Issues in the judiciary of India

The Indian judiciary suffers from several systemic deficiencies and faces several operational and administrative challenges. In January 2025, a report by the International Commission of Jurists noted that the Indian judiciary is under heavy strain due to deficiencies in governance, irregularities in the appointment of judges, and improper interference and influence by political actors.[1] Backlog and delays in the delivery of justice are considered the most critical issues to be addressed for India's economic growth.[2]

Persistent issues

Arbitrary appointment of judges

Under Article 124 of the Constitution of India, judges of the Supreme Court of India are appointed by the President of India “after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for that purpose.”[3] The Article was amended by the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India in 2014, which placed the responsibility for appointments on the president, subject to recommendations of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. However, the amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional and void[4] in October 2015 in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, holding that the amendment affected the independence of the judiciary, an essential part of the Basic structure of the Constitution.[5]

At present, the appointment of judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts is made through the collegium system, which has been widely condemned for being nepotistic[6][7][8], casteist[9], and opaque.[10] The collegium system, which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, effectively lets the Supreme Court appoint its own judges.

Arbitrary listing of cases

The allocation of benches and cases in constitutional courts in India. However, while internal administration pertaining to cases is based on predetermined rules and procedures, it is also subject to the discretionary power of the Chief Justice of India.[1] There have been several instances of arbitrary exercise of powers by Chief Justices. In July 2026, a working group on access to medicines wrote to the Chief Justice of India requesting to expedite a hearing of a case of a cancer patient that was listed 57 times and remained unheard.[11] In contrast, at a midnight hearing in 2023, the Supreme Court of India quashed an order of the Gujarat High Court which directed social activist Teesta Setalvad to immediately surrender.[12] Similarly, the hearing for a final plea to delay the execution of Yakoub Memon, a convicted terrorist, started at 3:16 am on 30 July 2015, hours before his hanging.[13][14]

Pendency and delays

According to the National Judicial Data Grid, lower courts in India have over 49.8 million pending cases[15], and the High Courts have over 6.46 million pending cases.[16] There are over 10,000 pending cases in the Supreme Court of India that are more than 10 years old, and over 80,000 cases in High Courts across the country that are over three decades old.[17][18]

Lack of accountability

The Indian judiciary could be made accountable through an impeachment motion in the Parliament or through an in-house administrative procedure headed by the Chief Justice of India (without any statutory or constitutional basis).[19] Scholars have claimed that, aside from impeachment, judicial accountability mechanisms in India are insular and ineffective, making real accountability nearly impossible.[19]

Post retirement employment of judges

Many judges in India pursue careers in government-appointed roles after retirement.[20] In 2020, retired Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, was nominated to be a member of the Rajya Sabha by former President Ram Nath Kovind.[21] In several other instances, governments have appointed judges to lucrative positions post-retirement, and the issue has been flagged as a potential source of bias.[22] Former Chief Justice P. Sathasivam was appointed as the Governor of Kerala, within a few months of his retirement.[23]

Post-retirement appointments, particularly the ones deemed lucrative, have been criticised as 'selling out' of judges who deliver decisions favourable to the government; even when judges have been impartial, the criticism has been that such appointments invite misgivings about judicial integrity and independence.[20] It has also been argued that re-employment of judges by the executive, violates, in spirit, the doctrine of Separation of powers.[24] A 2021 analysis by ThePrint found that 71% retired judges of the Supreme Court—73 out of 103—were working in government jobs and at least 60% of these positions involved direct appointment by the government.[25] Several reforms have been suggested, including an outright ban and a cooling-off period. The first Law Commission of India had unanimously expressed the view that it was undesirable for judges to accept employment under the government as it could affect judicial independence.[26]

Reform efforts

Government

The Government of India has implemented several initiatives to reform the judiciary. These include the establishment of the National Judicial Data Grid, digitisation of court records, and hiring more judges.

The government has attempted to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission to address several issues with the collegium system. However, the 99th Constitutional amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in October 2015.[27]

Civil society

Several civic groups, particularly Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and Daksh have done a considerable amount of research and advocacy on issues related to judicial reforms in India.

