Introduction

India's judiciary is constitutionally mandated as the guardian of fundamental rights and the arbiter of the Constitution. Yet the judicial system is beset by a structural crisis: over 5.58 crore cases were pending across all courts as of March 2026, of which more than 85% (≈4.9 crore) sit in district and subordinate courts. The question of judicial reforms is therefore among the most consequential governance challenges facing India. GS Paper II demands a nuanced understanding of case pendency, the collegium controversy, fast-track mechanisms, and access-to-justice initiatives.

The Pendency Crisis: Scale and Structure

Latest Data (NJDG, as of March 2026)

Court LevelPending CasesNotes
Supreme Court93,143 (March 2026)Record high — first time the SC crossed the 93,000-case mark in three decades; +12,000 added in the year to March 2026 alone
25 High Courts~63.66 lakhVacancies of ~30% against sanctioned strength of 1,114 judges
District & Subordinate Courts~4.9 croreOver 85% of total national pendency sits here
Total (all courts)~5.58 croreOver 1.8 lakh cases pending more than 30 years (district and High Courts combined)

State-wise burden (District Courts): Uttar Pradesh leads with over 1.13 crore cases, followed by Maharashtra (~59 lakh) and West Bengal (~38 lakh).

Root Causes of Pendency

Supply-side deficits:

  • Judge-to-population ratio: India has approximately 21 judges per 10 lakh population against the Law Commission's recommended 50 per 10 lakh (Law Commission 245th Report, 2014)
  • High Court vacancy: as of early 2026, over 330 vacancies persist out of sanctioned strength of 1,114 judges (≈30%); some HCs (e.g., Allahabad, Patna) function at almost half their sanctioned strength
  • Supreme Court strength: previously 34 (CJI + 33), raised to 38 (CJI + 37) by Ordinance dated 16 May 2026 — the first SC strength expansion since 2019; intended to ease constitution-bench backlog
  • Infrastructure deficits: shortage of courtrooms, support staff, and technology

Demand-side pressures:

  • Government is the single largest litigant (over 46% of all cases involve the State)
  • Frequent adjournments: the culture of routine adjournments inflates docket
  • Inadequate use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms
  • Over-criminalisation of minor offences clogging lower courts

Process deficiencies:

  • Absence of case-flow management in most courts
  • Slow adoption of technology
  • Frivolous appeals by governments against favourable lower court orders

Judicial Appointments: The Collegium System

Evolution Through the Three Judges Cases

The collegium system emerged through three landmark Supreme Court judgments, fundamentally shifting the constitutional balance in judicial appointments.

CaseYearCourtRuling
First Judges Case — S.P. Gupta v. Union of India19817-judge benchConsultation with CJI does NOT mean concurrence; President has final say
Second Judges Case — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India19939-judge benchOverruled 1981; collegium of CJI + 2 senior judges; recommendation is binding
Third Judges Case — In re Special Reference No. 1 of 199819989-judge benchCollegium expanded to CJI + 4 senior-most judges for SC appointments; CJI + 2 for High Court appointments

The net outcome: judicial primacy in appointments was established as part of the Basic Structure doctrine.

