Explainer: What you need to know about HC’s concern over justice vs case disposal

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised alarm over a shifting judicial approach, where an urgent push for case disposal overshadows the emphasis on justice delivery. The concern, voiced in a recent ruling, highlights a broader challenge faced by the judiciary: balancing efficiency with fairness. 

Judicial authorities have increasingly prioritised quick resolutions, following a staggering backlog of cases. But the high court has warned that this approach risks turning the justice system into a case management system rather than one that ensures justice. 

Here’s a deep dive into why this shift is happening, what it means for the legal system and its potential implications for litigants. 

Why is the focus shifting toward case disposal? 

Several systemic challenges have contributed to this evolving judicial trend, including a massive backlog of cases. Punjab's district courts are grappling with a massive backlog of approximately 8,45,300 cases, with a concerning 62 per cent of these languishing for over a year. The judicial logjam is primarily attributed to the non-availability of counsel for litigants creating a significant bottleneck in case disposal. Additionally, stays granted by the courts in their orders have further exacerbated pendency, stalling proceedings and delaying justice delivery.

Haryana, on the other hand, is burdened with a massive backlog of 14, 30,151 pending cases, with over 70 per cent of them pending for more than a year. National Judicial Data Grid — the monitoring tool to identify, manage and reduce pendency — reveals that the primary reason behind the prolonged delay is the non-availability of counsel, which continues to hinder the smooth progress of cases. Besides this, stay orders have emerged as another significant factor contributing to the mounting pendency, further straining the state’s judicial system.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, meanwhile, has over 4.37 lakh pending cases, making it one of the most overloaded high courts in the country. To tackle the crisis, the judiciary has adopted strategies to expedite case disposal, including setting time-bound targets and prioritising long-pending matters. 

Earlier this year, the high court issued directions to clear cases pending for over 30 years as a priority. While such measures aim to bring long-awaited relief to litigants, they also create pressure on judges to clear cases quickly, sometimes at the cost of in-depth deliberation. 

Judicial vacancies have also significantly contributed to the backlog crisis. The Punjab and Haryana High Court currently operates with 51 judges, while its sanctioned strength is 85. This shortage of 34 judges has increased the workload on existing judges.

With fewer judges handling an overwhelming number of cases, courts are left with limited time to examine matters thoroughly, leading to concerns over rushed verdicts. 

A silent but significant factor in this trend is the performance evaluation of judges. In lower courts, judges are often assessed based on the number of cases disposed of in addition to the quality of their judgments. This has led to a culture where case disposal rates are seen as a measure of judicial efficiency, shifting focus away from in-depth legal reasoning. 

What are the implications of this shift? 

The judiciary’s growing emphasis on efficiency over deliberation has significant consequences for the legal system and litigants: The quality of justice is at risk. Justice is not just about speed but also about fairness and accuracy. When courts prioritise disposal over detailed hearings, there is a higher risk of miscarriage of justice. Complex civil and criminal cases often require expert testimonies, extensive cross-examination, and legal interpretations that cannot be compressed into short hearings. Rushing through these cases can lead to erroneous rulings, resulting in prolonged appeals and retrials. 

The loss of public trust in the judiciary is another issue. The judiciary is meant to uphold the rule of law, but if courts become assembly lines for case disposal, public confidence in the legal system may erode. If litigants feel their cases are not being given due attention, they may lose faith in the fairness of judicial decisions. 

The perception that courts are more focused on clearing cases than delivering justice could also encourage alternative dispute methods outside the legal system, some of which may not guarantee fairness. 

Increased reliance on Lok Adalats and fast-track mechanisms also means that many litigants are encouraged to settle cases rather than fight for their legal rights. In civil disputes, weaker parties may be pressured into accepting unfair settlements, especially when courts push for quicker resolutions. 

Increased burden on appellate courts is fallout. If lower courts rush through cases without proper scrutiny, more litigants are likely to challenge verdicts in appellate courts. This could lead to higher workloads for high courts and the Supreme Court, ultimately defeating the purpose of quick disposals. 

A poorly decided case at the trial level can take years to correct through appeals, prolonging the agony of litigants and further burdening the judicial system. 

How can the judiciary balance efficiency and justice? 

To address the challenges posed by case backlogs without compromising justice, the judiciary must adopt a balanced approach: Filling vacant judge positions is crucial to reducing individual workloads. More judges mean better case distribution and more time per case. 

The courts should also leverage AI-driven case management systems to prioritise cases based on complexity, rather than just age. While ADR mechanisms help, they should be used selectively. Cases involving constitutional rights and intricate civil disputes must be adjudicated in full-fledged trials. 

Instead of evaluating judges based on the number of cases disposed of, their quality of reasoning and adherence to legal principles should be given more weight. The judges should also receive continuous legal education to ensure they are equipped to handle complex cases without succumbing to disposal pressures. 

Conclusion: justice must remain the priority 

While judicial efficiency is important, justice cannot be reduced to mere case disposal statistics. The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s warning highlights the urgent need to restore the balance between clearing backlogs and ensuring fair, well-reasoned judgments. 

If the system continues prioritizing numbers over justice, it may solve the backlog crisis temporarily but at the cost of eroding public faith in the judiciary. The real challenge for courts is not just to dispose of cases quickly but to ensure every case receives the attention it deserves—because at the heart of every case is a human story seeking justice.