- Introduction
The maxim “justice hurried is justice buried” has often been cited to caution against rash judicial processes that might compromise fairness. However, its counterpart, “justice tarried is also justice buried,” resonates more deeply within the Indian legal system, where inordinate delays in resolving civil cases have led to significant social and economic distress for litigants. A stark example of such delay is the Sasadhar Biswas case, which began in 1971 and only reached a resolution in 2021—a staggering 50 years later. Despite amendments to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in 2002, which promised an average resolution time of one and a half years, the persistence of procedural inefficiencies, loopholes, and judicial overburdening continues to hinder timely justice.
The case of Sasadhar Biswas epitomizes the exploitation of CPC provisions by litigants and lawyers to delay proceedings, demonstrating how civil litigation can become a long, drawn-out battle rather than a swift pursuit of justice. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, in his 2021 ruling, highlighted the misuse of procedural rules in preserving the status quo, allowing litigants to evade execution of civil decrees. This case, and others like it, reflect a systemic problem where the very rules intended to safeguard fairness are weaponized to delay justice, ultimately eroding public trust in the judiciary.In the year 2024, the Indian judiciary faces an overwhelming backlog, with over 50 million cases pending across various courts. Of these, more than 180,000 cases have been pending for over 30 years in that 62,000 cases alone is pending in high courts, highlighting the severity of the issue. District courts bear the brunt of this backlog, accounting for more percentage of pending cases. This reflects the significant delays and inefficiencies in the judicial system at the grassroots level. These delays not only prolong justice but also undermine public confidence in the legal process[1].
So, the problem of inordinate delays in the Indian judiciary, particularly in civil cases, undermines the very essence of justice, as both justice hurried and justice delayed are equally detrimental. Despite amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in 2002, which aimed to expedite the resolution of cases within an average timeframe of one and a half years, this goal remains largely unfulfilled. The Sasadhar Biswas case (1979-2021) exemplifies how civil litigation can languish in the system for decades, leading to not only inefficiencies but also to erosion of public confidence in the judiciary. Such delays perpetuate a form of justice denial, with litigants often predicting the outcomes of cases long before they conclude, making the process of litigation itself a burdensome exercise rather than a path to resolution
Therefore, despite the procedural reforms, such as the 2002 amendment to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which aimed to expedite the resolution of civil cases within 18 months, these objectives remain largely unmet. Failure of the same calls for a deeper exploration of the systemic inefficiencies—ranging from case backlogs, procedural complexities, to inadequate judicial resources—that contribute to delays. Understanding these causes is essential for legal professionals to advocate for practical reforms that can restore public confidence in the judiciary and ensure timely delivery of justice.
This introduction to the concept of judicial delays underscores the need for an in-depth analysis of the loopholes in the CPC that enable such delays, and how these delays contribute to a broader denial of justice. Aspiring lawyers and policymakers must understand the causes of these inefficiencies, not to perpetuate them, but to work towards meaningful legal reform that ensures justice is both timely and effective.
[1] Pti. (2024, September 7). Nearly 62,000 of cases pending in high courts are over 30 years old. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/nearly-62000-of-cases-pending-in-high-courts-are-over-30-years-old/article68616991.ece