on weekends and holidays to clear his docket. This intense schedule lays bare the sheer volume of judicial labours beyond courtroom hours, demonstrating that judges every day need to balance exhaustive hearings, voluminous drafting, and meticulous editing against the limits of time. Notably, the length of a judgment often reflects the complexity of the legal questions involved. The most significant cases — those concerning privacy, reservation, or federalism — frequently run into hundreds of pages and shape jurisprudence for decades. These are not merely legal puzzles; they involve relentless public scrutiny, have zero margin for error, and impact millions of lives. Crafting such judgments demands immense intellectual labour: Exhaustive research, deep contemplation, parsing voluminous records, engaging with precedents, and rigorous deliberation within the Bench. Intellectual depth is paramount, and rushing such tasks in a state of 'cognitive exhaustion' risks shallow reasoning, conflicting precedent, and long-term jurisprudential damage — a far greater injustice than a well-considered pause. This is not a matter of personal preference; it is a clinical imperative. The stakes in many SC and HC cases are existential — the legality of a student's arrest, the future of a minor in a custody battle, or the constitutional validity of a statute. Importantly, judges hear arguments in court for an average of 7–8 hours a day. Without structured time to decompress and reflect, impaired cognitive function becomes inevitable, increasing the risk of judicial error and subsequent reversals on appeal. Judicial vacations thus serve as a necessary prophylactic. They provide an opportunity to recalibrate, catch up on judgment writing, and engage with wider reading, including interdisciplinary scholarship in economics, sociology, or political theory that increasingly informs welfare jurisprudence. Several judges have publicly acknowledged the necessity of these breaks. Former Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, speaking at a public event last year, noted that judges remain deeply committed even on weekends — visiting HCs, attending Bar events, or engaging in legal aid work. More importantly, without adequate, structured breaks, judges face serious risks of burnout, loneliness, and compassion fatigue. Empirical studies on 'judicial stress' show elevated levels of secondary trauma and emotional exhaustion. This is not just a personal or institutional burden. If left unaddressed, it may reduce judicial capacity, delay adjudication, and — perhaps most dangerously — erode public confidence in the judiciary's ability to deliver reasoned, impartial, and humane justice. Moreover, these breaks also serve as a crucial respite for advocates, who routinely operate under intense pressure due to rigid procedural deadlines and demanding court schedules. During vacations, far from 'shut down', the judicial functioning continues through Partial Court Working Days Benches, during which the Registry — the court's administrative backbone — also remains active. Urgent cases, especially those involving life and liberty, are routinely heard, ensuring that fundamental rights are not suspended during breaks. Blaming vacations for judicial delays ignores the real issues: Imperfect case scheduling, routine adjournments, chronic vacancies, and outdated infrastructure. As President Droupadi Murmu aptly noted last year, the deeper malaise lies in the 'black coat syndrome'— that vacations neither cause nor solve. Instead of targeting judicial breaks, policy focus should shift to genuine reforms: Appointing more judges, overhauling infrastructure, modernising procedures, and promoting alternative dispute resolution. The writers are lawyers based in New Delhi
India Today
15-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Chief Justice BR Gavai to hear Waqf law, marital rape, right to religion cases
Justice BR Gavai took oath as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on Wednesday and became the first from the Buddhist community to hold the highest judicial office in the country. During the seven-month tenure that he is going to have as the Chief Justice, BR Gavai faces a huge backlog of social justice cases, including on the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act, among taking oath, Chief Justice Gavai spoke to the media and reaffirmed his commitment to reducing pendency in the courts. India Today takes a look at the issues that the new Chief Justice of India would have to take PENDENCY: According to the data available on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) there are 81,768 cases pending before the Supreme Court. A total of 28,553 of these are less than one-year-old. However, there is a significant number of matters that have been pending for more than five or even 10 years. CONSTITUTION BENCH MATTERS: There are 20 pending matters before five-judge benches, five matters before seven-judge benches, and three matters before nine-judge benches in the Supreme include the right to religion matters arising out of the Sabarimala temple dispute, a labour law matter before a nine-judge bench pending since 2001, an issue of data privacy on Whatsapp and the Delhi Government's dispute with the Centre over control of services, among AMENDMENT ACT: More than 120 petitions were filed before the Supreme Court after Parliament passed the Waqf Amendment Act on April 4. On April 17, a bench headed by the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna agreed to hear the issue of challenge to the Waf act. The bench asked the government to not touch