Upendra Nath Bora
(unbora@rediffmail.com)
Taking a cue from clause 40 of Magna Carta of 1215, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice” to William Ewart Gladstone’s debate in House of Commons on 16 March, 1868, the legal maxim “Justice delayed is justice denied” is a rallying cry for legal reformers. The right to a speedy trial is citizen-centric, which creates unfathomable faith in the judiciary. People’s faith in the judiciary in India is still abundant in spite of the heavy accumulation of cases at the district, state or apex level. Recent news about half-burnt notes in the fire incident needs strict action by the apex judiciary. According to the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2023, India’s global rank is 79 out of 142 countries. Wikipedia reports that the pendency of cases costs India more than 2% of GDP, quoting The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135(4).
The 120th report of the Law Commission of India on manpower planning in the judiciary recommended 50 judges per million population in a phased manner. The present ratio is 21:03. Replying to unstarred question number 1335 in the Lok Sabha on 9th February, 2024, the Minister of Law and Justice replied that the strength of judges in the Supreme Court was increased from 31 in the year 2014 to 34 with no vacancy at present. 62 Supreme Court judges were appointed during the period, which comes to around 6 judges in a year. In the case of High Courts, the sanctioned strength has increased from 906 in the year 2014 to 1114 as of 31.12.2023, with a total of 208 new posts of High Court Judges being created since 2014. A total of 968 High Court judges have been appointed since 2014, which comes to around 103 judges a year. The District Judiciary’s sanctioned strength has increased from 19518 judicial officers in the year 2014 to 25439 as of 31.12.2023. Similarly, the working strength of judges has also increased from 15115 in the year 2014 to 20011 judicial officers as of 31.12.2023. Whether it is more workload due to low judge-population ratio or the lengthy procedures or requests to postpone by advocates to reap undue benefit after a stay order on cases in district judiciary or the cases being too complex, citizens expect to find a time-bound solution to get rid of inordinate delay so that the injured party gets legal redress or equitable relief.
According to the National Judicial Data Grid, as of 29th May, 2025, the total number of pending cases is 45,818,002, out of which 10,946,837 are civil cases and 34,871,165 are criminal cases. 68.91% of cases are more than one year old. We urgently need to take proactive steps to clear the massive backlog. Efforts to address the issue include 1. Judicial Reforms – increasing the number of judges, modernising infrastructure, and implementing e-courts and technology. Process serving, if it can be done by email and WhatsApp, will substantially reduce the delay. Similarly, use of artificial intelligence to compare what is written in the affidavit and its supporting documents can reduce the number of cases at the initial stage. This will not only reduce the number of cases but also send a warning to a section of unscrupulous legal advisors not to encourage false affidavits. In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana & Others, AIR 1995, the Supreme Court took a serious view of filing a false affidavit or making false statements in courts and held that it is an assault on the rule of law and such conduct cannot be left unnoticed, as this can shake public confidence in the fair administration of justice. The Court observed, ‘The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but also has the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice.’ The Apex Court, in a case of Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (civil) No. 3 of 2021 in Re:Perry Kansagra decided on 11 July 22, held that a person who makes a false statement before the court or interferes with the administration of justice is guilty of contempt of court. 2) Alternate Dispute Resolution like arbitration, mediation, and conciliation. 3) Fast Track courts. 4) Rejection at the initial stage – When there are other options for redressal, those options may be exhausted first. 5) Suo motu contempt proceedings on false affidavits. This will send a signal to the contemners and associates not to play with the justice delivery system, which will help in reducing the number of cases.
An example – how false affidavits delay the judicial delivery system. A lessee took on lease an Assam-type house on a plot of land with a yard along with a house, ring well, lavatory, urinal, paths, and open spaces. The lessee is to deliver on the termination of the lease the possession of the said premises in as good condition as they were in when the lessee obtained the possession, subject to normal wear and tear. The lessee gave some post-dated cheques to the lessor in the name of another enterprise where the lessee is also the proprietor, signed by himself. Also, the 3 yearly increments were as per the agreements. After a few years, the lessee stopped paying rent. He also did not deposit the TDS with the appropriate authority. He was asked several times to clear the rents but to no avail. Finding no way, the lessor deposited the cheques, which bounced. He was given notice to clear the rents for several years but to no avail. Ultimately, cases were filed under the NI Act and eviction proceedings. The lessee delayed the cases by taking time. Then he filed a case in the High Court with a false affidavit hiding the renting out of an Assam-type house, which he broke without permission. He falsely submitted that the lessor was not willing to take rent. Convinced by a false affidavit and contradictory attached documents, these cases were kept in abeyance without giving an opportunity of hearing to the lessor. The lessor has not received rent from June 2021 to date. The case was registered on 14.12.2023, arguments concluded on 29.01.25, the judgement was announced on 03.06.2025, and the case was dismissed. Why the judgement requires 4 months after the final argument is questionable. Whether it is a deliberate step to stall justice is a matter of introspection. It shows how proceedings of district judiciary are delayed and justice denied. Drawing suo motu contempt cases will send a signal to a section of the unscrupulous legal advisors not to mislead the court to reap undue benefit. It will have a great impact on reducing the accumulated cases. Application of artificial intelligence will not only reduce the administrative delay of process serving, thus reducing the time gap, but also be an added advantage in comparing the attached documents with the contradictory affidavit and in arriving at fair, logical judgements.