Parliament Question: Resolution Time of Court Cases

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1072 TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY, 2025 RESOLUTION TIME OF COURT CASES 1072. SHRI GURMEET SINGH MEET HAYER: Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state: (a) the data on the average time taken to resolve various types of court cases in the country over the last 10 years, including civil cases (such as property disputes and contract enforcement), criminal cases (categorised by the severity of the offence), family law cases (including divorce, child custody and maintenance), commercial disputes and Public Interest Litigations (PILs); (b) the comparative average resolution time across different levels of the Judiciary (District courts, High courts, Supreme Court); (c) the key reasons for delays in case resolution and the reforms that have been undertaken to reduce pendency; and (d) the current case backlog in each category and the measures that are being implemented to expedite justice delivery? ANSWER MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) OF THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE; AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS (SHRI ARJUN RAM MEGHWAL) (a) & (b): The Government does not maintain data on average time taken for resolution of court cases. However, as per data available on the National 1Judicial Data Grid, the time taken by the courts to dispose of civil and criminal cases is at Annexure-I. (c) & (d): As per information available on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), the numbers of pending cases in the Supreme Court, High Courts and subordinate Courts as on 22.07.2025 are as under: Sl. Name of Court Civil Cases Criminal Cases No. 1. Supreme Court 67,964 18,663 2. High Courts 44,35,763 18,92,051 3. District and Subordinate Courts 1,10,51,761 3,54,96,782 As regards the reasons for delays in case resolution, several factors play crucial role including the availability of physical infrastructure and supporting court staff, complexity of facts involved in a case, nature of evidence, co- operation of stakeholders viz. bar, investigating agencies, witnesses, and litigants. Other factors that lead to delay in disposal of cases include lack of prescribed timeframe by respective courts for disposal of various kinds of cases, frequent adjournments and lack of adequate arrangement to monitor, track and bunch cases for hearing. The resolution of pending cases in courts is within the exclusive domain of the judiciary. However, the Government is committed towards facilitating an ecosystem for expeditious disposal of cases by judiciary and reducing pendency as mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution. To this end, the Government has taken several initiatives to create an enabling ecosystem for faster disposal of cases by the judiciary which include the following: i. The National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms was set up in August, 2011, with the twin objectives of increasing access to justice by reducing delays in the system and enhancing accountability through structural changes and by setting performance standards and capacities. The Mission has been pursuing a coordinated approach for phased 2liquidation of arrears and pendency in judicial administration, which, inter-alia, involves better infrastructure for courts including computerization, increase in sanctioned strength of District and Subordinate Courts, policy and legislative measures in the areas prone to excessive litigation and re-engineering of court procedure for quick disposal of cases and emphasis on human resource development. ii. Under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for development of Judicial Infrastructure, funds are being released to States/UTs for construction of court halls, residential quarters for judicial officers, lawyers’ halls, toilet complexes and digital computer rooms that ease the life of various stakeholders including the litigants, thereby aiding justice delivery. As on 30.06.2025, Rs. 12,101.89 crores have been released since the inception of this Scheme in 1993-94. The number of court halls has increased from 15,818 (as on 30.06.2014) to 22,372 (as on 30.06.2025) and the number of residential units has increased from 10,211 (as on 30.06.2014) to 19,851 (as on 30.06.2025), under this Scheme. iii. Under Phase I and II of the e-Courts Mission Mode Project, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) was leveraged for IT enablement of District and Subordinate Courts and 18,735 District and Subordinate Courts were computerized till 2023. WAN connectivity was provided to 2977 sites. Video Conferencing facility was enabled between 3,240 court complexes and 1,272 corresponding jails. 