certain provisions of the previous act and deferred the matter to be heard by a bench led by the new Chief Justice on May GACHIBOWLI FOREST LAND CASE: The Telangana government had announced it plans to auction some 400 acres of forested land adjacent to the University of Hyderabad (UoH) to build IT parks in February. This sparked widespread outrage and protests by Hyderabad University students, conservationists and others. The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice BR Gavai had intervened in the matter on April 17, issuing an immediate stay on the project, after being informed that bulldozers had been sent in to remove the trees in the "urban forest" matter is now scheduled to be heard before the bench headed by Justice Gavai on May OF GOVERNORS TO HOLD BILLS: On April 8, a Supreme Court bench verdict restricted the power of the Governor of a State to "hold" bills passed by the legislature and imposed a timeline on the Governor and the President to take a decision on giving assent to the bills. A dispute over similar action by the Kerala Governor remains pending before the Supreme RAPE ISSUE: The issue of the criminalisation of 'marital rape' is an important legal question before the Top Court. Organisations and individuals fighting for the equal rights of women have challenged Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, which criminalise case came to the Supreme Court in April 2022. The bench began hearing the case on October 17, 2024, but the bench headed by then Justice of India DY Chandrachud adjourned the matter as he was due to retire. The matter was not listed for hearing during the tenure of Chief Justice Sanjiv OF JUDICIARY: Several issues have come up in the last few months which raised concerns about the dignity and role of the Judiciary. From the corruption allegations after the Justice Yashwant Varma case to statements being made by Government Ministers and even the Vice President questioning "overreach" by the Judiciary, Chief Justice Gavai will have to put the debate to InTrending Reel
Hindustan Times
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Clear recommendations of collegium ‘expeditiously': SC
The Supreme Court on Thursday told the Centre to 'expeditiously' clear the recommendations of the Collegium for appointment of high court judges, referring to the chart that was made public on its website early this week, as it flagged the huge pendency of over 700,000 criminal appeals across all high courts that required sanctioned posts of judges to be filled up on an urgent basis. Passing an order in a suo motu proceeding on 'Policy Strategy for Bail' the court was considering a set of suggestions required to expedite the hearing of criminal appeals in high courts. Based on information provided by the high courts, the data of pending criminal appeals was pegged at 724,192, even though the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) shows this figure to be much higher at 761,432. Among the high courts with critical levels of pendency, Allahabad tops the chart with 272,000 pending criminal appeals, followed by Madhya Pradesh with over 100,000 such appeals to be heard as of March. At the same time, the apex court noted that the judicial strength in some of the high courts was significantly lower as Allahabad high court with 160 sanctioned posts had a working strength of 79 judges, Bombay high court has 66 judges out of 94 posts, Calcutta high court has 44 out of the sanctioned 72, and Delhi high court has just 41 despite 60 earmarked posts of judges. 'Few days back, this court released data of the Supreme Court collegium recommendations for appointing judges of the high is the aspect where Centre needs to act and ensure recommendations of Collegium are cleared expeditiously,' the top court said. It referred to the details shared publicly on its website with recommendations pending clearance since November 2022. Of them, the bench noted that five proposals from 2023 are pending with the government, 12 proposals from 2024, and another 12 from the current year. 'We want to flag one issue that we are not aware how many recommendations made by SC Collegium prior to this period are pending with the are also not aware of pendency of proposals where Supreme Court Collegium has reiterated the proposals after they were returned,' the order said. Underlining the link between pendency of cases and judicial manpower, the bench said, 'Not only huge number of criminal appeals are pending, there are other categories of litigations which are pending before the high courts. We hope and trust the pending proposals (by the Collegium) are cleared by the Centre at the earliest.' Senior advocates Liz Mathew and Gaurav Agarwal assisted the court as amici curiae (friends of court) in preparing the report. 'This gap (of judicial vacancies) exacerbates delays in case disposal, as fewer judges are available to manage a growing caseload,' the report said. Accepting the suggestion by the amici curiae to have hearing of principal bench matters at regional benches, the court said, 'We accept the suggestion in case of high courts with multiple benches. The high court on administrative side should examine possibility of appeal hearing through videoconferencing so that if principal seat has more pendency, then through other benches, disposal can be improved.' Other suggestions that got the court's nod included dedicated benches in high courts with criminal appeal roster; prioritising hearing of appeals based on age-wise pendency, severity of offence, terminally ill or advanced age convicts; and digitisation of trial court records.