How the Collegium Works

  • Supreme Court appointments: CJI + 4 senior-most judges recommend to President
  • High Court appointments: CJI + 2 senior-most judges; consultation with HC collegium
  • Transfers of HC judges: Both colleg­ia (SC and relevant HC) must recommend
  • Government can return a recommendation once for reconsideration; if the collegium reiterates, the Government is to accept it. That is not merely the collegium's view of the matter: the Government's own Memorandum of Procedure says so
The collegium: a system the Constitution never mentionsArticles 124(2) and 217(1) as printed still carry the words inserted by the 99th Amendment, appointing judges on the recommendation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission, and the Constitution's own footnotes record that the amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court on 16 October 2015, so the words actually in force are the pre-2014 words revived by that judgment. The collegium itself comes from three judgments: S.P. Gupta in 1981, which held consultation did not mean concurrence; the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association case of 1993, which overruled it; and In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, which required the Chief Justice to act through a collegium of himself and the four senior-most judges for Supreme Court appointments. The National Judicial Appointments Commission under Article 124A would have consisted of the Chief Justice as Chairperson, two other senior judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons nominated by a committee of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and the Leader of Opposition. A High Court appointment runs from the High Court collegium of the Chief Justice and two senior-most judges, through the Chief Minister and Governor to the Union Law Minister, then to the Supreme Court collegium, and finally to the Prime Minister and the President; if the collegium reiterates a recommendation the Memorandum of Procedure says the Government is to accept it.The word "collegium" appears nowhere in the Constitution of India.What follows is partly constitutional text, partly three judgments, and partly a procedure the Government publishes for itself.ARTICLES 124(2) AND 217(1)The strangest sentence in the printed ConstitutionOpen the Constitution as published today and Article 124(2) still reads that a Judge is appointed "on the recommendation of the NationalJudicial Appointments Commission referred to in article 124A". The footnote beneath it records that the 99th Amendment which put thosewords there "has been struck down by the Supreme Court ... in its judgment dated 16-10-2015, AIR 2016 SC 117".So the words actually in force are the PRE-2014 words, revived by a judgment rather than restored by Parliament.WHERE THE COLLEGIUM CAME FROM — three judgments, no statute, no amendmentFIRST JUDGES CASE, 1981 — S.P. Gupta v. Union of India"Consultation" with the Chief Justice of India was held not to mean concurrence. Primacy lay with the executive.SECOND JUDGES CASE, 1993 — Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of IndiaOverruled the first. Consultation means concurrence, and primacy passes to the Chief Justice of India acting collectively.THIRD JUDGES CASE, 1998 — In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998The Chief Justice must act through a collegium. For Supreme Court appointments it is the CJI and the FOUR senior-most judges.THE ONE ATTEMPT TO REPLACE IT — Article 124A, inserted by the 99th Amendment, 2014The National Judicial Appointments Commission was to consist of: (a) the Chief Justice of India, Chairperson ex officio; (b) two other seniorJudges of the Supreme Court next to the Chief Justice, ex officio; (c) the Union Minister in charge of Law and Justice, ex officio; and (d) twoeminent persons nominated by a committee of the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People.One eminent person had to be from the SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities or Women, for a term of three years, without renomination.Struck down on 16 October 2015. The Constitution's own footnotes to Articles 124, 124A and 217 record the striking down.HOW A HIGH COURT JUDGE IS ACTUALLY APPOINTED — the Government's own Memorandum of ProcedureNone of this is in the Constitution. It is the published procedure of the Department of Justice.1The HIGH COURT COLLEGIUM, the Chief Justice and the two senior-most Judges of that High Court, initiates the proposal.2It goes to the CHIEF MINISTER, with advance copies to the Governor, the Union Law Minister and the Chief Justice of India.3The Chief Minister forwards it with his views to the GOVERNOR, who forwards it to the UNION MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE.If the State's constitutional authorities do not comment within SIX WEEKS, the Governor is presumed to have nothing to add.4The Law Minister sends it, with the Union Government's views and an Intelligence Bureau report, to the CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA.5The SUPREME COURT COLLEGIUM makes independent enquiries, interacts with the candidates, and forwards its recommendation.6The Government may send it back for reconsideration, and on national security or overriding public interest, at any stage.But if the Supreme Court Collegium REITERATES, the Memorandum of Procedure says the Government is to accept it.7The Law Minister puts it to the PRIME MINISTER, who advises the PRESIDENT, who approves. A gazette notification follows.THE CRITERIA THE MEMORANDUM SETS, WHICH ARE RARELY TAUGHTTwo-thirds of High Court posts are for members of the Bar and one-third for judicial officers. A candidate from the Bar should be between 45and 55 years of age on the date of recommendation, should have been an income tax assessee for the preceding ten years, and should havean average net professional income of at least Rs 7 lakh a year over the preceding five years. A judicial officer should be within 58 and a halfyears when the vacancy arises. Merit and integrity are the stated prime criteria, with social diversity expressly taken into account.
The collegium, and the sentence that survives its own repeal. Articles 124(2), 124A and 217(1) with their footnotes, from the Constitution as on 11 November 2025; the appointment sequence and the criteria from the Department of Justice's published Memorandum of Procedure for High Court appointments. The printed Constitution still carries the NJAC wording, because Parliament never restored the original text after the amendment was struck down.

