An Ailing Judiciary, A Stumbling Democracy
India’s judiciary has long been regarded as the guardian of the Constitution and the final protector of citizens’ rights. Yet, an increasingly intense national debate has emerged over whether the institution is struggling not only with overwhelming administrative burdens but also with questions surrounding judicial independence and public confidence.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave has become one of the most vocal critics of the current state of the judiciary. Speaking at various public forums, Dave has argued that while courts in the 1970s and 1980s frequently acted as protectors of ordinary citizens against executive excesses, today’s judiciary is increasingly perceived as deferential to the government. He contends that constitutional courts are less willing to intervene in matters involving civil liberties and executive action, raising concerns about the strength of institutional checks and balances. These are his views and remain part of an ongoing public and legal debate.
One of the central criticisms revolves around the “Master of the Roster” system, under which the Chief Justice of India exclusively determines the allocation of cases. Critics argue that the absence of greater transparency in roster allocation has fuelled apprehensions that politically or constitutionally significant matters may not always reach benches viewed as the most appropriate. Supporters of the present system, however, maintain that centralized roster management is essential for the orderly administration of the Supreme Court.
Questions have also been raised about what some legal commentators describe as diminishing constitutional empathy. According to these critics, courts have, in certain instances, shown greater deference to state authority than to individual rights in matters involving personal liberty, land acquisition, preventive detention and freedom of expression. Others disagree with this assessment, pointing to several judgments where courts have continued to protect fundamental rights, illustrating that the debate remains far from settled.
Beyond questions of judicial philosophy lies an undeniable structural crisis. India’s justice delivery system is burdened by one of the world’s largest case backlogs. Recent judicial data indicates that more than 5.6 crore cases are pending across the Supreme Court, High Courts and subordinate courts, with millions of litigants waiting years—and in some cases decades—for final adjudication. The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly acknowledged pendency as one of the country’s greatest justice-delivery challenges.
The shortage of judges remains a major contributing factor. Despite gradual improvements, India continues to have only about 22 judges per million people, significantly below long-standing recommendations for a substantially higher judge-population ratio. Simultaneously, vacancies in High Courts and district courts continue to affect the pace of justice, even as governments and the judiciary periodically undertake recruitment drives.
Judicial appointments themselves remain contentious. The collegium system, through which senior judges recommend appointments and transfers, has faced sustained criticism over its lack of transparency and accountability. While supporters argue that the system protects judicial independence from executive influence, critics contend that it requires greater openness, objective selection criteria and institutional accountability.
Another recurring concern relates to post-retirement appointments of judges to tribunals, commissions and constitutional bodies. Several constitutional experts have cautioned that such appointments may create a perception—whether justified or not—that judicial independence could be compromised. Others argue that experienced judges continue to make valuable contributions in public institutions after retirement and that safeguards, rather than outright prohibition, may offer a balanced solution.
Recognising the mounting pressure on the justice system, policymakers have initiated several reforms. Parliament recently approved an increase in the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38, while the judiciary has expanded digital filing, virtual hearings and case management initiatives. However, many legal observers believe that increasing judicial strength alone cannot solve the crisis without comprehensive reforms addressing infrastructure, procedural delays, vacancies and government litigation, which constitutes a substantial portion of pending cases.
Ultimately, the health of a constitutional democracy depends upon an independent, efficient and trusted judiciary. Courts are expected to act as the ultimate sentinel of constitutional values, ensuring that executive power remains subject to the rule of law while safeguarding individual freedoms. Whether India’s judiciary is experiencing a temporary institutional strain or a deeper constitutional challenge remains the subject of vigorous debate. What is beyond dispute, however, is that timely justice, institutional transparency and sustained judicial reform will be essential to preserving public confidence in one of democracy’s most vital pillars.
