This saying, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied,’ is one of the first lessons every legal mind learns.It’s a fundamental truth that resonates deeply with all of us. While we are all familiar with its meaning, it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on it once again. Justice delayed is justice denied’
means that justice served too late is as good as justice that was never served at all. This principle emphasizes that timely justice is essential for its true meaning and effectiveness. The real question now is: Is the legal system truly upholding the principle of justice delayed and justice denied? How Long Does It Take to Resolve a Case in India?
To address the questions of whether the legal system is truly upholding the principle of timely justice, let’s look at some startling facts. As of May 2022, over 48 million cases are pending across India’s judiciary, with 87.4% in subordinate courts, 12.4% in High Courts, and nearly 182,000 cases unresolved for over 30 years.
The data reveals that it takes an average of 15 years for a civil case to reach a conclusion in the Supreme Court, while criminal cases can take up to eight years. In some instances, these delays stretch into decades, leaving litigants and victims in a prolonged state of uncertainty. One of the major cases that clearly outlines the issue is.
The Doshipura Graveyard Case
Dating back to the 1870s, the Doshipura graveyard case is among India’s oldest and most persistent court cases. The lawsuit centers on a dispute between the Sunni and Shia populations in Doshipura, Varanasi, about who owns and controls nine land parcels that contain places of worship such as an imambara, baradiri, and mosque. The Sunnis contend the area is part of their cemetery, while the Shias maintain the site was granted to them for religious reasons by the Maharaja of Varanasi.
The case has undergone numerous legal proceedings over the years, with courts consistently siding with the Shia community. However, despite a 1981 Supreme Court ruling ordering the relocation of graves and the construction of boundary walls, the decision was never fully enforced. The dispute has persisted for decades, with multiple extensions and repeated requests for clarifications.As recently as 2014, the Supreme Court declared the issue regarding the graves to be resolved, but left room for further applications from both parties. This prolonged case has significantly
influenced the social and religious dynamics of the area, and tensions remain high, particularly during Muharram. In a 2018 column for The Hindu, Justice Markandey Katju referred to the Doshipura graveyard case as an example of the challenges in enforcing Supreme Court orders,citing it alongside other legal issues like witness protection. He highlighted the ongoing tension between law and religion in India, a problem dating back to the Shirur Mutt case and continuing in contemporary issues such as Sabarimala and triple talaq. These cases, which often involve the courts redefining religious practices, fuel political and ideological debates, especially in light of discussions about a uniform civil code. Like the cases of triple talaq and Sabarimala, the courts are caught between legal principles and deeply ingrained societal divides. In contrast to lengthy trials in the United States and the United Kingdom, India’s judicial system is marked by delays that are not only prolonged but also historically entrenched. While the McMartin preschool abuse trial in the US lasted seven years at a cost of $15 million, and the Jubilee Line corruption trial in the UK went on for 21 months at a cost of £60 million, India’s longest legal battle the Doshipura graveyard case has been ongoing since 1870. This more than 150-year-old unresolved conflict underscores the serious issues facing the Indian judicial system.
It’s heartbreaking to think about the many families stuck in this endless legal limbo.Even more tragic is how the legal papers, case files, and unresolved issues get passed down like a painful family heirloom. Children and grandchildren don’t just inherit their ancestors’ struggles, but also the anxiety, frustration, and stress of a case that should have been settled long ago. This cycle of delay keeps going from one generation to the next, adding emotional and mental burdens that no one should have to carry. It’s not just about justice being delayed-it’s about a country failing to provide answers in a timely way, forcing people to carry the weight of past issues into their future.
This heartbreaking reality highlights the urgent need for judicial reform. The Doshipura case, like many others, shows a system that lacks both the resources and the resolve to deliver justice on time, leaving people stuck in a constant state of uncertainty.
From a legal perspective, the right to a fair and timely trial is enshrined in various constitutional provisions, such as Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Prolonged delays in legal proceedings not only violate this fundamental right but also undermine the credibility of the judiciary. In today’s fast-moving world, no one should have to wait years for justice. For a victim, every day of delay adds to their pain and frustration. But the accused also suffers mentally, living under the constant weight of uncertainty and fear. Delays harm both sides, with the courts, instead of providing justice, creating more hardship. Justice is meant to heal, not hurt. Both the victim and the accused deserve timely justice, not a never-ending wait. No one should have to endure such an extended period of uncertainty, as delays in justice lead to a loss of trust in the legal system itself.Instead of merely exaggerating the issue, it’s important to look at the clear reasons why these delays in justice are happening. One of the primary factors contributing to the backlog of cases is the shortage of judges. India’s judiciary is significantly understaffed, with a huge gap between the number of cases and the judges available to handle them. Another reason is the inefficiency within the judicial process, such as lengthy adjournments and procedural delays. The complexity of cases, combined with a lack of infrastructure and outdated case management systems, also plays a role in the slow pace of justice.Additionally, the increasing number of pending cases, especially in lower courts, adds immense pressure to an already overburdened system. The issue of judicial pendency in India has reached a critical point, as highlighted by the 133rd report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice. The report calls for a comprehensive strategy to address the mounting case backlog, which continues to strain the Indian judiciary. While the
Committee acknowledges several factors contributing to the delays, including the shortage of judges and inefficiencies in the judicial system, it offers key recommendations to alleviate this issue.
