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 4.76 crore cases were pending across all courts as of December 31, 2025, making the question of judicial reforms 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 (December 31, 2025)

State-wise burden (District Courts): Uttar Pradesh leads with 1,13,45,328 cases, followed by Maharashtra (59,26,999) and West Bengal (38,35,113).

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
• High court vacancy: As of 2025, over 350 vacancies exist in High Courts out of sanctioned strength of ~1,114
• 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): Real-time data on pendency across all courts; accessible publicly.

Virtual Courts: Fully automated courts for traffic challan cases — no physical appearance required; payment via portal.

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 (January 31, 2025)

• 754 FTSCs operational in 30 States/UTs
• Of these, 404 are exclusive POCSO Courts (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act)
• Over 3,06,000 cases disposed since inception

Scheme extension: The Scheme has been extended to March 31, 2026, with a total outlay of ₹1,952.23 crore (Central Share: ₹1,207.24 crore from Nirbhaya Fund).

Specialisation: FTSCs handle rape and POCSO cases under Sections 376, 376A–E IPC and POCSO Act, ensuring trial completion within the prescribed time limits.

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 (October 2024)

• Only 313 Gram Nyayalayas functional across India, despite the potential for thousands
• The target of covering all Intermediate Panchayats (~6,500) is far from achieved
• Less than 4% of envisaged Gram Nyayalayas have been established in 16 years
• Government scheme extended to March 31, 2026 with ₹50 crore outlay

Key challenges: lack of infrastructure, shortage of judicial officers willing to work in rural areas, reluctance of States to fund the initiative.

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, enacted in 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

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: 754 FTSCs, 404 POCSO courts (Jan 2025), Nirbhaya Fund
• Gram Nyayalayas Act: 2008, operative 2009, 313 functional (Oct 2024)
• 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

Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Prelims

1. UPSC CSE Prelims 2016: With reference to the constitution of India, consider the following: "Prohibition of traffic in human beings and forced labour." Which of the following is/are Fundamental Right(s)? (Indirectly tests DPSP vs FR boundary)

2. UPSC CSE Prelims 2019: "The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has a duty to... ." Consider the following statements about the Lokpal Act: (Tests knowledge of constitutional posts and oversight)

3. UPSC CSE Prelims 2023: With reference to India, consider the following statements regarding the 'Fast Track Special Courts': (a) These courts were established to hear rape and POCSO Act cases; (b) They are funded from the Nirbhaya Fund. (Direct test of FTSC scheme)

4. UPSC CSE Prelims 2021: With reference to 'Lok Adalats', which of the following statements is/are correct? (1) Lok Adalats have the jurisdiction to settle the matters at pre-litigation stage; (2) Lok Adalats can adjudicate cases relating to matrimonial disputes. (Tests Legal Services Authorities Act provisions)

Mains

1. UPSC CSE Mains 2023 (GS II): "The Supreme Court's collegium system has failed to address the structural problems of judicial appointments in India." Critically examine with reference to the NJAC verdict and the way forward. (10 marks)

2. UPSC CSE Mains 2020 (GS II): Pendency of cases in the judiciary is a serious impediment to access to justice. Analyse the causes and suggest measures, with particular reference to the role of ADR mechanisms. (15 marks)

3. UPSC CSE Mains 2018 (GS II): The 99th Constitutional Amendment establishing the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down by the Supreme Court. Examine the reasons and discuss the implications for the separation of powers. (15 marks)

4. UPSC CSE Mains 2016 (GS II): "Article 39A of the Constitution provides for equal justice and free legal aid." Discuss the role of NALSA in realising this objective and the challenges it faces. (10 marks)