Listen to this article:

New Delhi: Justice B. V. Nagarathna on Saturday (March 21) flagged the government’s role in judicial backlog and case pendency while addressing a Supreme Court Bar Association conference in Bengaluru.

She said that the state occupies a contradictory position, as it expresses concern about backlogs but is also a key litigant and a driver of rising pendency. “The pattern produces a paradox. 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,” Justice Nagarathna said.

She noted that governments at the Union and state levels account for the largest share of litigation. While expected to act with restraint, the government often continues cases through all stages of the judicial process, she said. “The State is expected to litigate with restraint and be a model litigator, but that does not happen,” she added.

Justice Nagarathna also pointed to institutional practices that encourage appeals. Officials who choose to settle disputes may face scrutiny, whereas filing appeals is seen as a sign of diligence and rarely attracts criticism. This, she said, has made appeals routine and added to the volume of cases.

She said the steady flow of litigation across multiple levels of courts has resulted in mounting backlog and slowed case movement, with courts unable to match the growing docket. 

She also said judicial infrastructure does not receive sustained political focus, as investments in courts lack the visibility of other projects like highways or welfare programmes, leading to limited budget allocation. “The volume of disputes grows with population, economic activity, and regulatory expansion. But the institutional capacity of courts grows slowly,” she said.

Justice Nagarathna suggested the creation of a Judicial Reforms Commission to examine the issue of pendency and propose corrective steps.

Speaking at the same conference, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan pointed to cases filed on trivial matters like public demonstrations and protests.

“The judiciary is not directing the State to register these cases. For trivial matters such as public demonstrations and agitations, even by students, sometimes even for memes and social media posts, FIRs are registered, investigation goes on, the matters come up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has to constitute special investigation teams,” Justice Bhuyan said.

He also expressed concern about the high arrest rates under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) while drawing attention to the abysmally low rate of conviction under the Act. “This indicates overuse of the law,” he said, adding that prolonged incarceration without conviction raised constitutional concerns.

© The Wire