Pendency of cases in Indian courts has become a structural denial of justice. With reference to the institutional reforms needed at the High Court and subordinate-judiciary level, examine.

Introduction:

The National Judicial Data Grid records over 5.2 crore pending cases as of 2025 — the subordinate judiciary carrying about 4.5 crore and the High Courts about 62 lakh — turning Article 21's speedy-trial promise, read in Hussainara Khatoon (1979), into a structural denial of justice.

Constitutional and statutory base: Article 224A permits ad hoc appointment of retired High Court judges, revived by Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021); Article 312 enables an All India Judicial Service that successive governments have not operationalised despite Law Commission endorsement.

Institutional weaknesses: High Court vacancies hover at about 30% under a Memorandum of Procedure unsigned since 2015; Section 436A CrPC / Section 479 BNSS undertrial release is patchily used; the Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms Mission 2011 has under-delivered; Lok Adalats under NALSA and plea bargaining remain underleveraged for compoundable offences.

Reform record: The 230th Law Commission Report (Reforms in Judiciary, 2009), the 245th Report (Arrears and Backlog) and the Malimath Committee recommended case-flow management codes, AIJS, and judge-population ratios closer to the Law Commission's 50 per million benchmark, against India's current 21 per million.

Way forward / Conclusion:

A time-bound All India Judicial Service under Article 312, fast-tracked filling of High Court vacancies through a jointly-signed Memorandum of Procedure, and a statutory case-flow management code anchored in the Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms Mission can clear backlog without weakening due process or the Article 21 speedy-trial guarantee.