Judicial Reforms — Pendency, NJAC, Fast-Track Courts & Access to Justice

Introduction

India's judiciary is constitutionally mandated as the guardian of fundamental rights and the arbiter of the Constitution. Yet the judicial system is beset by a structural crisis: over 5.58 crore cases were pending across all courts as of March 2026, of which more than 85% (≈4.9 crore) sit in district and subordinate courts. The question of judicial reforms is therefore among the most consequential governance challenges facing India. GS Paper II demands a nuanced understanding of case pendency, the collegium controversy, fast-track mechanisms, and access-to-justice initiatives.

The Pendency Crisis: Scale and Structure

Latest Data (NJDG, as of March 2026)

State-wise burden (District Courts): Uttar Pradesh leads with over 1.13 crore cases, followed by Maharashtra (~59 lakh) and West Bengal (~38 lakh).

Root Causes of Pendency

Supply-side deficits:

• Judge-to-population ratio: India has approximately 21 judges per 10 lakh population against the Law Commission's recommended 50 per 10 lakh (Law Commission 245th Report, 2014)
• High Court vacancy: as of early 2026, over 330 vacancies persist out of sanctioned strength of 1,114 judges (≈30%); some HCs (e.g., Allahabad, Patna) function at almost half their sanctioned strength
• Supreme Court strength: previously 34 (CJI + 33), raised to 38 (CJI + 37) by Ordinance dated 16 May 2026 — the first SC strength expansion since 2019; intended to ease constitution-bench backlog
• Infrastructure deficits: shortage of courtrooms, support staff, and technology

Demand-side pressures:

• Government is the single largest litigant (over 46% of all cases involve the State)
• Frequent adjournments: the culture of routine adjournments inflates docket
• Inadequate use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms
• Over-criminalisation of minor offences clogging lower courts

Process deficiencies:

• Absence of case-flow management in most courts
• Slow adoption of technology
• Frivolous appeals by governments against favourable lower court orders

Judicial Appointments: The Collegium System

Evolution Through the Three Judges Cases

The collegium system emerged through three landmark Supreme Court judgments, fundamentally shifting the constitutional balance in judicial appointments.

The net outcome: judicial primacy in appointments was established as part of the Basic Structure doctrine.

How the Collegium Works

• Supreme Court appointments: CJI + 4 senior-most judges recommend to President
• High Court appointments: CJI + 2 senior-most judges; consultation with HC collegium
• Transfers of HC judges: Both colleg­ia (SC and relevant HC) must recommend
• Government can return a recommendation once for reconsideration; if collegium reiterates, the recommendation is binding

Criticisms of the Collegium System

• Opacity: Deliberations not recorded; no written reasons given publicly
• Nepotism allegations: "Judges appointing judges" raises conflict-of-interest concerns
• Delayed appointments: Vacancies remain unfilled for months/years due to slow processing
• No diversity: Women, OBCs, and minorities remain under-represented on the bench
• No accountability: No external check on collegium decisions

NJAC: The 99th Constitutional Amendment and Its Fate

What the NJAC Sought to Do

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was established by the Constitution (99th Amendment) Act, 2014, passed by both Houses on August 13–14, 2014, and came into force on April 13, 2015.

Composition of NJAC:

1. Chief Justice of India (Chairperson)
2. Two senior-most Supreme Court judges
3. Union Law Minister
4. Two eminent persons (one to be nominated from SC/ST/OBC/minority/woman)

The NJAC replaced Articles 124(2) and 217 (appointment provisions) with new Articles 124A, 124B, and 124C.

Supreme Court Strikes Down NJAC (October 16, 2015)

A 5-judge Constitution Bench in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India struck down the 99th Amendment and NJAC Act by a 4:1 majority.

