In 1991, Sudha Gupta, a 75-year-old single, disabled woman, purchased a 298 square metre plot from the DLF in Gurgaon. She claims that despite making significant payments, her booking was cancelled due to a dispute over PLC (Preferential Location Charges), and the plot was sold to another party. She then lodged a case in 1994, in which the police filed a report after eleven years, seeking closure of the case. However, she filed a protest petition against the same, which was accepted by the court, and the case resumed.
Delhi’s trial courts had a pendency of over 15.8 lakh cases by the end of January 2026. That is nearly a case for every 10 persons living in the city, as per unofficial population estimates. Senior lawyers and former judicial officers acknowledge that there has been an impressive upgrade of judicial infrastructure in the city in the last two decades. However, it still falls short of meeting the goal of speedy disposal of cases. The tardiness built into the judicial system needs careful diagnosis before a long-term plan can be implemented to make it nimble. This week TMS explores the reasons for judicial delays and long pendency despite more judicial officers getting appointed every year.
Tip of iceberg
Procedural lapses, repeated adjournments, and prolonged cross-examinations in the courts arise from the fact that in most cases evidence is not collected or presented properly, says senior advocate Vikas Pahwa. It may be the lack of proper training, legal loopholes or causes yet to be identified by experts, but the cost is paid by individuals whose freedom is at stake.
The judicial system continues to grapple with a massive backlog of cases, reflecting deep structural and procedural challenges. Across the country, over 60 lakh civil suits are pending, while criminal cases dominate the docket with more than 3 crore matters before magistrate courts and nearly 28 lakh sessions cases awaiting disposal. Additionally, over 95,000 cases remain pending in the juvenile justice system, underlining the breadth of delays across categories.
The situation in Delhi mirrors the national trend, albeit on a smaller scale. Subordinate courts in the capital are currently dealing with 96,554 pending civil suits. Criminal pendency is particularly high, with over 11 lakh cases before magistrates and more than 41,000 sessions cases awaiting trial. Data also points to systemic causes behind these delays. The unavailability of legal counsel accounts for the largest chunk, stalling 45,257 cases. Another 27,751 matters remain pending due to stays imposed by higher courts, while 7,717 cases are delayed due to incomplete documentation as per the information available in the National Judicial Data Grid.
Delhi’s subordinate judiciary operates through 11 district courts spread across seven major complexes—Tis Hazari, Patiala House, Karkardooma, Rohini, Dwarka, Saket, and Rouse Avenue—under the supervision of the High Court. Despite having hundreds of judges, the volume of litigation continues to outpace disposal rates.
Compounding the burden, Delhi is also home to multiple tribunals, including those handling environmental, administrative, corporate, consumer, and tax disputes. Together, these figures highlight the urgent need for judicial reforms, improved infrastructure, and procedural efficiency to address the mounting pendency crisis.
On December 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted bail to expelled BJP politician Kuldeep Singar on account of delay in deciding his appeal against conviction in the Unnao rape case that led to widespread protests across the city.
The Supreme Court, while denying bail to Umar Khalid on January 5, noted that the trial has yet to start even after six years.
In a lesser-known case, the Delhi High Court on February 12, 2026, granted bail to one Amir in a murder case while expressing ‘serious concern’ over the pendency of bail applications and said delays not only cause trauma to the accused persons but also affect justice. The court noted that Amir’s application was submitted to the high court in December 2024 and adjourned multiple times by various benches since then.
Regardless of what the courts decided, one issue that was prevalent in all these cases was the plaguing delay. But these cases are just a tip of the iceberg.
These delays, apart from all the inconveniences to the system at large, at the core frustrate the most sacrosanct right available to the under-trial prisoners, who are still innocent as any of us. And that is the right to life and liberty, recognised as a fundamental right under our Constitution and generally considered the most sacrosanct. In far too many judgements, our apex court has held time and again that bail is the rule and jail is an exception.
But even though the investigation is complete within 90 days related to an accused since his/her arrest, or 180 days in certain cases, they keep languishing in jail because the overall probe is ongoing, or the trial takes years and years to complete.
Case study
In a classic case, Christian Michel James, an alleged middleman in the VVIP chopper scam, was granted bail by the trial court after noting that he had already spent seven years in jail, the maximum punishment prescribed under the law for the offence he was accused of having committed, while the trial in the case had yet not started. And the question always looms: what if he’s found innocent at the end of the trial?
In the 1991 Sudha Gupta case, currently not even the charges are framed at a Patiala House Court here. The plot she paid for is currently lying vacant after the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission ordered a stay on selling or construction on it in 1996. “I was living with my mother and bought this plot so that we could live there. My mother died 22 years ago, and now I am 75 and living in an old-age home in Haryana. I spent half my life in this case, running from pillar to post,” Sudha says.
She says that in 2019 the Supreme Court ordered DLF to refund Rs 30 lakh to Gupta, which she refused to accept. “The plot I purchased at Rs 8.11 lakh now has the current market value of Rs 15 crore. Why will I accept what was offered” she asks.
Advocate Amit Prasad, who served as a prosecutor in the 2020 Delhi riots cases, underscores that the mounting delays in criminal trials are not merely a function of volume but of systemic inefficiencies. He points to overburdened courts, routine adjournments, weak investigations, and a persistent shortage of judges and prosecutors as key factors slowing down the pace of justice. According to him, these structural gaps create an environment where cases drift for years without meaningful progress.
