_^India’s justice system is facing one of the most serious structural challenges in its post-Independence history: the burden of long-pending cases that have remained unresolved not for years, but for decades. According to data released last year by the Ministry of Law and Justice, more than 65 lakh cases pending before High Courts and district courts across the country have been awaiting final decisions for ten years or more. Even more disturbing is the revelation that over 3,000 cases have remained pending for more than 50 years. These figures are not merely statistical anomalies; they raise profound questions about access to justice, institutional capacity, and the lived reality of litigants who have spent a lifetime waiting for closure.

A closer look at the data reveals the depth of the crisis. Across the country’s 25 High Courts and the district judiciary, as many as 54,58,832 cases fall in the category of being pending for 10 to 20 years. In addition, cases awaiting disposal for 20 to 30 years and even 30 to 40 years run into several lakhs. Despite the continued functioning of Lok Adalats and periodic drives to reduce pendency, the overall number of cases continues to rise steadily. This suggests that while alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have had some impact, they have not been sufficient to arrest the accumulation of old cases.

It is important to underline that criticism of the judiciary’s functioning must be approached with caution and responsibility. The courts themselves, including the Supreme Court of India, have repeatedly acknowledged the problem of pendency and expressed serious concern over it. Judges at all levels are working under intense pressure, often handling far more cases than what would be considered manageable by international standards. The government, too, has recognised the gravity of the situation and has initiated reforms aimed at improving efficiency and reducing delays. Nevertheless, the persistence of cases pending for over half a century indicates that incremental reforms alone may not be enough.

The most troubling aspect of the data is the existence of 3,442 cases that have been pending for more than 50 years. Of these, 2,329 are in High Courts and 1,113 are in district courts. The number itself may appear small in comparison to the total pendency, but even a single case languishing for five decades represents a failure of the justice delivery system. A 50-year pendency often means that two or even three generations of a family have attended court hearings, bearing financial costs, emotional stress, and social uncertainty. Justice delayed on such a scale effectively becomes justice denied.

An analysis of these long-pending cases shows that the overwhelming majority are civil disputes, most of them related to land and property. This is hardly surprising, given the complexity of land records, inheritance laws, and overlapping claims that characterise property disputes in India. However, what is particularly alarming is that 459 cases pending for over 50 years fall under the criminal category. In such cases, the implications are even more severe. Victims who suffered physical or psychological trauma decades ago may no longer be alive, while accused persons may have spent years under the shadow of unresolved charges. In many instances, the very purpose of criminal justice—deterrence, accountability, and closure—stands defeated by the passage of time.

Over the years, both the government and the Supreme Court have deliberated extensively on ways to address this crisis. One positive development has been the gradual filling up of judicial vacancies at the apex court level. Serious efforts are also underway to appoint judges in High Courts and district courts. Yet, the gap between sanctioned strength and actual working strength remains significant. By conservative estimates, out of around 1,100 sanctioned posts of judges in High Courts, nearly 300 to 350 remain vacant. In the district judiciary, the situation is even more acute, with approximately 4,000 to 5,000 positions lying unfilled. There is little doubt that such shortages directly affect the pace of case disposal.

At the same time, the scale of pendency—more than 65 lakh cases pending for over ten years—raises fundamental questions about systemic design rather than individual responsibility. Assigning blame to judges, lawyers, or litigants in isolation will not produce meaningful solutions. What is required is a comprehensive and targeted strategy that prioritises the disposal of old cases without compromising the quality of justice. Recent legislative amendments aimed at fixing timelines for certain stages of proceedings are steps in the right direction, but their impact will depend on rigorous implementation.

One practical reform worth serious consideration is the creation of dedicated benches exclusively for the disposal of old cases. Courts already maintain year-wise data on pending cases. Using this information, special rosters could be designed to ensure that a fixed number of cases pending for more than ten, twenty, or even thirty years are taken up on every working day. Such an approach would institutionalise prioritisation rather than leaving it to ad hoc initiatives. Over time, this could significantly reduce the backlog of legacy cases.

Equally important is the role of the legal fraternity. Lawyers representing both sides have a professional and ethical responsibility to assist the court in the timely disposal of cases, especially those that have been pending for decades. Avoidable adjournments, procedural delays, and tactical prolongation of litigation only add to the suffering of litigants and erode public confidence in the justice system. If all stakeholders—judges, lawyers, court staff, and the administration—work in a coordinated manner, meaningful progress is possible.

The burden of long-pending cases is not merely an administrative issue; it strikes at the core of constitutional governance. The right to access justice is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law. When citizens spend decades waiting for judgments, faith in institutions weakens, and informal or extra-legal methods of dispute resolution gain ground. Reducing pendency, particularly of old cases, would not only ease the workload of courts but also provide immense relief to litigants who have lived under the weight of uncertainty for years.

Ultimately, addressing this challenge requires sustained political will, institutional innovation, and collective responsibility. Courts and governments already possess the data, the legal tools, and the administrative mechanisms needed to act. What remains is the resolve to treat long-pending cases as a national priority. If India is to uphold its constitutional promise of timely justice, clearing the backlog of decades-old cases is not optional—it is imperative.

(Author is Managing Editor of The Emerging World)