778 eSewa Kendras (facilitation centres) were established to bridge the digital divide by providing citizen centric services to lawyers and litigants. 21 virtual courts were set up in 17 States/UTs, which handled more than 2.78 crore cases and realized more than Rs. 384.14 crores in fines up to March 2023. The Phase-III of the eCourts Project (2023-2027) was approved on 13.09.2023 with an outlay of Rs.7,210 crore, which is aimed at ushering a regime of enhanced ease of justice by moving towards digital, online and 3paperless courts. It intends to incorporate latest technology such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) to make justice delivery progressively more robust, easy and accessible. Till date, 506.05 crores pages of court records have been digitized in the High Courts and District Courts. More than 3.65 crore hearings have taken place through Video conferencing and live streaming is functional in 11 High Courts. The number of eSewa Kendras (facilitation centres) has increased to 1814 across High Courts and District Courts. Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning tools are being used in case management hearing and for transcription of oral judgements in the Supreme Court of India. iv. The Government has been filling up vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts from time to time. From 01.05.2014 to 21.07.2025, 70 Judges have been appointed in the Supreme Court. 1058 new Judges were appointed and 794 Additional Judges were made permanent in the High Courts during the same period. The sanctioned strength of Judges of the High Courts has increased from 906 in May, 2014 to 1122 till date. The sanctioned and working strengths of judicial officers in District and Subordinate Courts have increased as under: As on Sanctioned Strength Working Strength 31.12.2013 19,518 15,115 21.07.2025 25,843 21,122 Source: MIS Portal of the Department of Justice However, filling up of vacancies in District and Subordinate judiciary falls within the domain of the State/UT Governments and High Courts concerned. v. In pursuance of a Resolution passed in Chief Justices’ Conference held in April, 2015, Arrears Committees have been set up in all 25 High Courts to clear cases pending for more than five years. Arrears Committees have now been set up under District Courts as well. 4vi. Under the aegis of the Fourteenth Finance Commission, the Fast Track Courts have been established for dealing with cases of heinous crimes, cases involving senior citizens, women, children, etc. As on 30.06.2025, 865 Fast Track Courts are functional across the country. With a view to fast-track criminal cases involving elected MPs / MLAs, ten (10) Special Courts are functional in nine (9) States/UTs. Further, the Central Government had approved a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for setting up Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) across the country, for the expeditious disposal of pending cases of Rape and POCSO Act. As on 30.06.2025, 725 FTSCs including 392 exclusive POCSO (ePOCSO) Courts are functional in 29 States/UTs, which have disposed of more than 3,34,000 cases since their inception. vii. With a view to reduce pendency and unclogging of the courts, the Government has amended various laws like The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018, The Commercial Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018, The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act, 2018, The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019 and The Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2018. viii. Alternate Dispute Resolution methods have been progressively promoted. Accordingly, The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was amended in August, 2018 making Pre-institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) mandatory in case of commercial disputes. In order to further enhance the efficiency of the PIMS mechanism, the Government, through The Mediation Act, 2023, has further amended the Commercial Court Act, 2015. The amendments to The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been made in the years 2015, 2019 and 2021 for expediting the speedy resolution of disputes. Under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, there is a provision for case management hearing, which provides for an efficient, effective and 5purposeful judicial management of a case so as to achieve a timely and qualitative resolution of a dispute. It assists in early identification of disputed issues of facts and law, establishment of procedural calendar for the life of the case and the exploration of possibilities of the resolution of the dispute. Another novel feature introduced for the commercial courts is the system of color banding, which limits the number of adjournments that can be granted in any commercial matter to three