RETHINKING JUDICIAL REFORMS
RETHINKING JUDICIAL REFORMS
Introduction
India’s judiciary is frequently criticised for chronic delays, mounting case backlogs, and the slow pace of disposals. In response, governments often propose structural additions such as fast-track courts (FTCs) or procedural changes aimed at speeding up cases. The Karnataka District Judiciary Reforms Bill 2025 represents one such attempt. While it introduces FTCs, statutory timelines, and artificial intelligence (AI)–based court assistance, the deeper concern remains: do such reforms address structural bottlenecks or merely offer temporary, surface-level solutions? This essay argues that the Bill restricts judicial reform to questions of speed and efficiency rather than resolving systemic issues of process design, capacity, and institutional culture.
Why Fast-Track Courts Cannot Be the Sole Solution
1. FTCs do not remedy underlying process bottlenecks
According to the National Judicial Data Grid, delays often occur at witness examination (33.7% of civil cases) and service of notice (20%).
These stages are slowed by administrative inefficiencies, such as incorrect addresses, delays in delivering summons, and outstation witnesses having to travel long distances.
Simply creating more courts does not resolve procedural roadblocks that require disciplined case management and technological integration.
2. The Bill’s selection of case types lacks clarity
The Bill earmarks land disputes, cases involving unemployed persons, and cases pending for over five years.
These categories have diverse fact patterns and evidentiary burdens; clubbing them together for “speedy resolution” risks replicating existing inefficiencies in regular courts.
Special courts are efficient only when their subject matter is narrow and specialised (e.g., POCSO). The Bill does not justify why these chosen case types require fast-tracking.
Timeline Mandates: Unrealistic and Counterproductive
1. Statutory time limits ignore empirical data
Over 63% cases in Karnataka take more than one year for disposal.
POCSO courts—despite statutory timelines—take an average of 510 days to conclude trials.
Past experience demonstrates that timelines without capacity enhancement merely lead to rushed or superficial hearings.
2. Workload variations make uniform timelines unworkable
Court complexes within the same district show enormous variation: one Bengaluru Rural court averages 5.5 years pendency, another only 1.5 years.
Uniform timelines disregard the realities of geographical diversity, judge vacancies, and uneven caseload distribution.
3. Burdening judges with disposal targets risks justice quality
Incentivising judges for keeping adjournments below 10% may lead to denial of genuine hearing requests.
Fear of missing targets may compromise fair opportunity, reasoned orders, and judicial independence.
AI-Based Reforms: Benefits and Blind Spots
1. Positive steps
AI for transcription, legal research, scheduling, and scrutiny can reduce clerical workloads.
Safeguards—expert committees, digital audit trails, and data privacy—are important to prevent misuse.
2. Risks and limitations
AI limited to assistive functions cannot overcome fundamental issues such as poor case management discipline.
Without strict oversight, there is risk of shadow use of AI in influencing outcomes.
Beyond Quick Fixes: The Need for Systemic Reform
1. Administrative Cadre for District Courts
Judges spend excessive time on non-judicial tasks such as record scrutiny and scheduling.
A dedicated professional court administration service is essential.
2. Process Redesign and Case Management
Strict enforcement of case management hearings, digital summons, and alternative service mechanisms.
Redesign of workflows to eliminate redundant steps and automate routine functions.
3. Data-Driven and Evidence-Based Reforms
Reforms must be rooted in judicial statistics, pendency analysis, and feedback loops—not intuition.
Conclusion
Fast-track courts and AI introduce speed but do not cure structural challenges. Judicial reform must move beyond immediacy and embrace long-term systemic redesign: a specialised administrative cadre, better process management, and evidence-based policymaking. Without addressing these core issues, fast-track courts risk becoming yet another temporary band-aid on a chronic institutional problem.
Possible IAS Mains Questions
“Fast-track courts may increase the speed of disposals but cannot cure structural judicial delays.” Discuss with reference to recent reforms in the district judiciary.
Critically examine the use of statutory timelines and performance-based incentives for judges in ensuring timely justice.