Criticisms of the Collegium System

  • Opacity: Deliberations not recorded; no written reasons given publicly
  • Nepotism allegations: "Judges appointing judges" raises conflict-of-interest concerns
  • Delayed appointments: Vacancies remain unfilled for months/years due to slow processing
  • No diversity: Women, OBCs, and minorities remain under-represented on the bench
  • No accountability: No external check on collegium decisions

NJAC: The 99th Constitutional Amendment and Its Fate

What the NJAC Sought to Do

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was established by the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014, passed by both Houses on August 13–14, 2014, and came into force on April 13, 2015.

Composition of NJAC:

  1. Chief Justice of India (Chairperson)
  2. Two senior-most Supreme Court judges
  3. Union Law Minister
  4. Two eminent persons (one to be nominated from SC/ST/OBC/minority/woman)

The NJAC replaced Articles 124(2) and 217 (appointment provisions) with new Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C.

Supreme Court Strikes Down NJAC (October 16, 2015)

A 5-judge Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India struck down the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act by a 4:1 majority.

Majority view (Justices Khehar, Lokur, Kurian Joseph, Goel):

  • The NJAC violated judicial independence, a Basic Structure element
  • Including the Law Minister gave executive a veto over judicial appointments
  • The "two eminent persons" clause allowed non-judicial influence on appointments
  • Judicial primacy being integral to judicial independence forms part of the Basic Structure

Dissent (Justice Chelameswar):

  • Struck down 99th Amendment but suggested reforming the collegium system
  • Criticised collegium for opacity and lack of accountability

Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) — Unresolved Standoff

After the NJAC verdict, the Supreme Court directed the government and judiciary to finalise a revised Memorandum of Procedure governing the collegium process. As of 2026, the MoP remains unfinalized, with the executive and judiciary disagreeing on:

  • Eligibility criteria for appointees
  • National security as a ground for rejecting collegium recommendations
  • Transparency and record-keeping requirements

E-Courts Mission Mode Project

India's e-Courts project is a pan-India mission under the National e-Governance Plan, implemented by the Department of Justice and the e-Committee of the Supreme Court.

PhasePeriodKey Achievements
Phase I2007–2015Computerisation of 14,249 district courts; case information system
Phase II2015–2023Video conferencing in 3,240 court complexes; e-Filing; virtual hearings; National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)
Phase III2023–2027 (ongoing)AI-assisted case management; paperless courts; digital case records; hybrid hearing infrastructure

National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG): A flagship e-Courts deliverable — accessible at njdg.ecourts.gov.in — provides real-time, court-wise pendency data updated daily by individual courts. NJDG won the World Justice Project's Access to Justice Award and has made India's pendency data the world's most transparent at the court-by-court level. Aspirants should note NJDG as Prelims-friendly content (real-time data on pendency, disposal, age of cases).

Virtual Courts: Fully automated courts for traffic-challan cases — no physical appearance required; e-payment via the eCourts portal. Operational in 26 States/UTs as of 2025; over 3.6 crore traffic challan cases disposed through virtual courts since launch.

SC Mediation push (April 2026): Then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna's initiative, continued by CJI Surya Kant, launched "Samadhan Samaroh" (21 April 2026) — a nation-wide mediation drive co-ordinated through NALSA + Mediation Council of India + High Court Mediation Centres, targeting low-stakes commercial and matrimonial disputes for pre-litigation mediation.

Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs)

The Central Government launched the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) in October 2019, funded from the Nirbhaya Fund.

Current Status (as of January–December 2025, per Department of Justice dashboard)

  • 745 FTSCs functional across 30 States/UTs as of 31 January 2025 (of 790 targeted)
  • Of these, 404 are exclusive POCSO Courts (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act)
  • By June 2025, 725 FTSCs operational in 29 States/UTs (392 POCSO-exclusive) — a slight reduction reflecting decommissioning of some courts where states faced infrastructure or staffing constraints
  • By December 2025 (DoJ Year-End Review 2025): 774 FTSCs including 398 exclusive POCSO courts across 29 States/UTs — the most authoritative full-year figure
  • Over 3.6 lakh cases disposed since inception; disposal rate ≈ 96.28%; throughput of 7.41 cases/month/court — more than double the rate of regular courts (3.18 cases/month/court)

Scheme extension: The Scheme ran from October 2019 to 31 March 2026 (last extension: April 2023–March 2026), with a total outlay of ₹1,952.23 crore (Central Share: ₹1,207.24 crore from the Nirbhaya Fund). As of May 2026, a further extension is under Cabinet consideration; no fresh PIB notification confirming renewal post-March 2026 has been issued.

