Back
SC Justice Amanullah: Don't Blame Judges for Pendency
In a candid and pointed intervention at a major arbitration conference,
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah has shifted the spotlight from overburdened judges to the practices of the legal fraternity in addressing India's chronic case pendency crisis. Speaking on
at the 5th edition of the
International Conference on
"Arbitration in the Era of Globalisation,"
the judge asserted that the mounting backlog—often pegged at over 5 crore cases across Indian courts—cannot be laid solely at the judiciary's doorstep. Instead, he emphasized the role of lawyers' prolonged arguments, frequent adjournments, and dilatory tactics as primary culprits, urging the Bar to engage in "hard soul searching."
Justice Amanullah's remarks come at a time when public and policy discourse frequently criticizes judicial inaction amid alarming pendency figures. With the itself handling over 80,000 pending matters and collectively burdened with more than 60 lakh cases, his defense highlights systemic realities that legal professionals must confront.
The Scale of the Problem: Overwhelming Caseloads
India's judicial system grapples with one of the world's highest pendency rates, a issue exacerbated by a judge-to-population ratio of just 21 per million—far below global standards like the US's 107 or UK's 50. According to data as of , account for over 4.4 crore pending cases, around 62 lakh, and the about 80,000. Justice Amanullah painted a stark picture of daily realities:
“At the trial court level, no judge has a case roster of less than 400-500 matters daily. In the , the number is even higher.”
This revelation underscores the sheer volume judges face. A typical trial judge, sitting for fixed court hours (often 5-6 hours), must navigate this deluge, deciding which matters to take up, hear arguments, and dictate orders. High court benches, he noted, confront even denser lists, making disposal rates a function not just of judicial efficiency but of external factors.
Justice Amanullah's Defense of the Judiciary
Dismissing narratives that pin pendency on judicial lethargy, Justice Amanullah questioned the premise head-on:
“A lot of things are said about pendency and the pressure on judges. But I will give you examples of how judges have absolutely nothing to do with the piling up of cases. A judge has to sit for certain hours. Is it a complaint that a judge doesn’t sit? Rarely.”
He acknowledged judges' occasional interventions—
"As a judge, can I stop a lawyer from arguing? Yes, sometimes I tell them they are repeating and wasting time"
—but stressed their duty-bound restraint:
“But can I say you don’t have the intellect or that your argument is absurd? No, because he may still say something relevant. I have to give him that space.”
This balanced view positions judges as facilitators of due process under , which enshrines the right to a speedy trial, rather than dictators of timelines. Rarely do judges fail to sit, he implied; the bottleneck lies elsewhere.
The Bar's Role in Prolonging Proceedings
At the heart of Justice Amanullah's critique is the Bar's conduct. He drew a direct line between argument length and disposal velocity:
“There is absolutely no connection between a judge and the disposal rate. It depends on the Bar, how long they want to argue.”
Prolonged oral submissions, repetitive points, and routine adjournment requests—often for trivial reasons—erode court time. In practice, a single matter stretching over multiple hearings due to exhaustive advocacy cascades into delays for dozens others. Justice Amanullah called for introspection:
"You have to do some hard soul searching. Don’t just blame the judges."
This echoes longstanding concerns from the judiciary, including former CJI DY Chandrachud's pleas for cooperative litigation and avoidance of frivolous adjournments.
For legal professionals, this is a wake-up call. may need to revisit ethical guidelines under the , potentially incorporating sanctions for undue delays, akin to 's provisions for professional misconduct.
Redefining Judicial Brilliance: Neutrality Over Expertise
In a philosophical pivot, Justice Amanullah redefined judicial virtues, cautioning against idolizing "brilliant" judges:
“Never, never want or even desire a judge to be brilliant and the master in his field, because then he will not give you a hearing. He should be neutral; he should be open. So, brilliance is not a requirement for a judge. Being fully well-versed, he would leave nothing to argument.”
This aligns with core tenets of — (hear the other side)—prioritizing impartiality over pre-judgment. A hyper-expert judge risks bias; neutrality ensures fairness. For appointing bodies like the , this reinforces merit tempered with open-mindedness, influencing judicial selection criteria.
Conference Context: Arbitration as a Catalyst
The remarks were delivered while chairing a session on ‘ADR Mechanisms: A Catalyst for Global Economic Growth & Investor Confidence’ at the conference, moderated by , with speakers including and others. Amid discussions on arbitration's role in globalisation, Justice Amanullah implicitly promoted ADR as pendency's antidote. India's arbitration ecosystem, bolstered by the , has seen institutional growth via bodies like and . Yet, court interventions persist, as noted in related talks (e.g., Justice BV Nagarathna's caution on arbitrator changes).
By linking pendency to economic confidence, the justice highlighted how delays deter investors, undermining India's Ease of Doing Business ranking.
Broader Legal Implications and Reforms
Justice Amanullah's observations have profound implications. Legally, they bolster defenses in speedy trial petitions under Article 21, shifting scrutiny to counsel's conduct. Policymakers may accelerate reforms: increasing judicial strength (target: 50 judges/million), e-Courts Phase III (AI-driven case management), and mandatory pre-litigation mediation under .
Comparatively, Singapore's docket-clearing efficiency (via strict timelines) contrasts India's, suggesting hybrid models. The Bar's response is pivotal—self-regulation via time-bound hearings or caps on adjournments could transform disposal rates.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
For practitioners, the message is tactical: streamline arguments, prioritize merits over theatrics. Firms handling high-volume litigation may adopt arbitration clauses proactively, reducing court burden. Academics and think tanks like could study Bar-judge dynamics empirically.
Systemically, it fosters a narrative of partnership, potentially easing judicial stress and burnout. With pendency projected to hit 6 crore by absent intervention, such candor could galvanize the ’s 278th Report recommendations on expedited disposal.
Conclusion: A Shared Responsibility for Swift Justice
Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah's address reframes India's pendency challenge as a collective endeavor. Judges labor under impossible loads, but true reform demands Bar-led change. As arbitration gains traction globally, embracing ADR alongside ethical advocacy offers a path to unclog courts, restore investor faith, and uphold constitutional promises. Legal professionals must heed the call: introspection today ensures justice tomorrow.
(Word count: approximately 1250—expanded with context, analysis, stats, and implications for depth.)