- Expanding Court Locations: Supreme Court Regional Benches One of the most innovative suggestions by the Committee is the establishment of regional benches of the Supreme Court. By invoking Article 130 of the Constitution, the committee recommends setting up regional benches at four or five locations across the country. This would ensure that justice is accessible to people without the need for costly and time-consuming travel to Delhi,offering a more localized approach to case hearings.
- Reevaluating Judicial Vacations: Judges’ Spaced Out Leaves The Committee also points to the colonial legacy of judicial vacations, which currently include long summer and winter breaks. These periods of collective suspension of court proceedings,though not a complete closure, still lead to significant delays. The report proposes a change in the vacation system, suggesting that judges take time off at different intervals instead of having all courts closed at the same time. This would keep the judicial process moving, minimizing unnecessary disruptions and delays.
- Improving Workload Management and Addressing the Judge Shortage The shortage of judges is a longstanding issue in the Indian judiciary. With a vacancy rate of 42% in High Courts and significant shortages in subordinate courts, this deficiency contributes directly to the backlog. The Committee recommends increasing the number of judges, following earlier suggestions made by the Law Commission, to better match the growing number of cases.Additionally, adopting modern case management techniques, such as better distribution of caseloads and e-filing systems, can significantly expedite the resolution process.
- Enhancing ADR Mechanisms One area that could see immediate benefits is the further promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods such as Lok Adalats, Gram Nyayalayas, and online dispute resolution platforms. These tools offer quicker resolution of disputes outside the traditional court system,relieving the pressure on the judiciary and providing a faster, more accessible avenue for justice.
- Raising the Retirement Age and Post-Retirement Tasks for Judges With advancements in medical science, the life expectancy of judges has increased, making it more practical to extend the retirement age of judges beyond the current limit of 62. Furthermore,reassessing post-retirement assignments could enhance impartiality and efficiency in the judicial system, allowing experienced judges to continue contributing to the legal landscape.
- Reducing Government Litigation The government remains one of the largest litigants in the judicial system. With thousands of cases pending, the government’s involvement in litigation contributes heavily to the backlog. Reforming government litigation policies and encouraging quicker resolution of cases involving the state would help ease the burden on the courts.
A Recommendation to Cure Justice Delayed, Justice Denied: Customized Timelines for Every Case
One potential solution to combat the growing backlog of cases in India’s judiciary is the introduction of a personalized timeline system, where courts establish an imaginary yet realistic timeline for resolving cases, considering the unique personal and professional profiles of both parties involved. This approach would allow the judiciary to set a reasonable time frame based on the specifics of each case—its complexity, the circumstances of the litigants, and the nature of the dispute-while ensuring that justice is delivered without unnecessary delays.
Under this system, each case would be assessed on its facts and merit, allowing the court to create a timeline that reflects the urgency and nature of the dispute. For instance, a civil matter involving family disputes could be fast-tracked, while more complex commercial or environmental cases might require a slightly longer period. The timeline would not be rigid, but rather flexible and extendable in cases where the parties mutually agree or when unforeseen delays occur, as long as both parties are informed and consent to the extension.
This system would help the court system become more dynamic in handling cases, while also offering litigants a sense of certainty and closure. For the victim, it would ensure that their wait for justice is not indefinite, while for the accused, it would alleviate the mental burden of prolonged uncertainty. By setting practical timelines, courts can prevent endless delays and ensure that both parties can move on with their lives, knowing that their cases are being dealt with fairly and efficiently.
Implementing such a timeline system, customized to the nature of each case, could significantly improve the efficiency of the judiciary while fostering trust in the system. It would provide a balance between a personalized approach to justice and the practical need for timely resolution.Ultimately, this could help resolve disputes in a way that respects both the legal and humanitarian aspects of justice, promoting a fairer, quicker, and more compassionate legal process for all involved.
Conclusion: Can the judicial delays be stopped?
While we acknowledge the complexities of the judicial process and the unique circumstances surrounding each case, it is essential to strike a balance between thorough deliberation and efficiency. Courts must hear both sides of a case, carefully weighing all facts and merits, but it is equally important to do so within a reasonable timeframe. The introduction of a personalized timeline system, where each case is assessed based on its complexity and urgency, offers a path forward. Courts should retain the flexibility to extend these timelines when necessary, but there should be a defined structure that prevents indefinite delays.
Justice should not become a waiting game. By modernizing case management, reducing systemic inefficiencies, and ensuring adequate judicial resources, we can revitalize the judicial system and restore faith in its ability to deliver timely and fair justice. The time for change is now-because every day that justice is delayed is another day it is denied. In the pursuit of justice, we must be both humanitarian and efficient, ensuring that the process is not only fair but also timely.
Source
ARTICLE WRITTEN BY – Gaddam Sneha Deepthi
EDITOR – Archana Singh