Gap vs target: ~25% of sanctioned FTSCs remain non-operational — due to infrastructure deficits, judge/staff vacancies, and uneven state capacity. India needs at least 1,000 more FTSCs to clear the backlog within a year (PIB estimate, 2025).

Specialisation: FTSCs handle rape and POCSO cases — under BNS Sections 63–73 (replacing IPC Sections 376, 376A–E, effective 1 July 2024) and POCSO Act 2012. Cases filed before 1 July 2024 continue under old IPC/CrPC; cases filed on or after 1 July 2024 proceed under BNS/BNSS. For exam purposes, cite "BNS Section 63 (formerly IPC 376)" for rape provisions.

Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008

The Gram Nyayalayas Act was enacted in 2008 and came into force on October 2, 2009 to provide inexpensive justice at the grassroots.

Key Features

  • Gram Nyayalaya = a court at the Panchayat level headed by a Nyayadhyaksha (a First Class Judicial Magistrate)
  • Functions as a mobile court: can hold sittings at any place within its jurisdiction
  • Applies a summary procedure; plea bargaining is permitted
  • Jurisdiction: civil and criminal matters of minor nature listed in First and Second Schedules
  • All disputes to be decided within 6 months of filing

Implementation Status (as of early 2026)

  • Only ~313 Gram Nyayalayas functional across India (out of 481 notified by States), against an envisaged ~6,500 at Intermediate Panchayat level — less than 5% of the intended footprint, 17 years after the Act
  • Government CSS for Gram Nyayalayas had a ₹50 crore outlay and expired on 31 March 2026; re-extension awaits a Union Cabinet decision (no PIB notification as of May 2026)
  • A Parliamentary Standing Committee report has called Gram Nyayalayas "almost defunct" due to State apathy