Time of India
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
4 lakh cases pending in Noida district court, 25% due to lack of lawyers
Noida/Ghaziabad: UP courts continue to claim the highest share of pending cases in the national basket. Data shared by National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) on Wednesday shows that of the 4.9 crore cases pending across Indian courts, 1.2 crore alone are in Gautam Budh Nagar district court has 4.1 lakh pending cases. Of these, the majority, 3.8 lakh, are criminal cases. Ghaziabad has 3.3 lakh pending cases, the data 80% of the cases pending at several courts in UP are criminal to NJDG data, the unavailability of lawyers in the two NCR cities was one of the top reasons why cases dragged on in the district courts. Others top reasons were attributed to a variety of reasons like the suspects still on the run or not enough showed of the 4 lakh cases pending in GB Nagar district court, around one lakh could not be decided due to the non-availability of counsels, while of 3.3 lakh cases pending in the Ghaziabad court, nearly 90,000 cannot be decided for the same are nearly 2,200 advocates in Gautam Budh Nagar, and 2,500 in Ghaziabad, data shared by the bar associations of the GB Nagar Bar Association Ajit Nagar, however, told TOI that it was not the counsels, but the judges who are not available. He also blamed inadequate judicial infrastructure in the districts for the large-scale pendency."It is the shortage of judges, magistrates and readers that delays the disposal of cases. There are 28 courtrooms in GB Nagar district court, but only 25 judges," Nagar said, adding a proposal was in the works to increase the number of courtrooms to Vipul Panwar, a member of the Ghaziabad District Legal Services Authority, told TOI that there were instances when bailable warrants were not disposed of for several weeks due to the unavailability of of Rights and Risk Analysis Group, Suhas Chakma, a petitioner in Supreme Court seeking decongestion of prisons and humane treatment of inmates, said the judicial infrastructure was largely inadequate not just in UP, but across the country."There is some relief in Delhi after the number of district courts was increased, but it is yet to be seen in other states, including the NCR region," he pointed out that every year, new laws are introduced, widening the scope for the registration of new cases, but there is no commensurate increase in the scope of the judiciary. "No govt wants to spend on the judiciary, and with the advent of e-commerce and the virtual world, the nature and quantity of crime have almost doubled, which has to be dealt with by the same old judicial infrastructure," he said. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on July 1, 2024. The new law, along with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), was enacted to modernise the criminal justice system. After the laws were replaced, senior advocates had told TOI that the Indian Penal Code was second nature to their legal acumen and amending some obsolete laws and revising sections in the IPC and CrPC would have been an easier transition than coming up with a whole new set of criminal laws.
The Hindu
03-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
One judge for 18.7 lakh people: vacancy, pendency crises plague High Courts
In a rare and candid observation, the Delhi High Court last week cited the 'acute shortage of judges' as a key reason for its inability to hear all cases listed in its daily cause list. The comment serves as a sobering reminder of the systemic challenges confronting the judiciary. Also Read | Explained: The clogged state of the Indian judiciary The observation came during the hearing of a routine application by a man accused of cheating and forgery, who was seeking permission to travel abroad. Though incidental, the remark has drawn attention to a longstanding issue plaguing the judiciary — chronic judicial vacancies across India. The Delhi High Court currently functions with only 36 judges, well below its sanctioned strength of 60. This means nearly 40% of judicial posts remain vacant. The court is simultaneously grappling with a staggering backlog of 1,34,090 pending cases. Nationwide shortfall According to the latest data from the Department of Justice, India's 25 High Courts have a combined sanctioned strength of 1,114 judges. As of now, only 769 judges are in position, leaving 345 posts, or over 30%, vacant. These 769 judges are responsible for clearing a backlog of 62,96,798 cases pending across High Courts. The Allahabad High Court leads with the highest number of vacancies — 81 out of 160 sanctioned posts. It also faces the heaviest caseload, with 11,76,229 cases pending, according to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). The Punjab and Haryana High Court follows, with 32 vacancies against a strength of 85. Only the Sikkim and Meghalaya High Courts report zero vacancies. Except for 2019, when High Courts disposed of more cases (23,53,736) than were instituted (22,01,442), case filings have consistently outpaced disposals. In 2024 alone, 24,06,178 cases were filed, while only 22,57,971 were resolved. This widening gap highlights the increasing strain on the judiciary and the urgent need to fill vacancies to ensure the timely delivery of justice. Stalled appointments Responding to a query in the Rajya Sabha on April 3, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said 150 High Court judge appointment proposals were currently at various stages of processing between the government and the Supreme Court Collegium. For another 205 vacancies, recommendations from the respective High Court Collegiums are still awaited. Also Read | Lawyers cite 'shortage of HC judges' as reason for opposing judge's transfer High Court judges are appointed under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution, based on the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) framed in 1998, following Supreme Court rulings. According to the MoP, the Chief Justice of each High Court is expected to initiate recommendations at least six months before a vacancy arises. However, the Law Minister admitted that this timeline is 'rarely observed.' On April 20, 2021, the Supreme Court allowed the appointment of retired judges as ad hoc judges to address the backlog of criminal cases. Initially, such appointments were permitted only if judicial vacancies exceeded 20% of the sanctioned strength. In January 2025, the apex court relaxed the condition, allowing each High Court to appoint between two and five ad hoc judges, not exceeding 10% of its sanctioned strength. Despite this flexibility, the Law Minister confirmed that the government had not 'received any proposal from any of the High Courts' as of April 3. India Justice Report 2025 The 'India Justice Report 2025' underscores the depth of the crisis. Between 2020 and 2024, pending cases in Indian courts surged nearly 20%. Despite this sharp rise, judicial vacancies have remained persistently high, with High Courts operating with about 33% of sanctioned posts unfilled. The report also paints a stark picture of judicial burden. 'Measured by population, India averages one High Court judge for 18.7 lakh people,' said the report released last month. At the end of 2024, judges in most High Courts — except in Sikkim, Tripura, and Meghalaya— handled over 1,000 cases each. The workload in the Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh High Courts was especially extreme, with judges burdened with over 15,000 cases each, the report said.