Majority view (Justices Khehar, Lokur, Kurian Joseph, Goel):

• The NJAC violated judicial independence, a Basic Structure element
• Including the Law Minister gave executive a veto over judicial appointments
• The "two eminent persons" clause allowed non-judicial influence on appointments
• Judicial primacy being integral to judicial independence forms part of the Basic Structure

Dissent (Justice Chelameswar):

• Struck down 99th Amendment but suggested reforming the collegium system
• Criticised collegium for opacity and lack of accountability

Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) — Unresolved Standoff

After the NJAC verdict, the Supreme Court directed the government and judiciary to finalise a revised Memorandum of Procedure governing the collegium process. As of 2026, the MoP remains unfinalized, with the executive and judiciary disagreeing on:

• Eligibility criteria for appointees
• National security as a ground for rejecting collegium recommendations
• Transparency and record-keeping requirements

E-Courts Mission Mode Project

India's e-Courts project is a pan-India mission under the National e-Governance Plan, implemented by the Department of Justice and the e-Committee of the Supreme Court.

National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG): A flagship e-Courts deliverable — accessible at njdg.ecourts.gov.in — provides real-time, court-wise pendency data updated daily by individual courts. NJDG won the World Justice Project's Access to Justice Award and has made India's pendency data the world's most transparent at the court-by-court level. Aspirants should note NJDG as Prelims-friendly content (real-time data on pendency, disposal, age of cases).

Virtual Courts: Fully automated courts for traffic-challan cases — no physical appearance required; e-payment via the eCourts portal. Operational in 26 States/UTs as of 2025; over 3.6 crore traffic challan cases disposed through virtual courts since launch.

SC Mediation push (April 2026): Then-CJI Sanjiv Khanna's initiative, continued by CJI Surya Kant, launched "Samadhan Samaroh" (21 April 2026) — a nation-wide mediation drive co-ordinated through NALSA + Mediation Council of India + High Court Mediation Centres, targeting low-stakes commercial and matrimonial disputes for pre-litigation mediation.

Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs)

The Central Government launched the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) in October 2019, funded from the Nirbhaya Fund.

Current Status (as of January–December 2025, per Department of Justice dashboard)

• 745 FTSCs functional across 30 States/UTs as of 31 January 2025 (of 790 targeted)
• Of these, 404 are exclusive POCSO Courts (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act)
• By June 2025, 725 FTSCs operational in 29 States/UTs (392 POCSO-exclusive) — a slight reduction reflecting decommissioning of some courts where states faced infrastructure or staffing constraints
• By December 2025 (DoJ Year-End Review 2025): 774 FTSCs including 398 exclusive POCSO courts across 29 States/UTs — the most authoritative full-year figure
• Over 3.6 lakh cases disposed since inception; disposal rate ≈ 96.28%; throughput of 7.41 cases/month/court — more than double the rate of regular courts (3.18 cases/month/court)

Scheme extension: The Scheme ran from October 2019 to 31 March 2026 (last extension: April 2023–March 2026), with a total outlay of ₹1,952.23 crore (Central Share: ₹1,207.24 crore from the Nirbhaya Fund). As of May 2026, a further extension is under Cabinet consideration; no fresh PIB notification confirming renewal post-March 2026 has been issued.

Gap vs target: ~25% of sanctioned FTSCs remain non-operational — due to infrastructure deficits, judge/staff vacancies, and uneven state capacity. India needs at least 1,000 more FTSCs to clear the backlog within a year (PIB estimate, 2025).

Specialisation: FTSCs handle rape and POCSO cases — under BNS Sections 63–73 (replacing IPC Sections 376, 376A–E, effective 1 July 2024) and POCSO Act 2012. Cases filed before 1 July 2024 continue under old IPC/CrPC; cases filed on or after 1 July 2024 proceed under BNS/BNSS. For exam purposes, cite "BNS Section 63 (formerly IPC 376)" for rape provisions.

Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008

The Gram Nyayalayas Act was enacted in 2008 and came into force on October 2, 2009 to provide inexpensive justice at the grassroots.

