Government fuels Case Backlog even as it Questions Delays: Justice Nagarathna

Today, Supreme Court judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna brought into sharp focus the structural causes of mounting judicial pendency, observing that the government itself remains one of the primary contributors to the backlog. Addressing a national conference on judicial governance, she highlighted a striking contradiction, while the State routinely expresses concern over delays in courts, its own litigation practices, particularly the filing of routine and prolonged appeals, continue to significantly strain the justice delivery system.

The issue emerged during discussions on judicial governance, where Justice Nagarathna examined the systemic causes of mounting arrears. She noted that government departments frequently pursue appeals as a matter of caution rather than necessity, often to avoid audit objections or administrative scrutiny. This approach, she explained, leads to prolonged litigation across multiple levels of courts, especially in service and taxation matters. At the same time, she identified broader institutional gaps, including inadequate investment in judicial infrastructure such as courtrooms, staffing, and technology, which further constrain the system’s capacity to handle rising caseloads. The problem, she indicated, is compounded by procedural delays, including defective filings, adjournments, and prolonged service of notices.

Justice Nagarathna observed, “The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation… the State becomes both the complainant and the cause.” She stressed that the government is expected to act as a model litigant but often continues litigation unnecessarily. The judge also questioned existing methods of calculating pendency, pointing out that even defective cases are counted in statistics before reaching judicial scrutiny.

Emphasising that systemic delay cannot be attributed to courts alone, she noted that it is equally shaped by governmental choices and institutional practices, and called for structural reforms including better case management, reduced adjournments, and improved infrastructure investment.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.