Reforming India’s Subordinate Judiciary: Challenges and Roadmap for Efficiency
Context
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has recently highlighted that stagnation in the subordinate judicial services significantly contributes to prolonged litigation and the massive pendency across the country’s courts.
Structure and Role of the Judicial System in India
Constitutional Framework
Part VI of the Constitution lays out provisions for Subordinate Courts. Articles 233 to 237 outline the structure, functioning, and independence of the subordinate judiciary.
Role of Subordinate Courts
Subordinate courts act as the foundation of India’s justice delivery system, serving as the primary point of access for most citizens.
Hierarchy of Courts
Lower courts constitute the base of the judicial hierarchy and handle the majority of civil and criminal matters.
Administrative Control
High Courts supervise postings, promotions, inspections, and disciplinary matters to maintain uniformity and judicial standards.
State Governments manage infrastructure, financial planning, personnel support, and conduct judicial service examinations through State Public Service Commissions.
Recruitment Structure
Lower Judicial Service appoints fresh law graduates with 0 to 7 years of experience as Civil Judges or Judicial Magistrates.
Higher Judicial Service recruits advocates with over 7 years of experience as District Judges, bringing professional expertise to senior trial courts.
Issues Affecting the Efficiency of Lower Courts
Pendency and Backlogs
India faces a severe pendency crisis requiring systemic intervention. According to the National Judicial Data Grid (September 2025):
Total pending cases exceed 53 million.
Supreme Court pendency stands at 88,625.
District courts account for over 4.69 crore pending cases.
More than 1.8 lakh cases in district and high courts have remained unresolved for over 30 years.
Outdated Legal Framework
Many colonial-era laws and procedures continue to slow down proceedings, underscoring the need for legislative modernization.
Judicial Recruitment Gaps
Insufficient appointment of competent, experienced advocates as judges hampers both the quality and speed of case disposal.
Procedural Burden on Judges
Routine administrative tasks such as issuing summons, calling suits, and processing vakalathnamas consume a significant portion of a judge’s working hours.
Lack of Experience and Skill Deficits
Newly appointed judges often lack courtroom exposure, limiting their ability to handle workloads or deliver effective judicial orders. Procedural knowledge gaps further affect judicial performance.
Procedural Complexities and Misuse
Amendments intended to expedite litigation frequently add complexity. Misuse of procedural provisions, especially under the Civil Procedure Code, remains widespread.
Despite reforms in 1976 and 2002, the CPC still struggles to ensure fast and efficient disposal.
Key Procedural Bottlenecks
Preliminary and final decree requirements in partition suits prolong cases.
Mandatory pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act causes delays.
Cooling-off periods in mutual consent divorce cases extend litigation even when both parties agree.
Ambiguities in the Transfer of Property Act create jurisdictional confusion.
Measures to Strengthen the Lower Judiciary
Structural Reforms
Introduce a cadre of officers dedicated to administrative tasks to allow judges to focus on judicial responsibilities.
Enhanced Training
Mandate observational and practical training for newly appointed civil and senior civil judges under High Court supervision.
Simplification of Procedures
Streamline civil processes to eliminate redundancy and enforce timely action.
Adopt single-decree or automatic final decree processes in partition suits.
Introduce fast-track execution mechanisms with compulsory asset disclosure.
Set strict adherence timelines for filing and responding to suits.
Modernizing the Civil Procedure Code
Refocus the CPC toward substantive justice and simplicity rather than procedural rigidity.
Role of the Higher Judiciary
High Courts and the Supreme Court must ensure timely disposal of appeals and revisions to prevent bottlenecks across all judicial tiers.
Conclusion
India’s lower judiciary bears the heaviest burden of the country’s caseload, yet it remains constrained by procedural complexities, structural limitations, and administrative burdens. Strengthening recruitment, modernizing procedures, investing in training, and redistributing non-judicial tasks can significantly improve efficiency. However, meaningful reform requires coordinated action from the legislature, executive, and higher judiciary. Ensuring a responsive and efficient subordinate judicial system is essential for improving access to justice and restoring public confidence in the judicial process.
Source : The Hindu