Key Features

• Gram Nyayalaya = a court at the Panchayat level headed by a Nyayadhyaksha (a First Class Judicial Magistrate)
• Functions as a mobile court: can hold sittings at any place within its jurisdiction
• Applies a summary procedure; plea bargaining is permitted
• Jurisdiction: civil and criminal matters of minor nature listed in First and Second Schedules
• All disputes to be decided within 6 months of filing

Implementation Status (as of early 2026)

• Only ~313 Gram Nyayalayas functional across India (out of 481 notified by States), against an envisaged ~6,500 at Intermediate Panchayat level — less than 5% of the intended footprint, 17 years after the Act
• Government CSS for Gram Nyayalayas had a ₹50 crore outlay and expired on 31 March 2026; re-extension awaits a Union Cabinet decision (no PIB notification as of May 2026)
• A Parliamentary Standing Committee report has called Gram Nyayalayas "almost defunct" due to State apathy

Key challenges: lack of infrastructure, shortage of judicial officers willing to work in rural areas, reluctance of States to fund the initiative (the Act makes State Governments the primary funders after the CSS sunset), and competition from regular Magistrate courts at taluka level.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Lok Adalats

• Statutory basis: Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (enforced November 9, 1995)
• Organised by NALSA, State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs), and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs)
• Award of Lok Adalat is deemed a decree of a civil court — final and binding; no appeal lies
• No court fee payable; fee paid is refunded if case settled
• Permanent Lok Adalats (Section 22B): for public utility services — transport, telecom, power, hospitals, insurance

Mediation Act, 2023

India's first standalone legislation on mediation, receiving Presidential assent on 15 September 2023, as a comprehensive framework replacing the ad-hoc regime under Section 89, CPC.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

• Governs domestic and international commercial arbitration
• 2015 Amendment: Time limits for arbitration (12 months for domestic awards, extendable by 6 months)
• 2019 Amendment: Arbitration Council of India (ACI) for accreditation; automatic stay of arbitral awards in cases of fraud or corruption removed

Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Established Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions in High Courts for disputes involving commercial transactions of specified value (initially ₹1 crore, reduced to ₹3 lakh in 2018), ensuring expeditious resolution.

Article 39A and Free Legal Aid

Article 39A (inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976) is a Directive Principle that mandates the State to ensure the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity, and provide free legal aid to citizens who cannot afford legal representation.

NALSA — National Legal Services Authority

• Constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
• Patron-in-Chief: Chief Justice of India
• Executive Chairman: Senior-most puisne judge of Supreme Court

Who is entitled to free legal aid (Section 12, LSAA 1987):

• Women and children
• SC/ST members
• Victims of mass disaster, ethnic violence, flood, drought, earthquake, industrial disaster
• Industrial workmen
• Persons in custody
• Persons whose annual income does not exceed ₹1 lakh (extendable by States)
• Persons with disabilities

All India Judicial Services (AIJS)

Proposed AIJS would create a centralised cadre for district judges recruited through an all-India examination (similar to IAS/IPS).

The Law Commission (14th Report, 1958) first recommended AIJS; the idea has been periodically revived but not implemented.

Key Law Commission Reports on Judicial Reforms

Key Provisions at a Glance

Cross-paper relevance

• GS2 — Polity (primary) — Judicial pendency (~5.58 crore cases total, March 2026; 4.76 crore in district courts as of Dec 2025), NJAC judgment, collegium, e-courts, fast-track courts; access to justice as constitutional right (Article 39A)
• GS2 — Governance — Justice delivery as public service; governance failure in courts; Law Commission recommendations; digitisation of judiciary (Phase III e-courts)
• GS1 — Society — Access to justice for marginalised communities; legal aid for SC/ST/women; Gram Nyayalayas and rural justice
• Essay — "Justice delayed is justice denied: India's pendency crisis and the path forward"

Recent Developments (2024–2026)

SC Pendency Crosses 93,000 — A 30-year High (March 2026)

(SC pendency 93,143 cases, HC pendency ~63.66 lakh cases, total ~5.58 crore, and +12,000 SC cases added in the year to March 2026 are in the "Pendency Crisis: Scale and Structure" table above. This section analyses what the CJI succession pattern reveals about institutional responses to the docket pressure.)

