Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied: Why Court Delays Persist in India and What the Law Is Doing About It

What “justice delayed is justice denied” means in law

The maxim says that a remedy that arrives too late is, in practice, no remedy. It is usually attributed to William Gladstone, later Prime Minister, who is reported to have used it in the House of Commons in 1868, but earlier versions exist: William Penn wrote in 1693 that to delay justice is injustice, and clause 40 of Magna Carta (1215) promised that right or justice would not be sold, denied or delayed.^[1]

In India the idea has a constitutional footing. The Preamble promises justice, social, economic and political. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, and the Supreme Court has read into it a right to a speedy trial.^[2] Article 39A directs the State to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and to provide free legal aid so that no citizen is denied justice because of economic or other disabilities.^[3]

Delay harms every party. The victim waits for redress. An accused person, who may be innocent, can spend years in custody or under the shadow of a pending case. A witness’s memory fades, evidence is lost, and public confidence in the courts suffers. This article looks at the scale of the problem, the law on speedy trials, the causes of delay, what the new criminal laws change, and four cases that show what delay costs. It also looks at the other half of the maxim: justice that is hurried can be as unsafe as justice that is delayed.

The scale of the problem: pendency in numbers

According to the Law Ministry’s reply in the Lok Sabha on 13 February 2026, which used National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) figures as on 31 December 2025, 92,101 cases were pending in the Supreme Court, 63,66,023 in the 25 High Courts and 4,76,57,328 in the district and subordinate courts.^[4] Together that is about 5.4 crore cases. The Allahabad High Court had the largest High Court pendency, at 12,07,240 cases.^[4] These figures change daily, so the live position should be checked on the NJDG. Later press reports of the Law Minister’s written reply in Parliament on 23 July 2026 put the total at about 5.64 crore cases.^[5]

Judge strength is a large part of the picture. The Department of Justice’s table as on 1 May 2026 shows the Supreme Court with 32 judges working against 34 sanctioned, and the 25 High Courts with 797 judges working against 1,122 sanctioned, a vacancy of 325.^[6] The Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength has since been raised to 38, and its working strength was 37 after the swearing-in of 6 October 2026.^[7] The Law Ministry has told Parliament that India has about 22 judges per million people, a figure that uses sanctioned strength and the 2011 Census population, while the India Justice Report 2025 puts the figure at about 15 per million, counting judges in the High Courts and district courts.^{[8, 9]} The Law Commission recommended 50 judges per million in 1987, and in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002) the Supreme Court directed that the figure be reached within five years; it has not been.^{[10, 11]}

The Government’s position is that the disposal of cases is within the exclusive domain of the judiciary, and its replies point to measures such as better infrastructure, computerisation, filling vacancies, alternative dispute resolution, Lok Adalats and the eCourts project.^[4]

The right to a speedy trial in Indian law

Hussainara Khatoon (1979). The Supreme Court held that a speedy trial is part of Article 21 and that an accused is entitled to be tried within a reasonable time or to be released pending trial. The case concerned undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been in jail for years for offences that carried far shorter sentences.^[12]

A.R. Antulay (1991). A Constitution Bench held that the right applies at every stage, from investigation and inquiry to trial, appeal, revision and retrial, but declined to fix an outer time limit for criminal proceedings.^[13]

P. Ramachandra Rao (2002). A seven-judge Constitution Bench held that time limits for concluding criminal cases, fixed by smaller Benches in earlier cases, were not good law. The question of delay is decided by weighing the length of the delay, the reasons for it, whether the accused asserted the right, and the prejudice caused.^[14]

Prolonged custody. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021), a three-judge Bench held that the statutory restriction on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act does not prevent a constitutional court from granting bail where prolonged incarceration without trial has infringed Article 21.^[15] In May 2026, a two-judge Bench referred the question of how that principle applies to the bail restriction in Section 43D(5) of that Act to a larger Bench, so the position may be revisited; Najeeb remains binding until then.^[16]

Delay in judgments. The Supreme Court has also treated delay in pronouncing a reserved judgment as a concern under Article 21.^[17] On 29 May 2026, in Pila Pahan v. State of Jharkhand, the Court issued binding directions under Article 142 that High Courts should endeavour to pronounce reserved judgments within a maximum of three months, with provision for a party to seek early judgment and, if the delay continues, reassignment of the case by the Chief Justice.^[18]

Legal aid. Section 341 of the BNSS (which replaces Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) requires the court to assign an advocate at the State’s expense to an accused who is not represented and cannot afford one.^[19]

Why cases take so long

The Government’s replies in Parliament, in 2022 and 2024, attributed pendency to several factors: judicial vacancies, the numbers of judges, support staff and infrastructure, frequent adjournments, the absence of adequate arrangements to monitor, track and bunch cases for hearing, and the dependence of criminal cases on the police, prosecution, forensic laboratories and other experts.^{[20, 21]} Four of these deserve a closer look.

