“From Governors to Judges-The Bench Can’t Preach Timeliness While Sitting on 10 Million Cases & Cash Scandals!”

In a judicial landscape where efficiency is increasingly equated with justice, the Supreme Court of India stands at a defining juncture. Recent discussions around instituting fixed timelines for the assent of bills by governors and the President have reignited an important debate: if the highest court in the land can impose deadlines on other constitutional authorities, should it not also set performance benchmarks for itself? This question gains urgency in the context of growing public awareness and critique, amplified by social media, about judicial delays and systemic inefficiencies. As public scrutiny intensifies, it is imperative that the judiciary embraces reform with transparency, accountability, and a renewed commitment to timely justice.

A recent incident involving a High Court judge in Delhi, where unaccounted currency was reportedly found in his official residence, has further shaken public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. The optics of this revelation are troubling, particularly when juxtaposed with the massive backlog of more than one crore (10 million) pending cases across Indian courts. This crisis of credibility cannot be addressed by rhetoric alone—it demands a structured and accountable roadmap to strengthen the foundations of justice delivery in the country.

The *India Justice Report* offers a sobering analysis of the four fundamental pillars of India’s justice system: police, judiciary, legal aid, and prisons. It exposes sharp disparities between states, especially between the more efficient southern states and their northern counterparts. Southern states demonstrate better performance in areas such as judge-to-population ratios, case disposal rates, infrastructure investment, and access to legal aid. This variance calls attention to the urgent need for systemic reform across states and at the national level.

Despite the escalating crisis, the Supreme Court has yet to implement a clear, enforceable framework for reducing pendency and streamlining judicial processes. Key issues highlighted by the report include a persistent shortage of judges, inadequate financial allocation to the judicial branch, and the lack of meaningful representation of women and marginalized communities in the judiciary. These challenges demand action. Just as the judiciary expects efficiency and discipline from the executive and legislative branches, it must subject itself to similar standards.

The effectiveness of legal aid, which is supposed to ensure that justice is not denied to the underprivileged, remains alarmingly inconsistent. Southern states have fared better in developing structured legal services authorities and ensuring their accessibility, while many northern states continue to falter in both outreach and effectiveness. This regional imbalance widens the gap between the privileged and marginalized, undermining the constitutional guarantee of equal access to justice.

Another critical indicator of performance is vacancy rates across judicial posts. States with lower judicial vacancies and higher budget utilization typically exhibit better outcomes in terms of pendency and disposal rates. Southern states’ relative success, however, is not merely a result of superior administrative systems. It is also tied to socio-cultural factors such as higher literacy rates, stronger civic engagement, and public demand for accountability. Replicating this success in other parts of the country requires strategic investments in human resources, infrastructure, and capacity-building.

Public perception of judicial inefficiency is fast becoming a credibility crisis. As citizens increasingly turn to digital platforms to express frustration over judicial delays, the judiciary risks alienating the very people it is meant to serve. The Supreme Court must acknowledge this shift in public sentiment and take proactive measures to lead institutional reform. Introducing internal timelines for case resolution, digitizing processes, and publicly sharing performance metrics could go a long way in rebuilding trust.

Equally vital is the issue of representation. The underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and women within the judiciary mirrors broader societal inequities and fuels public skepticism. A judiciary that reflects the diversity of the population it serves is not only more just but also more relatable and credible. Increasing diversity is not just a symbolic gesture—it is a necessary condition for substantive justice.

The need for reform is clear. India requires a judiciary that is equipped to handle its caseload with diligence, fairness, and speed. The Supreme Court must lead this transformation from the front—by setting ambitious but achievable standards for case disposal, supporting judicial training and digitization, and urging structural reforms across all levels of the justice system. It must also champion greater financial autonomy and ensure that the judiciary receives adequate funding to meet its growing demands.

Ultimately, the call for reform is not about placing the judiciary under siege. It is about strengthening the institution to meet the evolving needs of Indian democracy. The credibility of the judiciary rests not just on its constitutional authority, but also on its moral leadership and commitment to equity and efficiency. By embracing transparency, fixing timelines, and promoting diversity, the Supreme Court can reaffirm its status as the sentinel of justice and a cornerstone of Indian democracy. Through such a proactive approach, it will pave the way for a future where justice is not just promised—but promptly and fairly delivered to all.

Visit arjasrikanth.in for more insights