and alerts the judges about listing of the cases in accordance with their stage of pendency. ix. Lok Adalat is an important Alternative Disputes Resolution Mechanism available to common people, where the disputes/ cases pending in the court of law or at pre-litigation stage are settled/ compromised amicably. Under The Legal Services Authorities (LSA) Act, 1987, an award made by a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and is final and binding on all parties and no appeal lies against it before any court. National Lok Adalats are organized simultaneously in all Taluks, Districts and High Courts on a pre-fixed date. The details of the cases disposed of in National Lok Adalats during the last four years are as under: - Years Pre-litigation Cases Pending Grand Cases Total 2021 72,06,294 55,81,743 1,27,88,037 2022 3,10,15,215 1,09,10,795 4,19,26,010 2023 7,10,32,980 1,43,09,237 8,53,42,217 2024 8,70,19,059 1,75,07,060 10,45,26,119 2025 (up to 2,58,28,368 50,82,181 3,09,10,549 March) Total 22,21,01,916 5,33,91,016 27,54,92,932 x. The Government launched the Tele-Law programme in 2017, which provides an effective and reliable e-interface platform connecting the 6needy and disadvantaged sections seeking legal advice and consultation with panel lawyers via video conferencing, telephone and chat facilities available at the Common Service Centres (CSCs) situated in Gram Panchayats and through Tele-Law mobile App. *Percentage-wise break-up of Tele – Law Data Till 30th June, Cases % wise Advice % wise 2025 Registered Break Up Enabled Break Up Gender -wise Female 44,81,170 39.58% 44,21,450 39.55% Male 68,39,728 60.42% 67,58,085 60.45% Caste Category-wise General 26,89,371 23.76% 26,48,100 23.69% OBC 35,64,430 31.49% 35,16,236 31.45% SC 35,27,303 31.16% 34,90,737 31.22% ST 15,39,794 13.60% 15,24,462 13.64% Total 1,13,20,898 1,11,79,535 xi. Efforts have been made to institutionalize pro bono culture and pro bono lawyering in the country. A technological framework has been put in place where advocates volunteering to give their time and services for pro bono work can register as Pro Bono Advocates on Nyaya Bandhu (Android & iOS and Apps). Nyaya Bandhu Services are also available on UMANG Platform. Pro Bono Panel of advocates has been initiated in 23 High Courts at the State/UT level. Pro Bono Clubs have been started in 109 Law Schools to instill Pro Bono culture in budding lawyers. ******* 7ANNEXURE-I STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN REPLY TO PART (A) & (B) OF LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 1072 FOR ANSWER ON 25.07.2025 REGARDING ‘RESOLUTION TIME OF COURT CASES’. Time taken by the courts to resolve/dispose of the cases (as on 22.07.2025) Time Taken Supreme Court High Courts District and Subordinate Courts Civil Criminal Civil Criminal Civil Criminal Within 1 year 13,675 (67.68%) 8,545 (79.50%) 4,55,893 (64.42%) 4,23,543 (85.26%) 8,21,981 (38.75%) 73,90,610 (70.57%) 1-2 year 2,135 (10.57%) 872 (8.11%) 56,837 (8.03%) 22,699 (4.57%) 351978 (16.59%) 8,01,406 (7.65%) 2-3 year 1,004 (4.97%) 305 (2.84%) 33,735 (4.77%) 10,553 (2.12%) 249335 (11.76%) 7,31,028 (6.98%) 3-4 year 460 (2.28%) 152 (1.41%) 21,993 (3.11%) 6,884 (1.39%) 155430 (7.33%) 3,35,736 (3.21%) 4-5 year 367 (1.82%) 94 (0.87%) 14,461 (2.04%) 3,831 (0.77%) 110619 (5.22%) 2,16,011 (2.06%) 5-6 year 690 (3.42%) 187 (1.74%) 22,987 (3.25%) 5,397 (1.09%) 98274 (4.63%) 2,37,649 (2.27%) 6-7 year 421 (2.08%) 99 (0.92%) 19,989 (2.82%) 4,223 (0.85%) 84635 (3.99%) 1,87,756 (1.79%) 7-8 year 331 (1.64%) 70 (0.65%) 15,599 (2.20%) 3,822 (0.77%) 58392 (2.75%) 1,37,057 (1.31%) 8-9 year 413 (2.04%) 69 (0.64%) 11,616 (1.64%) 2,604 (0.52%) 40526 (1.91%) 89,400 (0.85%) 9-10 year 187 (0.93%) 75 (0.70%) 9,242 (1.31%) 1,886 (0.32%) 33172 (1.56%) 65,616 (0.63%) 10-11 year 138 (0.68%) 69 (0.64%) 7,444 (1.05%) 1,166 (0.23%) 25545 (1.20%) 50,007 (0.48%) 11-12 year 82 (0.41%) 120 (1.12%) 5,964 (0.84%) 1,279 (0.26%) 19295 (0.91%) 38,754 (0.37%) 12-13 year 110 (0.54%) 61 (0.57%) 5,044 (0.71%) 989 (0.20%) 14852 (0.70%) 29,023 (0.28%) 13-14 year 76 (0.38%) 9 (0.08%) 3,710 (0.52%) 682 (0.14%) 10374 (0.49%) 20,932 (0.20%) 14-15 year 55 (0.27%) 9 (0.08%) 3,250 (0.46%) 734 (0.15%) 7696 (0.36%) 16,789 (0.16%) 15-16 year 25 (0.12%) 7 (0.07%) 2,569 (0.36%) 890 (0.18%) 6106 (0.29%) 14,711 (0.14%) 16-17 year 14 (0.07%) 2 (0.02%) 2,498 (0.35%) 932 (0.19%) 5017 (0.24%) 12,402 (0.12%) 17-18 year 11 (0.05%) 2 (0.02%) 1,884 (0.27%) 1,097 (0.22%) 3900 (0.18%) 9,379 (0.09%) 18-19 year 2 (0.01%) - 1,956 (0.28%) 829 (0.17%) 2971 (0.14%) 8,594 (0.08%) 19-20 year 1 (0.00%) 1 (0.01%) 1,820 (0.26%) 602 (0.12%) 2728 (0.13%) 8,112 (0.08%) 20-21 year - - 1,443 (0.20%) 518 (0.10%) 2467 (0.12%) 8,429 (0.08%) More than 21 year 7 (0.03%) - 7,798 (1.10%) 1,586 (0.32%) 15713 (0.74%) 63,367 (0.61%) Source: National Judicial Data Grid. 8