See also

References

  1. 1 2 Programme, Asia & the Pacific (9 February 2025). "India: ICJ Urges Major Structural Reforms to Ensure Fair Administration of Justice Under the Rule of Law | ICJ". International Commission of Jurists. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  2. ↑ "JALDI (Judicial Reforms) Archives". Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  3. ↑ Shemtob, Zachary (2 April 2026). "The Supreme Court of India". Supreme Court of the United States Blog. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  4. ↑ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (17 October 2015). "SC Bench strikes down NJAC Act as 'unconstitutional and void'". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  5. ↑ AIR 2016 SC 117
  6. ↑ Singh, Soibam Rocky (19 June 2015). "50% HC judges related to senior judicial members: Report". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  7. ↑ Baghel, Sunil (13 January 2025). "Supreme Court wants to get rid of 'uncle judges' syndrome. Can it?". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  8. ↑ Singh, Santosh (12 December 2017). "Only 250-300 families have sent judges to SC: Upendra Kushwaha". The Indian Express. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  9. ↑ Janardhanan, Arun (9 November 2015). "Madras High Court judge alleges caste bias in collegium system". The Indian Express. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  10. ↑ Dev, Atul (1 July 2019). "What the Indian judiciary has done to itself". Caravan Magazine. Retrieved 23 July 2026.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  11. ↑ Nagarajan, Rema (11 July 2026). "Cancer patient dead, her plea for drug listed 57 times for hearing". The Times of India. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
  12. ↑ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (19 July 2023). "Activist Teesta Setalvad to continue on bail, says Supreme Court". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
  13. ↑ Soni, Anusha (30 July 2015). "Yakub Memon's hanging: The midnight trial". India Today. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
  14. ↑ Anand, Utkarsh; Kaunain, Sheriff M (31 July 2015). "Yakub Memon hanging: Sleepless night in Delhi with judges, lawyers, ice-cream". The Indian Express. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
  15. ↑ PPJ. "NJDG-National Judicial Data Grid". njdg.ecourts.gov.in. Archived from the original on 2 July 2026. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  16. ↑ PPJ. "HC NJDG - National Judicial Data Grid". njdg.ecourts.gov.in. Archived from the original on 20 May 2026. Retrieved 23 July 2026.
  17. ↑ "10,000 cases pending in SC for 10 yrs, 80,000 in HCs for 30 yrs". The Times of India. 3 August 2026. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 4 August 2026.
  18. ↑ Singh, Simran (3 August 2026). "5.64 crore cases pending in Indian courts, 10,000 in Supreme Court for 10 years: Govt tells Parliament". FirstPost. Archived from the original on 3 August 2026. Retrieved 4 August 2026.
  19. 1 2 Sharma, Mandira; Omer, Reema (2025). Judicial Independence in India: Tipping the Scale. Geneva: International Commission of Jurists. p. 1.
  20. 1 2 Dam, Shubhankar (2023). "Active After Sunset: The Politics of Judicial Retirements in India". Federal Law Review. 51 (1): 31–57. doi:10.1177/0067205X221146335. ISSN 0067-205X.
  21. ↑ "Former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi Nominated To Rajya Sabha By President". www.ndtv.com. Archived from the original on 11 February 2026. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
  22. ↑ Shrivastava, Amisha (19 April 2025). "India Must Evolve Judicial Independence Standards In Line With International Norms : Justice Madan B Lokur". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
  23. ↑ Gupta, Isha; Ahmed, Imran (8 June 2023). "Preserving Judicial Independence in India: Need for 'Cooling-Off' Period for Post-Retirement Appointments". Institute for South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
  24. ↑ Srivastava, Shreshth (2020). "Post Retirement Appointments & Judges: A Blow to the Independence of Judiciary, Democracy, and the Constitution" (PDF). Shimla Law Review. III: 67 – via Social Science Research Network.
  25. ↑ Mandhani, Apoorva (4 January 2021). "Ranjan Gogoi RS seat made big news in 2020. But he is among 70% SC judges with retirement gigs". ThePrint. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
  26. ↑ Rajah, N. L. (12 February 2019). "Time to raise the bar". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
  27. ↑ Vishwanath, Apurva (27 March 2025). "Why NJAC was struck down by the Supreme Court, can it be brought back?". The Indian Express. Retrieved 24 July 2026.
This page is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.