Why the Indian Judiciary Needs Urgent Overhaul for a Viksit Bharat

Introduction:

The call for Viksit Bharat—a developed India—requires not only robust economic policies, industrial growth, technological advancement, and strong human capital but also a functioning system of justice. Justice is the bedrock of any civilised society, and without it, development cannot be inclusive, secure, or sustainable.

Sanjoy Sanyal has concisely noted that the Indian judiciary has now become an obstacle in the path of India’s developmental journey. While India boasts of having one of the world’s most elaborate constitutions and a large network of courts, the functioning of its judiciary is plagued by inefficiency, outdated structures, and a lack of accountability. Reform is therefore not just desirable—it is a crying need and indispensable.

This is an humble endeavour with limited knowledge to discuss the pressing need for an overhaul of the Indian judiciary, structured as follows: an overview of the judicial system, the problems of the collegium system, case delays, bail politics, colonial hangovers, the 99:1 rule and mandatory mediation issues, infrastructural deficits, elite biases, and possible reforms including digitalisation, accountability mechanisms, and cultural change.

 

Structure of the Indian Judiciary

The Indian judiciary follows a pyramidal structure, reflective of the country’s federal nature. At the top lies the Supreme Court of India, the apex judicial body and final court of appeal. Below it exist the High Courts, functioning at the state level with jurisdiction over the territories under them. Further down are the District Courts and various subordinate courts, including magistrate courts and special courts for family, labour, or fast-track cases.

The Constitution provides for the independence of the judiciary, protecting judges from political interference. Judicial review—the power to test laws and government actions against the Constitution—is one of the sacrosanct features of this system.

In theory, the Indian judicial structure is comprehensive, decentralised, and fair. In practice, however, systemic weaknesses, inefficiencies, and bygone procedures have led to disillusionment.

 The Collegium System—A Seat of Nepotism?

Appointments to the higher judiciary in India are conducted via the collegium system, where the senior-most judges themselves select and recommend names for elevation or transfer. Curiously enough, it has no constitutional mandate and is unique in the world where judges appoint judges. Though intended as a mechanism to ensure independence from political pressures, in reality, the collegium has become opaque, exclusionary, and hence should be discarded.

Several criticisms arise:

• Lack of transparency: Names are recommended and approved without a publicly debated rationale.
• Absence of accountability: The practice of judges appointing judges dilutes the principle of checks and balances.
• Nepotism: Talented advocates, academics, or specialists in domains such as technology, corporate law, or international law are often sidelined in favour of relatives or protégés of sitting judges.
• Committed to or sympathetic to a particular political group, often benefiting from a dedicated family background.

In effect, the collegium prevents India from building a merit-driven judiciary that harnesses the best legal minds. By shutting doors on outsiders, it perpetuates elitism within the legal fraternity.

 

Extraordinary Delays and Case Pile-Ups:

Perhaps the most visible failure of the Indian judiciary is its inability to deliver timely justice. A case in India can take decades to reach a final resolution. The backlog, as per recent figures, has crossed 50 million cases across all levels of courts, though alarming, but it makes no dent in the present system..

Delays arise from several causes:                                       

• Inadequate infrastructure: Courtrooms, staff, and technological support remain highly insufficient compared to the caseload, and hence, a breeding ground for corruption.
• Colonial-style procedures: Endless adjournments, complex filing and paperwork, and multi-tier appeals stretch timelines beyond imagination.
• Shortage of judges: India has one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios globally, with fewer than 20 judges per million people.
• Deliberate stalling tactics: Wealthier litigants exploit loopholes to delay justice indefinitely.
• Lack of transparency/corruption: Within court administration, this is a common disease. All case registrations are to be online and taken up serially unless there is a case of public interest.
• The Supreme Court Bar Association:  The Apex Court Bar Association President, Advocate V. Singh, strongly inter alia reiterates its steadfast commitment to the protection of judicial independence and the preservation of the constitutional framework and earnestly urges both the judiciary and the government to take prompt steps to address the prevailing concerns that affect the credibility and integrity of the institutions.  

The result of such delays is tragic. Victims of crime often die before their cases conclude. Poor families spend their lifetime in and out of courtrooms. Investors hesitate in doing business due to the lack of timely contract enforcement. Justice delayed indeed becomes justice denied.

  Bail Politics and Practices:

“Bail, not jail” has long been a cliché in legal circles, but in practice, bail has become a matter of privilege rather than principle. Prominent political or business elites and even a notorious criminal having a strong political affiliation with a particular group often obtain indefinite bail, ensuring that they escape punishment or accountability and sometimes even indulge in fresh crimes. In July 1923, an accused, convicted by the High Court, was granted bail in a criminal case by the apex court through an extraordinary plea citing affiliation with a particular political group. Remarkably, the court held two special sittings during the night, and that too on a holiday to secure this bail, and, curiously, the accused has continued to enjoy bail ever since, effectively evading punishment.  Apart from one very influential political family and some of their close associates evading punishment in a sensational criminal case for more than 11 years, they have been enjoying bail. There are many such instances of political nepotism.  In some cases, dreaded terrorists secure bail using influential political groups. This “Bail Ka Khel,” as popularly known, is continuing. But how long?

 Meanwhile, under trials from poor backgrounds—sometimes accused of very minor offences—languish in prisons for years without conviction. Therefore, the ’Bail Ka Khel’ must be stopped forever.