Cases pending for more than 30 years in district and High Courts number over 1.8 lakh — the figure that most starkly illustrates the system's failure to deliver timely justice. What the raw pendency numbers conceal is the divergence in response strategies across CJI tenures. CJI Sanjiv Khanna (24 November 2024 – 13 May 2025) prioritised listing reforms that cleared miscellaneous admissions faster — reducing the accumulation rate without tackling the backlog stock. CJI B.R. Gavai (14 May 2025 – 23 November 2025) shifted focus to constitution-bench matters — long-pending nine-judge and five-judge references that had been deferred for years, signalling that landmark precedent-setting matters had been crowded out by the daily docket. CJI Surya Kant (24 November 2025 – 9 February 2027) combined both strategies: the Sabarimala 9-judge reference (verdict reserved 14 May 2026 after 16-day hearing) addresses a constitutionally significant reference, while the May 2026 Ordinance raising SC sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 directly addresses supply. These sequential approaches reveal that there is no single administrative lever — pendency requires simultaneous action on admissions, roster management, judicial strength, and case lifecycle rules.

UPSC angle: Prelims — total pendency ~5.58 crore (March 2026); SC pendency 93,143 (March 2026); SC sanctioned strength 38 (CJI + 37) post Ordinance of 16 May 2026; CJI Surya Kant 53rd CJI from 24 Nov 2025. Mains [2014 — Judicial activism & basic structure] — identify structural causes of pendency (HC vacancies ≈30%, adjournment culture, government as largest litigant); evaluate the new criminal-law trial timelines and e-Courts Phase III as remedial measures.

New Criminal Laws — Judicial Impact and Timelines (July 2024)

The BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), and BSA (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) came into force on 1 July 2024. The BNSS introduced trial completion timelines (magistrate trials within 60 days of charge framing; sessions trials within 60 days), mandatory bail provisions for long-incarcerated undertrial prisoners, and a requirement for forensic science laboratory visits to all crime scenes involving offences punishable with 7+ years imprisonment.

These reforms directly address the long-standing pendency and undertrial crisis (Hussainara Khatoon v. Bihar, 1979), but critics flag implementation challenges: inadequate FSL infrastructure in many states, insufficient judges to meet the timelines, and training gaps.

UPSC angle: Prelims — BNSS trial timelines; mandatory FSL visits; bail provisions for undertrials; 1 July 2024. Mains — critically assess whether the new criminal law timelines will effectively reduce pendency or create new bottlenecks due to inadequate judicial infrastructure.

e-Courts Mission Phase III — ₹7,200 Crore Digital Push (2023–2027)

The government approved Phase III of the e-Courts Mission Mode Project with a total outlay of ₹7,210 crore for 2023–2027. Phase III aims to establish a Digital Ecosystem for the Judiciary (DEJA), including cloud infrastructure, interoperability between courts, case information upload within 24 hours, and AI-assisted legal research for judges. As of 2025, over 18,700 district and subordinate courts were computerised under Phase II.

UPSC angle: Prelims — e-Courts Phase III; ₹7,210 crore; 2023–27; DEJA. Mains — evaluate the transformative potential of e-Courts Phase III for access to justice; what barriers remain for rural and marginalised communities?

Fast-Track Special Courts — Latest Operational Numbers (December 2025)

As per the Department of Justice Year-End Review 2025, 774 FTSCs — including 398 exclusive POCSO courts — are functional in 29 States/UTs — against a target of 790 courts. The FTSCs are funded through the Nirbhaya Fund (Union Government) on a CSS pattern. These courts have disposed of over 3.6 lakh cases since inception in October 2019 with a disposal rate of ≈ 96.28% and a throughput of 7.41 cases/month/court — the strongest disposal performance of any centrally-sponsored judicial scheme. The scheme was last extended up to 31 March 2026, with a further continuation under Cabinet consideration as of May 2026.