Key challenges: lack of infrastructure, shortage of judicial officers willing to work in rural areas, reluctance of States to fund the initiative (the Act makes State Governments the primary funders after the CSS sunset), and competition from regular Magistrate courts at taluka level.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Alternative dispute resolution in India: five mechanisms and what separates themFive mechanisms are compared. Arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 produces an arbitral award that binds the parties and is enforceable as a decree, with the third party deciding. Conciliation under the same Act produces a settlement agreement that has the same status as an arbitral award, with the third party proposing terms. Mediation under the Mediation Act, 2023, Act 32 of 2023, which commenced on 9 October 2023, produces a mediated settlement agreement that is enforceable, with the mediator facilitating but never deciding, and pre-litigation mediation under Section 5 is voluntary and requires mutual consent. Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 produces an award deemed a decree of a civil court against which no appeal lies, the remedy being a fresh suit or a writ petition. Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lets a court refer a pending case to arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement including Lok Adalat, or mediation. Article 39A, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, directs the State to secure equal justice and free legal aid.Five mechanisms, routinely confused. The questions that separate them are: who decides, and can you appeal?ARTICLE 39AThe constitutional hook, inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976A Directive Principle: the State is to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity, and toprovide free legal aid so that justice is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. It is not enforceable in a court.ARBITRATIONArbitration and ConciliationAct, 1996WHO DECIDESThe arbitrator decides.This is the only one of the fivein which a third party does.WHAT COMES OUTAn ARBITRAL AWARD, binding andenforceable as a decree.CONCILIATIONArbitration and ConciliationAct, 1996, Part IIIWHO DECIDESNobody. The conciliatorPROPOSES terms.WHAT COMES OUTA settlement agreement, giventhe same status and effect asan arbitral award.MEDIATIONMediation Act, 2023Act 32 of 2023, in force 9 Oct 2023WHO DECIDESNobody. The mediator onlyFACILITATES, and does noteven propose terms.WHAT COMES OUTA mediated settlementagreement, enforceable.LOK ADALATLegal Services Authorities Act, 1987WHAT COMES OUT, AND THE TRAPAn AWARD, deemed to be a decree of a civilcourt and final and binding on the parties.NO APPEAL lies against it.A party who is dissatisfied must begin againby way of a fresh suit, or move a writ petition.SECTION 89, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908The bridge from a pending case into all of the aboveWhere the court sees elements of a settlement that theparties may accept, it may formulate the terms and referthe matter out to one of FOUR routes:1. arbitration 2. conciliation3. judicial settlement, including through a Lok Adalat4. mediationThis is what makes ADR court-annexed rather than private.THE THREE DISTINCTIONS THAT ANSWER MOST QUESTIONS1. WHO DECIDES. Only in arbitration does the third party decide. A conciliator proposes terms; a mediator does not even do that. That singleline separates arbitration from everything else on this page.2. CONCILIATION AGAINST MEDIATION. The conciliator may suggest solutions and formulate terms of settlement. The mediator facilitates theparties' own agreement. Both produce a settlement, but by different degrees of intervention.3. APPEAL. A Lok Adalat award is deemed a decree and NO APPEAL lies against it. An arbitral award is not appealed either, but it may be SETASIDE on the narrow grounds the statute allows. "No appeal" and "may be set aside" are not the same thing.WHAT THE MEDIATION ACT, 2023, DID AND DID NOT DOBefore it, mediation lived scattered across Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Legal Services Authorities Act, with no singlegoverning statute. The Act supplies one, and covers pre-litigation, online and community mediation.Pre-litigation mediation under Section 5 is VOLUNTARY, taken "with mutual consent".It is widely and wrongly described as compulsory. A mediated settlement agreement is to be registered with an Authority under the LegalServices Authorities Act, 1987, within 180 days.And the Act does NOT apply to proceedings before a Lok Adalat or a Permanent Lok Adalat, which stay under the 1987 Act.
Who decides, and can you appeal. Article 39A from the Constitution as on 11 November 2025; the Mediation Act, 2023 (Act 32 of 2023) read at Indian Kanoon; and the four routes of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The distinction that carries the most marks is the smallest one: an arbitrator decides, a conciliator proposes, a mediator only facilitates.

Lok Adalats

  • Statutory basis: Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (enforced November 9, 1995)
  • Organised by NALSA, State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs), and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs)
  • Award of Lok Adalat is deemed a decree of a civil court — final and binding; no appeal lies
  • No court fee payable; fee paid is refunded if case settled
  • Permanent Lok Adalats (Section 22B): for public utility services — transport, telecom, power, hospitals, insurance

Mediation Act, 2023

India's first standalone legislation on mediation. It is Act 32 of 2023, published in the Gazette of India on 15 September 2023 and commenced on 9 October 2023, and it supplies a single framework in place of the scattered regime under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. (Sources differ on the date of assent, so the gazette and commencement dates are given here instead, both of which the record establishes.)

FeatureDetail
Pre-litigation mediationVoluntary attempt encouraged before filing civil/commercial suits (the original "mandatory" pre-litigation clause was diluted before enactment)
Mediator accreditationMediation Council of India notified by the Centre in 2025; full constitution and operational rollout still pending as of May 2026
Mediated settlementEnforceable as a court decree
Online mediationExplicitly recognised
Community mediationFor disputes likely to affect peace and harmony

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

  • Governs domestic and international commercial arbitration
  • 2015 Amendment: Time limits for arbitration (12 months for domestic awards, extendable by 6 months)
  • 2019 Amendment: Arbitration Council of India (ACI) for accreditation; automatic stay of arbitral awards in cases of fraud or corruption removed

Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Established Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions in High Courts for disputes involving commercial transactions of specified value (initially ₹1 crore, reduced to ₹3 lakh in 2018), ensuring expeditious resolution.

Article 39A and Free Legal Aid

Article 39A (inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976) is a Directive Principle that mandates the State to ensure the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity, and provide free legal aid to citizens who cannot afford legal representation.

