Delhi High Court Introduces Saturday Sittings to Combat Mounting Case Backlog

In a bold administrative reform aimed at alleviating the crippling backlog of cases, the Delhi High Court has declared the first and third Saturdays of every month as official court sitting days. This decision, formalized through a notification issued on January 15, 2026, follows a resolution by the court's Full Court on December 22, 2025. Prompted by directives from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, the move addresses the alarming pendency of 125,583 cases, including nearly 94,000 pending for over a year, as per data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). While welcomed by some senior advocates as a necessary step toward faster justice, the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) has voiced concerns over the lack of consultation, highlighting potential strains on lawyers' work-life balance.

This development builds on earlier efforts to extend judicial working hours and signals a growing trend among high courts to innovate amid national calls for judicial efficiency. As the court grapples with civil and criminal matters overwhelming its resources, this policy could reshape daily operations for judges, lawyers, and litigants alike.

Background on Pendency and Prior Policies

The Delhi High Court's decision comes against the backdrop of a long-standing judicial crisis in India, where case pendency has reached epidemic proportions. According to NJDG statistics cited in various reports, the court currently handles 93,138 civil cases and 32,445 criminal ones, with 93,929 of the total lingering for more than a year. This backlog not only delays justice for ordinary citizens but also undermines public confidence in the legal system, echoing constitutional imperatives for speedy trials under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Historically, high courts in India have operated on a five-day week, with Saturdays and Sundays reserved as non-working days, except for urgent matters. However, this tradition has been under scrutiny as pendency soared. In 2025, the Delhi High Court introduced a provisional measure requiring each bench to hold hearings on one Saturday per month. This was in response to a circular from then-Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, urging high courts nationwide to dedicate Saturdays to clearing long-pending cases.

The new policy expands on this foundation, institutionalizing two fixed Saturdays monthly for all benches. It aligns with a recent letter from CJI Surya Kant to chief justices of all high courts, requesting them to allocate two Saturdays each month to tackle pendency. Rajasthan High Court had already pioneered a similar approach, making it the second high court to formalize such sittings. Senior members of the legal fraternity note that Saturday hearings are not entirely novel; between 2002 and 2005, the Delhi High Court occasionally conducted them with party consent, though the practice faded due to unspecified reasons.

This evolution reflects broader systemic pressures. As senior advocate Manish Vashisht observed, "Circumstances have changed significantly, with pendency emerging as a serious concern." The 2025 arrangement was a stopgap, but the current resolution aims for uniformity and consistency, ensuring all benches contribute to disposal efforts without ad-hoc scheduling.

The Notification and Key Developments

The pivotal document is Notification No. 58/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC, dated January 15, 2026, issued by Registrar General Arun Bhardwaj "By Order of the Court." It succinctly states: “It has been resolved by Hon’ble the Full Court in its meeting held on 22.12.2025 that the first and third Saturdays of every month shall be Court sitting days for this Court.”

To ensure broad dissemination, copies were forwarded to an extensive list of stakeholders. These include the Secretaries of the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law & Justice, Government of India; the Secretary General of the Supreme Court; Registrars General of all high courts; Principal District & Sessions Judges across Delhi's districts (such as Tis Hazari, Karkardooma, Patiala House, Dwarka, Rohini, and Saket); and heads of various bar associations, including the Supreme Court Bar Association and DHCBA. Even the Director General of Prisons (Tihar Jail) and media outlets received copies for awareness. The Registrar (IT) was directed to upload the notification on the court's website and intranet immediately.

This comprehensive circulation underscores the decision's immediate applicability and its intent to foster compliance across the judicial ecosystem. Unlike the 2025 policy, which left scheduling to individual benches, this fixates on specific dates, promising a more structured approach to weekend hearings. A person familiar with the developments, speaking anonymously, confirmed that the move was explicitly "aimed at reducing case pendency," emphasizing Saturdays' relative ease for high courts compared to district courts, which continue regular operations.