Adjournments and lawyers’ strikes. Repeated adjournments are among the most visible causes. In Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2002), a Constitution Bench held that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts (leaving aside the rarest of rare cases where the dignity, integrity and independence of the Bar or the Bench are at stake), and that protest must take non-disruptive forms such as press statements, armbands and peaceful marches away from court premises.^[22]

Layers of appeal and review. A case can pass through the trial court, the High Court, a Special Leave Petition, a review and then a curative petition, a remedy the Supreme Court created in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) for cases of gross miscarriage of justice.^[23] Each step protects a right, but each also takes time, as the cases below show.

Misuse of public interest litigation. In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010), the Supreme Court said that genuine public interest litigation should be encouraged and frivolous petitions discouraged. It directed courts to verify the petitioner’s credentials, be satisfied that a substantial public interest is involved, and ensure that there is no personal gain or oblique motive, and it allowed exemplary costs against busybody petitioners.^[24]

Investigation and infrastructure. A criminal trial is only as fast as the investigation, prosecution and forensic work behind it. On the court side, the eCourts Phase III programme, approved in September 2023 with an outlay of Rs 7,210 crore, aims to digitise records and extend e-filing.^[25]

What the new criminal laws change: time limits in the BNSS

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1 July 2024, writes several time limits into the trial process.^[19] These provisions apply to proceedings under the BNSS: Section 531(2)(a) continues the old Code for any appeal, application, trial, inquiry or investigation pending immediately before 1 July 2024, so they do not govern most of the existing backlog.^[19] In a Sessions case, an accused may apply for discharge within 60 days of the committal of the case (Section 250(1)), and where the offence is exclusively triable by the Court the charge is to be framed within 60 days of the first hearing on charge (Section 251). After arguments, the Judge is to give judgment within 30 days of their completion, which may be extended to 45 days for reasons recorded in writing (Section 258(1)).^[19]

Section 346, which largely carries forward Section 309 of the old Code, requires trials to proceed on a day-to-day basis until the witnesses in attendance are examined, unless the court records reasons for adjourning beyond the next day. It adds that a trial for the specified rape and sexual offences is to be completed within two months of the filing of the charge-sheet, that no adjournment is to be granted when witnesses are present without examining them except for special reasons recorded in writing, and that remand to custody cannot exceed 15 days at a time.^[19] Section 530 allows trials, the service of summons and warrants, the recording of evidence and appellate proceedings to be held in electronic mode.^[19]

Undertrial detention. Under Section 479, a person who has been detained during investigation, inquiry or trial for one-half of the maximum sentence for the offence is to be released on bail, and a first-time offender who has been detained for one-third of the maximum is to be released on bond. Release is not automatic: the court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons recorded in writing, order continued detention for longer, though no one may be detained beyond the maximum sentence for the offence. The section does not apply to offences punishable with death or life imprisonment or where several cases are pending against the person, the period of delay caused by the accused is excluded, and the jail superintendent must apply to the court when the person becomes eligible.^[19] On 23 August 2024, the Supreme Court recorded the Union’s position that the section applies to undertrials in pending cases irrespective of when the case was registered, and directed that it be applied to eligible prisoners; it has since pressed States to identify them.^[26]

Other provisions that can shorten litigation include dispensing with the accused’s personal attendance where an advocate represents them (Section 355), the list of compoundable offences (Section 359) and the chapter on plea bargaining.^[19] Whether the new time limits are treated as mandatory or directory, and how well they are enforced, will be decided by the courts.

Beyond the courtroom: alternatives and reform

Not every dispute needs a full trial. Lok Adalats, set up under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, settle disputes by agreement. The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 provides for village courts at the grass-roots level, and the Mediation Act, 2023 gives mediation a statutory framework. The Government lists alternative dispute resolution and Lok Adalats among its measures against pendency.^[4] Our practice-area pages describe how arbitration and alternative dispute resolution work in practice.

Four cases that show what delay costs

The Bhopal gas leak (1984). The gas leak of 2 and 3 December 1984 killed and injured people in very large numbers. A trial court in Bhopal delivered its criminal verdict on 7 June 2010, more than 25 years later, sentencing seven Union Carbide India executives to two years in prison. Warren Anderson, the company’s chairman and the prime accused, never stood trial, and he died in September 2014.^[27] The civil side was settled in 1989 for US$ 470 million. The Union’s curative petition seeking more compensation, filed in December 2010, was dismissed unanimously by a five-judge Constitution Bench on 14 March 2023, which held that a settlement can be reopened only for fraud, which the Union had not pleaded. The Court also criticised the Union for failing to arrange the insurance cover for victims that the Court’s 1991 judgment had required.^{[28, 29]}

The Nirbhaya case (2012 to 2020). A 23-year-old physiotherapy intern was gang-raped on a moving bus in Delhi on 16 December 2012 and died of her injuries. One accused died in Tihar Jail in March 2013, and a juvenile was dealt with under the juvenile justice law. The trial court convicted the four adult accused in September 2013 and sentenced them to death, the Delhi High Court confirmed the sentences in March 2014, and the Supreme Court upheld them on 5 May 2017. Review petitions were dismissed in July 2018, December 2019 and January 2020, curative petitions between January and March 2020, and the four were hanged on 20 March 2020.^[30] The trial itself was quick; most of the seven years went into appeals, reviews, curative petitions and mercy remedies, each of which the law allows. The case also fed a national debate on juvenile justice. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 allows a child aged 16 to 18 accused of a heinous offence to be assessed and tried as an adult.