NALSA — National Legal Services Authority

  • Constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
  • Patron-in-Chief: Chief Justice of India
  • Executive Chairman: Senior-most puisne judge of Supreme Court

Who is entitled to free legal aid (Section 12, LSAA 1987):

  • Women and children
  • SC/ST members
  • Victims of mass disaster, ethnic violence, flood, drought, earthquake, industrial disaster
  • Industrial workmen
  • Persons in custody
  • Persons whose annual income does not exceed ₹1 lakh (extendable by States)
  • Persons with disabilities

All India Judicial Services (AIJS)

Proposed AIJS would create a centralised cadre for district judges recruited through an all-India examination (similar to IAS/IPS).

Arguments FORArguments AGAINST
Ensures meritocracy in lower judiciaryStates argue it encroaches on their judicial administration
Reduces regional disparities in qualityDifferent legal systems (CPC, local laws) vary by State
Uniform training standardsLanguage barrier — judges must know local language
Insulates judges from local political pressureBar associations fear loss of State-level recruitment influence

The Law Commission (14th Report, 1958) first recommended AIJS; the idea has been periodically revived but not implemented.

Key Law Commission Reports on Judicial Reforms

Commission/ReportYearKey Recommendation
120th Law Commission Report1987Increasing judge strength, reducing adjournments
230th Law Commission Report2009Reforms in subordinate judiciary
245th Law Commission Report2014Arrears and backlog — compulsory mediation
271st Law Commission Report2017Human trafficking — need for fast-track courts
Malimath Committee Report2003Criminal justice system reforms — inquisitorial elements

Key Provisions at a Glance

Constitutional/Legal ProvisionSubject
Article 124Appointment of SC judges
Article 217Appointment of HC judges
Article 39AFree legal aid (DPSP)
Article 235Control over subordinate courts by HC
Article 143Presidential Reference to SC (advisory)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Punishing contempt
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987NALSA, Lok Adalats
Mediation Act, 2023Standalone mediation framework

Cross-paper relevance

  • GS2 — Polity (primary) — Judicial pendency (~5.58 crore cases total, March 2026; 4.76 crore in district courts as of Dec 2025), NJAC judgment, collegium, e-courts, fast-track courts; access to justice as constitutional right (Article 39A)
  • GS2 — Governance — Justice delivery as public service; governance failure in courts; Law Commission recommendations; digitisation of judiciary (Phase III e-courts)
  • GS1 — Society — Access to justice for marginalised communities; legal aid for SC/ST/women; Gram Nyayalayas and rural justice
  • Essay — "Justice delayed is justice denied: India's pendency crisis and the path forward"

Recent Developments (2024–2026)

SC Pendency Crosses 93,000 — A 30-year High (March 2026)

(SC pendency 93,143 cases, HC pendency ~63.66 lakh cases, total ~5.58 crore, and +12,000 SC cases added in the year to March 2026 are in the "Pendency Crisis: Scale and Structure" table above. This section analyses what the CJI succession pattern reveals about institutional responses to the docket pressure.)

Cases pending for more than 30 years in district and High Courts number over 1.8 lakh — the figure that most starkly illustrates the system's failure to deliver timely justice. What the raw pendency numbers conceal is the divergence in response strategies across CJI tenures. CJI Sanjiv Khanna (24 November 2024 – 13 May 2025) prioritised listing reforms that cleared miscellaneous admissions faster — reducing the accumulation rate without tackling the backlog stock. CJI B.R. Gavai (14 May 2025 – 23 November 2025) shifted focus to constitution-bench matters — long-pending nine-judge and five-judge references that had been deferred for years, signalling that landmark precedent-setting matters had been crowded out by the daily docket. CJI Surya Kant (24 November 2025 – 9 February 2027) combined both strategies: the Sabarimala 9-judge reference (verdict reserved 14 May 2026 after 16-day hearing) addresses a constitutionally significant reference, while the May 2026 Ordinance raising SC sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 directly addresses supply. These sequential approaches reveal that there is no single administrative lever — pendency requires simultaneous action on admissions, roster management, judicial strength, and case lifecycle rules.

UPSC angle: Prelims — total pendency ~5.58 crore (March 2026); SC pendency 93,143 (March 2026); SC sanctioned strength 38 (CJI + 37) post Ordinance of 16 May 2026; CJI Surya Kant 53rd CJI from 24 Nov 2025. Mains [2014 — Judicial activism & basic structure] — identify structural causes of pendency (HC vacancies ≈30%, adjournment culture, government as largest litigant); evaluate the new criminal-law trial timelines and e-Courts Phase III as remedial measures.