However, Prasad also highlights a more uncomfortable reality within the system. Litigants with significant financial resources, he says, are often able to prolong proceedings by filing repeated applications and raising technical objections. “This allows them to effectively corner a disproportionate share of judicial time,” he notes, adding that such practices tilt the balance against ordinary litigants who lack the means to sustain prolonged legal battles.
He stresses that the right to a speedy trial is not just an ideal but a constitutional guarantee. Yet, without firm and uniform enforcement of procedural discipline, delays risk becoming the norm rather than the exception. For Prasad, accountability in both investigation and courtroom conduct is essential to restoring balance.
“When cases drag on for years, everyone is at a loss—the victim, the accused, and the justice system itself,” he says. The consequences are far-reaching: victims are denied closure, the accused remain in prolonged uncertainty, and public faith in the legal system erodes.
Amrish Kumar, now 57, was accused in a stone pelting case that took place in 2004 during an anti-encroachment drive in Rangpuri village in South West Delhi, near Mahipalpur. Kumar, who claimed innocence, was one of six accused in the case, two of whom are deceased now and another one is declared mentally unstable.
“Till now, a lot of money for fuel, advocates feel, and time have gone. Every time there is a date, which is once in 45 days on an average, I close my business and lose that day’s earnings. Besides, I also face social stigma and mental harassment, as whenever any crime takes place in the area, my name comes up as a suspect,” he said.
System under strain
Observing ‘grave concern’ over the trending increase in pendency, the Delhi High Court last year formulated a comprehensive ‘action plan’, which sought to address the alarming increase in case pendency. The plan included streamlining processes, prioritising older cases, and ensuring efficient and timely disposal through structured and technology-driven mechanisms.
The key aspects included identifying and disposing of cases which are more than 10, 20 or 30 years old; ensuring faster progression of cases through their various life stages; ensuring balanced distribution of cases; and effectively using IT tools and AI mechanisms for automated data extraction, defect rectification and summarisation for clustering of matters involving common questions of law. The plan further suggested encouraging use of mediation and Lok Adalats for speedy resolution of disputes and involving Bar Associations and other agencies to address procedural delays. However, the results of the plan are yet to be seen.
Pahwa states that the delay in adjudication of cases in India is a systemic issue, not an isolated one. The primary reason, he says, is the extremely low judge-to-population ratio. “Our courts are burdened far beyond capacity. Vacancies remain unfilled, and infrastructure—especially in trial courts—remains inadequate,” Pahwa says.
Secondly, Pahwa points out the often “substandard” investigation quality.
“Poorly conducted investigations, weak and vague charge sheets, false and over-implication of the accused, and inadequate use of scientific and forensic evidence inevitably prolong trials,” he said.
Another significant issue that the senior advocate raises is that investigating officers are not trained to be fair.
“They feel if they don’t charge the nominated accused persons, they will be held up for conducting an improper investigation. They lack confidence in closing the case and are also not accountable for filing a wrong one,” he says.
“Third, procedural inefficiencies contribute significantly. Case management is weak, timelines prescribed under statutes such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not strictly adhered to, and adjournments are granted too liberally. Appeals in high courts also suffer because of mounting arrears and lack of specialised benches to deal with complex criminal matters,” he adds.
The senior advocate claims that the technology adoption remains uneven.
“While the Supreme Court and some High Courts have modernised, many subordinate courts still function without robust digital systems,” he says.
Pahwa’s arguments are further supported by the National Judicial Data Grid data, which shows unavailability of counsel, court stays, and procedural delays as the primary contributors to the delays.
Bridging the Gap
As we talk about the growing backlog of cases, on Sunday Delhi High Court Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya highlighted the need for the judiciary to proactively engage with technological advancements while maintaining institutional safeguards, saying that disparities in technological access, particularly at the district judiciary level, pose a serious concern, directly impacting the access to justice.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya while speaking at the first National Conference organised by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on the theme “Reimagining Judicial Governance: Strengthening Institutions for Democratic Justice”, has also cautioned against unregulated use of artificial intelligence, noting concerns around digital exclusion, accountability, and evidentiary integrity.
In the Indian context, he highlighted the use of AI tools in extracting key facts, identifying relevant case law, and generating structured summaries. The high court judge highlighted the increasing use of speech-to-text technologies in courtrooms, particularly in district courts where proceedings are often conducted in regional languages, saying that “such tools have significant potential to enhance efficiency and inclusivity”.
While talking about the proposal for a uniform digital platform for courts across the country, Chief Justice Upadhyaya said that its implementation was challenging given the diversity of judicial infrastructure across states, high courts and the jurisdictions.
The solutions are clear: substantially increase judicial strength; fill vacancies promptly; invest in modern forensic infrastructure; improve investigation standards; enforce strict case management and time-bound hearings; expand domain-specialised courts; and integrate technology uniformly across the judicial hierarchy. “Speed cannot come at the cost of fairness, but justice delayed for decades erodes public confidence. Structural reform, not cosmetic change, is the need of the hour,” Pahwa says.
His views are reiterated by Prasad, who added that the adjournments should not be given so easily and the cases should move on fixed timelines.
“If someone is filing repeated applications just to delay the matter, there must be consequences, including heavy costs. Justice should not depend on who can afford to drag a case longer. The rights of the accused are fundamental, but those rights must be available equally to every accused person and not effectively exercised for a handful who have the means to endlessly prolong proceedings,” Prasad says.