The news and the debate

India’s courts are often blamed as the “biggest hurdle” to growth: too many cases, slow decisions, long vacations, and “overreach.” A recent courtroom misbehaviour incident also revived talk on judicial independence and courtroom decorum. A calm, factual view shows a more mixed picture: many delays and costs come from weak laws, poor drafting, overuse of appeals by the State, weak investigation, and thin court infrastructure, not only from judges.

What critics say

• “Courts delay projects and contracts.”
  
• “Vacations slow the system.”
  
• “Interim orders stop development.”
  
• “Public interest cases are misused.”
  

What this leaves out

• The State as the largest litigant: Government departments file and contest a very large share of cases, often appealing by routine.
  
• Poorly drafted laws and frequent changes: Vague words, wide discretion, and tax or regulatory changes create disputes.
  
• Capacity gaps below the higher courts: Fewer judges, crowded courtrooms, missing case managers, and shortage of prosecutors and forensic staff.
  
• Listing realities: Hearings run long hours; judges handle heavy boards with limited administrative support.
  
• Over-criminalisation and automatic arrests: These push minor disputes into criminal courts instead of settlement or fines.
  

The legal frame

• Article 21: Right to life includes the right to fair and speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon series).
  
• Article 50: Separation of the judiciary from the executive—a core design for independence.
  
• Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Protects the authority of courts and ensures decorum.
  
• Key rulings for delay reduction:
  
  • Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India: case-management powers and timelines under the Civil Procedure Code.
    
  • Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. Central Bureau of Investigation: interim stays should not run indefinitely; periodic review is needed.
    
• Passive euthanasia and other recent directions (for context): show the Court’s role in making procedures clear, humane, and time-bound—an approach that can inform wider justice reforms.
  

What really drives delay

• Law and policy side: Vague drafting, frequent amendments, and lack of pre-legislative testing; routine tax and departmental appeals; tribunals without full members or staff.
  
• Process side: Poor summons service, absent witnesses, weak digital records, and low use of case management tools.
  
• People and infrastructure: Judge and staff vacancies, limited courtrooms, few stenographers and researchers, and uneven training for prosecutors and defence counsel.
  
• Culture and incentives: “Adjournment culture,” last-minute filings, and little cost for frivolous petitions.
  

A practical way forward

Government and Legislature

• Draft better laws: clear definitions, fewer criminal clauses, and mandatory pre-legislative consultation.
  
• Be a “model litigant”: appeal only when necessary; settle routine disputes quickly.
  
• Fill tribunals and lower courts on priority; fund modern court buildings and evidence labs.
  

Judiciary

• Strict case-management: day-wise schedules, limited adjournments, reasoned control of interim orders.
  
• Electronic courts: end-to-end e-filing, digital evidence, open cause-lists, and transcription to save time.
  
• Time standards by case type and regular performance dashboards (without names).
  

Bar and Legal Profession

• Enforce codes of conduct; strong action on courtroom indiscipline; expand legal aid and mentoring for young lawyers to improve quality at the trial level.
  

Police and Prosecution

• Better investigation: scientific evidence, witness protection, and standard charge-sheet formats so trials do not collapse.
  

Citizens and Media

• Responsible use of public interest litigation; focus on genuine rights and public wrongs, not private fights.
  

Key Terms

• Judicial independence: Courts decide without pressure from government or private power.
  
• Separation of powers: Law-making, law-executing, and law-adjudicating are kept distinct.
  
• Contempt of court: Acts that lower the authority of courts or disrupt justice; used to protect fair process.
  
• Case management: Planning and controlling the progress of a case to avoid delay.
  
• Model litigant policy: A rule that the State must litigate fairly, avoid needless appeals, and act to resolve disputes quickly.
  
• Electronic courts: Paper-light filing, digital records, virtual hearings, and searchable orders to speed up cases.
  

Exam Hook

Key takeaways

1. Blaming courts alone hides bigger causes: weak drafting, routine government appeals, and poor investigation.
   
2. The Constitution protects independence and speedy trial; rulings like Salem Advocate Bar Association and Asian Resurfacing give tools to cut delay.
   
3. Real reform needs better laws, model-litigant behaviour, case-management and electronic courts, strong bar discipline, and forensic capacity.
   

UPSC Mains (150 words)
“Critically examine the narrative that India’s judiciary is the ‘biggest hurdle’ to development. Identify the real drivers of delay and outline a five-lane plan—Government, Judiciary, Bar, Police-Prosecution, and Citizens—to improve justice without weakening independence.”

UPSC Prelims (MCQ)
Q. Which of the following pairs is correctly matched?

1. Article 50 — Separation of judiciary from executive
   
2. Hussainara Khatoon cases — Recognition of speedy trial as part of right to life
   
3. Asian Resurfacing case — Interim stay orders should ordinarily be time-limited and reviewed
   Select the correct answer:

(A) 1 and 2 only

(B) 2 and 3 only

(C) 1 and 3 only

(D) 1, 2 and 3

Answer: D

One-line wrap: Fix the real bottlenecks—drafting, routine appeals, weak investigation, and thin capacity—while preserving a strong and independent judiciary.