New Criminal Laws — Judicial Impact and Timelines (July 2024)

The BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), and BSA (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) came into force on 1 July 2024. The BNSS introduced trial completion timelines (magistrate trials within 60 days of charge framing; sessions trials within 60 days), mandatory bail provisions for long-incarcerated undertrial prisoners, and a requirement for forensic science laboratory visits to all crime scenes involving offences punishable with 7+ years imprisonment.

These reforms directly address the long-standing pendency and undertrial crisis (Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar, 1979), but critics flag implementation challenges: inadequate FSL infrastructure in many states, insufficient judges to meet the timelines, and training gaps.

UPSC angle: Prelims — BNSS trial timelines; mandatory FSL visits; bail provisions for undertrials; 1 July 2024. Mains — critically assess whether the new criminal law timelines will effectively reduce pendency or create new bottlenecks due to inadequate judicial infrastructure.

e-Courts Mission Phase III — ₹7,200 Crore Digital Push (2023–2027)

The government approved Phase III of the e-Courts Mission Mode Project with a total outlay of ₹7,210 crore for 2023–2027. Phase III aims to establish a Digital Ecosystem for the Judiciary (DEJA), including cloud infrastructure, interoperability between courts, case information upload within 24 hours, and AI-assisted legal research for judges. As of 2025, over 18,700 district and subordinate courts were computerised under Phase II.

UPSC angle: Prelims — e-Courts Phase III; ₹7,210 crore; 2023–27; DEJA. Mains — evaluate the transformative potential of e-Courts Phase III for access to justice; what barriers remain for rural and marginalised communities?

Fast-Track Special Courts — Latest Operational Numbers (December 2025)

As per the Department of Justice Year-End Review 2025, 774 FTSCs — including 398 exclusive POCSO courts — are functional in 29 States/UTs — against a target of 790 courts. The FTSCs are funded through the Nirbhaya Fund (Union Government) on a CSS pattern. These courts have disposed of over 3.6 lakh cases since inception in October 2019 with a disposal rate of ≈ 96.28% and a throughput of 7.41 cases/month/court — the strongest disposal performance of any centrally-sponsored judicial scheme. The scheme was last extended up to 31 March 2026, with a further continuation under Cabinet consideration as of May 2026.

Prong-2 note (data reconciliation): The static section above uses the mid-2025 figure of 725 FTSCs (June 2025) while the Year-End Review 2025 gives 774 FTSCs. Both figures are correct for their reference dates — the December 2025 figure of 774 is the most current and should be cited in Mains answers.

UPSC angle: Prelims — 774 FTSCs & 398 POCSO-exclusive courts (Year-End Review 2025, DoJ); Nirbhaya Fund; CSS pattern; 96.28% disposal rate; scheme extended to 31 March 2026. Mains — assess the FTSC model as a targeted reform; should it be expanded to all serious offences (e.g., undertrial backlog, electoral offences) or is it better reserved for sexual offences against women and children?

Exam Strategy

For Prelims:

  • Memorise exact case names and years: SP Gupta (1981), SCARA (1993), Presidential Reference (1998), NJAC judgment (2015)
  • 99th Amendment struck down by 4:1 majority
  • Fast-track courts: 774 FTSCs, 398 POCSO courts (Year-End Review 2025, DoJ); earlier data points — 745 (Jan 2025), 725 (Jun 2025) — may appear in Prelims MCQs; Nirbhaya Fund
  • Gram Nyayalayas Act: 2008, operative 2009, ~313 functional (early 2026)
  • Article 39A inserted by 42nd Amendment 1976
  • Mediation Act 2023 is India's first standalone mediation law

For Mains:

  • Structure answers around: diagnosis (pendency data) → causes → reforms attempted → critique → way forward
  • NJAC: cover constitutional basis, composition, SC's reasoning for striking down (Basic Structure), unresolved MoP dispute
  • Collegium: evolution through Three Judges Cases, criticisms (opacity, nepotism, vacancies), reform suggestions
  • ADR: differentiate Lok Adalats, mediation, arbitration — legal basis and binding nature of awards
  • Article 39A + NALSA: constitutional foundation + implementation + gap between right and reality