Prong-2 note (data reconciliation): The static section above uses the mid-2025 figure of 725 FTSCs (June 2025) while the Year-End Review 2025 gives 774 FTSCs. Both figures are correct for their reference dates — the December 2025 figure of 774 is the most current and should be cited in Mains answers.

UPSC angle: Prelims — 774 FTSCs & 398 POCSO-exclusive courts (Year-End Review 2025, DoJ); Nirbhaya Fund; CSS pattern; 96.28% disposal rate; scheme extended to 31 March 2026. Mains — assess the FTSC model as a targeted reform; should it be expanded to all serious offences (e.g., undertrial backlog, electoral offences) or is it better reserved for sexual offences against women and children?

Exam Strategy

For Prelims:

• Memorise exact case names and years: SP Gupta (1981), SCARA (1993), Presidential Reference (1998), NJAC judgment (2015)
• 99th Amendment struck down by 4:1 majority
• Fast-track courts: 774 FTSCs, 398 POCSO courts (Year-End Review 2025, DoJ); earlier data points — 745 (Jan 2025), 725 (Jun 2025) — may appear in Prelims MCQs; Nirbhaya Fund
• Gram Nyayalayas Act: 2008, operative 2009, ~313 functional (early 2026)
• Article 39A inserted by 42nd Amendment 1976
• Mediation Act 2023 is India's first standalone mediation law

For Mains:

• Structure answers around: diagnosis (pendency data) → causes → reforms attempted → critique → way forward
• NJAC: cover constitutional basis, composition, SC's reasoning for striking down (Basic Structure), unresolved MoP dispute
• Collegium: evolution through Three Judges Cases, criticisms (opacity, nepotism, vacancies), reform suggestions
• ADR: differentiate Lok Adalats, mediation, arbitration — legal basis and binding nature of awards
• Article 39A + NALSA: constitutional foundation + implementation + gap between right and reality

Confusion Pairs — Frequent UPSC Traps

Cross-Paper Relevance — How Judicial Reforms Travel

UPSC Previous Year Questions — Direct Coverage

Mains PYQs from BharatNotes' verified PYQ bank that test this chapter end-to-end (click any to open the full model answer in the Mains PYQ engine):

• Mains 2024 GS-II, 10 M — "Explain and distinguish between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals. Whether they entertain civil as well as criminal cases?" — covers ADR section above (Lok Adalats vs Arbitration framework, civil/compoundable-criminal jurisdiction).
• Mains 2023 GS-II, 10 M — "Who are entitled to receive free legal aid? Assess the role of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in rendering free legal aid in India." — direct test of Article 39A + NALSA section.
• Mains 2023 GS-II, 10 M — "Judicial Independence is a pre-requisite for democracy…" — frames the entire collegium / NJAC / MoP debate around the Basic Structure doctrine.
• Mains 2017 GS-II, 10 M — "Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgement on 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India." — direct test of NJAC section.
• Mains 2015 GS-II, 12.5 M — "Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2015…" — pairs with the ADR section.
• Mains 2014 GS-II, 12.5 M — "Starting from inventing the 'basic structure' doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role… evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy." — frame the collegium / NJAC story as judicial activism.

Likely-trend lines for 2026–2027 Mains

Not asked yet, but the May 2026 developments make these high-probability:

• The Ordinance of 16 May 2026 raising SC strength from 34 to 38 — is expanding the Bench the right remedy for pendency, or does it dilute Chief-Justice-led case management?
• The Mediation Act, 2023 — three years on, has it delivered measurable pre-litigation diversion? Critically examine the still-incomplete Mediation Council of India.
• The e-Courts Phase III DEJA architecture — opportunities and risks of an AI-assisted judiciary; data-protection and Article 21 dimensions.
• The BNSS trial timelines (60 days post-charge for magistrate trials; 60 days for sessions trials) — will they accelerate disposal, or simply create fresh ground for appeal-by-default?