Reactions from the Legal Fraternity

The announcement has elicited a spectrum of responses, reflecting the tension between judicial exigency and professional well-being. The DHCBA, representing thousands of advocates, expressed dismay shortly after the initial 2025 policy, a sentiment that persists. In a statement, the association affirmed its "highest regard for the decisions of the Full Court and fully supports all its initiatives," but lamented that "the Bar was neither consulted nor informed before such a decision was taken." Vice-President and senior advocate Sacchin Puri echoed this, noting logistical difficulties for lawyers, litigants, and staff, including impacts on work-life balance. The DHCBA had previously urged suspension of Saturday sittings or adoption of a single uniform day to aid planning.

Conversely, several senior advocates have hailed the reform as imperative. Manish Vashisht described it as "a positive one," recalling past Saturday practices and arguing that "Saturdays are relatively easier, especially for the High Court... In that sense, it is a good decision and beneficial for litigants." Vivek Sood went further, painting a dire picture: “The Delhi high court is collapsing under the weight of pendency, almost to the point of no return. At the present pace, pendency may not be cleared even in 50 years unless drastic measures are taken.” He termed the move “welcome” and “imperatively necessary,” underscoring the urgency amid infrastructural challenges like judge shortages—only three Delhi High Court lawyers elevated in 17 months, as highlighted by DHCBA President N. Hariharan in a recent address to CJI Surya Kant.

These reactions highlight a divide: while the bar prioritizes consultation and sustainability, advocates focused on systemic reform see it as a vital intervention. Hariharan, during a felicitation for CJI Surya Kant, appealed for "balance and fairness" in appointments without questioning the collegium process, linking it to pendency woes.

Administrative and Legal Implications

From an administrative standpoint, the Full Court's resolution exercises its inherent authority to regulate court functioning, as enshrined in high court rules and the Constitution's framework for judicial independence. This is not a adversarial ruling but an exercise of collective judicial discretion to optimize resources. Legally, it intersects with principles of access to justice, reinforcing the Supreme Court's repeated emphasis on speedy disposal (e.g., in cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar , though not directly cited here).

The policy distinguishes between high court and subordinate levels, leveraging lighter weekend loads at the appellate tier. It applies uniformly, potentially streamlining cause lists and prioritizing old cases. However, without statutory backing, its longevity depends on sustained buy-in. Precedents from other high courts, like Rajasthan's, suggest feasibility, but Delhi's scale—handling a disproportionate national caseload—amplifies its significance.

Critically, the lack of bar input raises questions about collaborative governance in judicial administration. While the Full Court holds final say, inclusive processes could mitigate resistance. The decision also aligns with national initiatives, such as the Supreme Court's 2026 calendar introducing "partial working days," indicating a paradigm shift toward extended judicial calendars.

Broader Impact on Judicial System and Legal Practice

For litigants, the implications are profoundly positive. Faster hearings could expedite resolutions in protracted civil suits or criminal trials, reducing the emotional and financial toll of delays. NJDG data shows over 75% of cases are civil, often involving property or commercial disputes amenable to weekend disposal.

Yet, for the legal profession, challenges abound. Compulsory Saturday sittings may exacerbate burnout, especially for junior advocates juggling multiple courts. Logistical hurdles—travel, family commitments—could disproportionately affect women lawyers and those from outside Delhi. Court staff and judges, already overburdened, might face similar strains, potentially impacting hearing quality.

Nationally, this could inspire replication; with pendency a pan-India issue (over 50 million cases across courts), Delhi's model offers a blueprint. It complements e-filing and alternative dispute resolution pushes, but success hinges on monitoring—perhaps tracking disposal rates post-implementation.

The DHCBA's concerns, if unaddressed, might lead to formal representations or protests, echoing past bar-court standoffs. However, as Puri noted, collective decisions are pending, suggesting room for dialogue. Ultimately, this reform underscores the judiciary's proactive stance, prioritizing public interest over convention.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's embrace of bi-monthly Saturday sittings marks a pragmatic response to an existential pendency challenge, extending a 2025 experiment into a structured policy. While the notification's clarity and outreach are commendable, the bar's valid apprehensions remind us that effective reform requires stakeholder harmony. As the court navigates this new rhythm, it could set a precedent for resilient judicial administration, ensuring justice is not just promised but delivered without undue delay. Litigants stand to gain most, but the true test will be balancing efficiency with equity in the legal ecosystem.