Confusion Pairs — Frequent UPSC Traps

PairThe Distinction
Collegium vs NJACCollegium = judiciary-only; CJI + senior-most judges; in force since 1993 Second Judges Case. NJAC = 99th Amendment 2014 model (CJI + 2 SC judges + Law Minister + 2 eminent persons) — struck down 16 Oct 2015, 4:1, for breaching judicial independence (Basic Structure).
Lok Adalat (Section 19, LSAA 1987) vs Permanent Lok Adalat (Section 22B, LSAA 1987)Regular Lok Adalats hear ANY civil / compoundable-criminal matter when parties consent. Permanent Lok Adalats hear ONLY public-utility services (transport, power, telecom, hospitals, insurance) and can adjudicate even WITHOUT consent if conciliation fails.
Mediation Act, 2023 vs Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996Mediation = facilitated negotiation; mediator has no decision-making power; settlement enforceable as decree. Arbitration = adjudicatory; arbitrator delivers binding award; limited grounds for setting aside (s. 34, A&C Act).
Fast Track Courts (mid-1990s, lapsed) vs Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) (October 2019, ongoing)Old FTC scheme covered all serious offences; CSS-funded; lapsed in 2011. FTSC scheme is POCSO/rape-only, Nirbhaya-funded; 774 operational (Year-End Review 2025, DoJ).
Gram Nyayalaya (Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008) vs Nyaya Panchayat (older village-court idea)Gram Nyayalaya = statutory court of First-Class Judicial Magistrate at Panchayat level, mobile, 6-month deadline. Nyaya Panchayat = older non-statutory village-elder dispute body, never institutionalised pan-India.
Article 39A (Free legal aid, DPSP) vs Article 22(1) (Right to consult counsel of choice, FR)39A is a directive mandating state-funded legal aid; 22(1) is the fundamental right of an arrested person to be represented. Hussainara Khatoon (1979) made 39A enforceable through Article 21.
NALSA vs SLSA / DLSA (Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)NALSA = national apex; CJI is Patron-in-Chief, senior-most puisne judge is Executive Chairman. SLSA = state-level (Chief Justice of HC); DLSA = district-level. All under one statute.
24th Amendment 1971 (overrode Golaknath) vs 42nd Amendment 1976 (inserted Article 39A)Both are Emergency-era amendments but with different targets — 24th expanded Parliament's amending power; 42nd inserted DPSPs including the legal-aid mandate.

Cross-Paper Relevance — How Judicial Reforms Travel

PaperWhy this chapter matters
GS-II (core)Pendency, collegium, NJAC, ADR, NALSA — the central terrain of this chapter.
GS-III (Internal security, economy)Speedy criminal trials under BNSS 2023 are an internal-security mechanism for sexual offences, terror cases, organised crime (BNS Chapter VI). Commercial Courts Act 2015 + Arbitration Act 1996 amendments matter for Ease of Doing Business and FDI confidence.
GS-IV (Ethics & integrity)Collegium opacity raises ethical questions about institutional self-regulation. Bhanwari Devi (Vishakha) and the dignity of the woman complainant. Justice K.M. Joseph / Indu Malhotra transfer-and-elevation controversies highlight conscience vs convention in judicial conduct.
Essay"Justice delayed is justice denied" (Gladstone, reiterated by SC repeatedly); "An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of constitutional democracy".

UPSC Previous Year Questions — Direct Coverage

Mains PYQs from BharatNotes' verified PYQ bank that test this chapter end-to-end (click any to open the full model answer in the Mains PYQ engine):

Likely-trend lines for 2026–2027 Mains

Not asked yet, but the May 2026 developments make these high-probability:

  • The Ordinance of 16 May 2026 raising SC strength from 34 to 38 — is expanding the Bench the right remedy for pendency, or does it dilute Chief-Justice-led case management?
  • The Mediation Act, 2023 — three years on, has it delivered measurable pre-litigation diversion? Critically examine the still-incomplete Mediation Council of India.
  • The e-Courts Phase III DEJA architecture — opportunities and risks of an AI-assisted judiciary; data-protection and Article 21 dimensions.
  • The BNSS trial timelines (60 days post-charge for magistrate trials; 60 days for sessions trials) — will they accelerate disposal, or simply create fresh ground for appeal-by-default?