The staggering backlog of court cases in India has evolved from a judicial challenge into a severe governance and economic crisis. With tens of millions of cases stuck in the system, the state itself emerges as the primary contributor, initiating nearly half of all litigation nationwide. This compulsion to litigate is now recognized as a major drag on the country's economic progress.
The Crushing Weight of Judicial Pendency
India's judicial system is buckling under the weight of an unprecedented caseload. Official figures reveal a total of 54 million pending cases across all levels of the judiciary. This breaks down to approximately 47 million in district courts, 6.3 million in various high courts, and nearly 90,000 in the Supreme Court. A critically understaffed bench of just about 25,000 judges is tasked with managing this deluge.
This translates to a paltry 21 judges per million people, a figure far below the Law Commission's recommended 50 and significantly lower than developed nations like the United States (107) and the United Kingdom (51). The problem is exacerbated by high vacancy rates, hovering around 30% in many high courts, and sluggish disposal rates where judges clear an average of 1,350 cases annually, compared to over 2,000 in OECD countries.
The human and economic cost of delay is immense. Over 18 million cases are older than three years, and a shocking 5 million have been languishing for more than a decade. Each adjournment adds months to the timeline. Niti Aayog conservatively estimates that this judicial inefficiency reduces India's annual GDP by 1.5%, stemming from delayed contract enforcement, locked capital, and persistent investor uncertainty.
The State as the Compulsive Litigant
At the heart of this inefficiency lies a structural distortion: the government's role as the country's most frequent litigator. The Union government, its public sector undertakings (PSUs), state governments, and local bodies together account for nearly 50% of all litigation.
Data from the Legal Information Management and Briefing System (LIMBS) highlights the scale. At the Union level, the finance ministry alone is a party to nearly 200,000 pending cases—98,544 before tribunals, 83,552 in high courts, and 12,589 in the Supreme Court. These Supreme Court cases represent roughly 13% of the court's total burden. While tax disputes dominate, the government's litigation footprint extends widely across civil contracts, land acquisition, and service matters.
Despite raising monetary thresholds for appeals in 2022 (to ₹1 crore for high courts and ₹2 crore for the Supreme Court), the reduction in pendency has been marginal. This points to a deep-seated institutional culture where litigation is used as bureaucratic insurance rather than a legal necessity. Audit and vigilance frameworks often treat unappealed losses as potential negligence, pushing officials towards automatic appeals to secure safe harbour from future questioning.
A Five-Point Blueprint for Reform
While the government introduced a 'Directive for Efficient and Effective Management of Litigation' in April 2025, critics argue it lacks statutory teeth and real accountability. Experts propose a more robust, binding national litigation policy built on five key pillars.
First, adopt a 'leave-to-litigate' system. India must move away from its open-ended appeal culture. Departments should not file more than one automatic appeal. Any second or higher appeal must obtain prior clearance from an Empowered Group of Secretaries (EGoS), chaired by the Attorney General, applying a strict three-factor test: public interest, legal novelty, and probability of success. All decisions and their reasons must be published quarterly for transparency.
Second, build a National Legal Information Grid. Litigation must be managed as an integrated information system. A new grid should connect platforms like LIMBS, the National Judicial Data Grid, and e-courts for real-time tracking. AI analytics could identify departments with poor track records, predict case outcomes, and flag cases suitable for settlement.
Third, implement a pre-EGoS decision protocol with safe harbour. To counter audit fears, only cases vetted by a ministry's legal advisor should proceed to the EGoS. Officers who support decisions in writing, detailing legal merit and implications, should receive protection if the legal advisor concurs.
Fourth, enforce annual litigation budget caps. Every ministry and PSU must have a capped legal spending budget, treated as a financial burden. Exceeding the cap or losing a discouraged appeal should charge costs to the department's own account. Conversely, ministries that reduce pendency should be incentivized.
Fifth, mandate public transparency. The law ministry should launch a citizen-friendly public litigation dashboard. This portal should publish quarterly data on pending cases, average duration, adjournments, success rates, and costs for every ministry, making wasteful litigation visible and accountable.
The path to a more efficient justice system is clear. For India's economy to thrive and for timely justice to be delivered, the government must learn to be a more restrained and responsible litigant. The time to rest its case on unnecessary litigation is now.