This inequality highlights two systemic flaws:

• Discretion of judges: Bail decisions, lacking consistent criteria, vary drastically from court to court.
• Two Indias rule of justice: A rule for the privileged and another rule for the marginalised, undermining the constitutional principle of equality before law.

Reforming bail policies/practices with clear guidelines and strict timelines is essential if public trust is to be restored.

  Colonial Judicial Structures and Vacations:

Indian judicial procedures are steeped in colonial practices. The architecture of the courtrooms, the wigs and gowns, the phrasing in judgments, and the ceremonial calendars—all reflect a system that was built for the convenience of the British, as would be evident from the fact that the Apex Court operates only 193 days a year, the High Courts 210 days, and the lower courts 245 days where as other Government departments operates 245 days in a year. Therefore, the vacation enjoyed by the  Apex Court may be considered a temporary shutdown, and that too at the cost of the public exchequer.

Judges continue to take long vacations, a privilege once meant for colonial officers travelling back to England. Can a country with a backlog of millions of cases afford such indulgence? Particularly when the costs of the entire system are borne by taxpayers?

Such outdated legacies must urgently give way to working models rooted in India’s realities—not in nostalgia for colonial rituals.

Language as a Barrier:

Legal language in India remains unnecessarily archaic, complicated, and embedded with Latin phrases. The common citizen struggles to comprehend court orders or judgments. This communication gap has three major consequences:

• Citizens cannot understand outcomes and procedures without costly lawyers.
• Misinformation spreads easily due to a lack of comprehension.
• Access to justice shrinks for those with limited education.

Simplification of language, translation into regional languages, and use of plain English in a time-bound manner are crucial for transparent justice delivery.

 Accountability and Transparency:

An institution functioning in public trust must have the highest degree of accountability. Unfortunately, judicial accountability in India is weak. Judges are practically immune and rarely investigated for misconduct.

Possible reforms include:

• Mandatory declaration of assets: Both personal and family assets and the cost of foreign trips, with the expenditure indicating sources, should be disclosed every year, as is required of any Government servant.
• Performance metrics: Timelines for disposal of cases with accountability should be measured and publicly reported.
• Independent complaints mechanism: Citizens should be able to report judicial misconduct without fear of reprisal.
• Corruption: Cases against the judges should be dealt with utmost priority.

Without accountability, judicial independence risks degenerating into judicial impunity.

 Digitalisation for Efficiency:

Modern technology offers immense possibilities to reduce judicial delays:

• E-courts: Online filings, hearings, and access to case status.
• AI-enabled tools: For scheduling, record categorisation, and quick delivery of routine orders.
• Video-conferencing: Reducing physical appearance requirements for witnesses and litigants.
• Data transparency: Open portals for verdicts, timeliness, and appeals.

Several pilot projects have shown success, but scaling them nationwide requires political will, resource allocation, and training.

  Cultural Change in Courtrooms:

Beyond laws and technology, the culture of courtroom behaviour must change. Endless adjournments, theatrics of lawyers, and lack of punctuality have long been the norm. A healthy judicial culture would mean:

• Time-bound hearings with limited adjournments.
• Respect for litigants’ time and dignity.
• Simplified courtrooms that prioritise resolution over pomp.

Training and disciplinary systems for lawyers and judges alike are necessary to nurture such a culture.

 Other Key Issues

• Judicial infrastructure: Many district courts lack basic facilities, from electricity to staff training.
• Specialisation: Courts require subject matter experts, particularly in fields like cybercrime, financial fraud, and environmental law.
• Legal education: Reforming law schools to inculcate public service instead of only a corporate lawyering orientation.
• Citizen-centric reforms: Holding mobile courts or legal camps in rural areas for outreach.

Conclusion:

If India is serious about becoming Vikshit Bharat, the judiciary must transform from being a bottleneck of development to being its anchor. This requires:

• Ending the opaque collegium system.
• Simplifying laws and processes.
• Digitising for speed and efficiency.
• Holding judges accountable through asset declaration and performance scrutiny.
• Removing Macaulay’s hangovers that no longer serve the nation.
• "Criminal offences involving politicians should be taken up and resolved within a fixed timeframe: not more than two years at the trial stage, and, in case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within six months with a definite aim to bring the culprits to book within the stipulated period."

 A judiciary that is transparent, efficient, citizen-friendly, and rooted in India’s contemporary realities will not merely resolve disputes but also build trust, ensure fairness, and provide the stability necessary for India’s rise as a developed nation. Our Madam President also echoed the same sentiment when she advocates that a transparent judicial system is key. It doesn't just serve justice—it makes sure justice is visibly seen to be served, inspiring crucial public confidence. The judiciary safeguards democracy and citizen rights by focusing on integrity and openness.

 

The question before us is not whether the judiciary should be reformed. The real question is how urgently we can act before justice loses all its sanctity. For without justice, there can be no development, and without reform, there can be no justice and no claim to be civilised.

Disclaimer:  This article is written in my personal capacity, as a septuagenarian blogger without a legal background. It is based on information, discussions, and perspectives drawn from published print media. The views expressed here are intended only as reflections on the urgent need for judicial reforms in pursuit of a Vikshit Bharat. No part of this article should be construed as a legal opinion or Professional advice.

 I acknowledge the possibility of inadvertent factual or interpretational errors.
In such an event, I request the reader’s understanding and forgiveness for any unintended mistakes

. My sole purpose remains not to hurt any institution/individual but to highlight, as an informed citizen, an issue of public importance and speedy redress thereof.