The Uphaar cinema fire (1997). Fifty-nine people died in a fire at the Uphaar cinema in Delhi on 13 June 1997. On 19 August 2015, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court did not send the Ansal brothers to jail again and ordered each to pay Rs 30 crore to the Delhi Government. In 2017, on review, a majority of the Bench sentenced Gopal Ansal to one year in jail, while Sushil Ansal was spared because of age and ill health. In February 2020, the victims’ association’s curative petition was dismissed, so no further jail term followed in the negligence case.^{[31, 32]} The brothers were separately sentenced in November 2021 in a case of tampering with evidence.^[33] More than two decades passed between the fire and the final order.

The Aarushi and Hemraj murders (2008). The two were found dead in Noida in May 2008. A CBI court convicted Aarushi’s parents in November 2013, and the Allahabad High Court acquitted them on 12 October 2017, giving them the benefit of the doubt.^[34] In August 2018 the Supreme Court granted leave in the appeals against the acquittal filed by the CBI and by Hemraj’s widow.^[35] We have not found any reported decision on those appeals since.

The causes differ. In Bhopal, the delay was in a trial that took more than a quarter of a century and in a settlement that the Union sought to reopen decades later. In the Nirbhaya case, it was in the exercise of remedies after a rapid trial. In Uphaar, it was in appeals and reviews over sentence. In Aarushi, it was a conviction and acquittal that left the central question unresolved for years. A serious response to delay has to tell these causes apart.

The other half of the maxim: why hurried justice is not the answer

Speed is not the only measure of justice. The right to a speedy trial belongs to the accused as well as the victim, and the Supreme Court has refused to turn it into a fixed clock. In our view, a trial that is rushed risks convicting the innocent or acquitting the guilty. In Ramachandra Rao, the Court preferred a case-by-case balance of the length of, and reasons for, the delay and the prejudice caused.^[14]

The same applies to “instant justice” outside the courts. In 2014 the Supreme Court laid down a 16-point procedure for investigating deaths in police encounters, including the registration of an FIR, an independent investigation by the CID or a team from another police station, a magisterial inquiry, and prompt intimation to the National or State Human Rights Commission.^[36] A commission appointed by the Supreme Court to examine the 2019 killing of four accused in the Hyderabad veterinarian’s case reported that they were killed extra-judicially, the Supreme Court made the report public in May 2022, and it sent the matter to the Telangana High Court for further proceedings.^[37] A separate commission headed by retired Justice B.S. Chauhan, examining the 2020 killing of Vikas Dubey, reported that it found no reason to doubt the police version of the killing, and the Supreme Court directed the State to act on its recommendations.^{[38, 39]} Whatever the facts of a given case, the lesson is that faster courts are the answer to delay, not punishment outside them.

Way forward

In our view, the evidence points to a package of measures, not a single fix: fill judicial vacancies and move towards the 50-judges-per-million benchmark; make firm use of the BNSS time limits and the rules against needless adjournments; use case-management and digital tools, including e-filing and the eCourts programme; and strengthen the investigation, prosecution and forensic capacity on which criminal trials depend.^{[6, 19, 25]} Alternatives such as Lok Adalats, mediation and village courts can take suitable disputes out of the queue.^[4] Lawyers, litigants and governments all have a part: avoiding strikes and routine adjournments, and, in the case of the State, avoiding appeals that do not need to be filed.

Reform should also protect fairness. The aim is to remove avoidable delay, such as vacancies, adjournments and weak case tracking, while keeping the safeguards that make a verdict reliable.

Practical points for litigants and accused persons

If you are an accused in custody. Ask your counsel whether Section 479 BNSS applies: eligibility depends on the offence, your record and the time already spent in detention.^{[19, 26]} If detention has become prolonged and the trial is not moving, courts have power to consider bail on the ground of delay under Article 21.^[15] If you cannot afford a lawyer, the court must assign one at the State’s expense under Section 341 BNSS.^[19]

If you are a complainant or victim. Keep track of your case on the eCourts services and the NJDG, attend hearings, and ask the court to enforce the day-to-day trial and adjournment rules in Section 346 BNSS.^[19]

For civil and commercial disputes. Consider mediation, conciliation, arbitration or a Lok Adalat where the dispute is suitable, since they can be faster and cheaper than a full trial.

For related guidance, see our articles on quashing an FIR under Section 528 BNSS, anticipatory bail under the BNSS, the effect of media trials on a fair trial and the shift from the IPC to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. This article is general information, not legal advice; our criminal defence and writ and constitutional practices are described on our practice-areas page.

Frequently asked questions

What does “justice delayed is justice denied” mean? It means that a remedy that comes too late is in effect no remedy at all, because the harm has already been suffered and the evidence or the chance to repair it may have been lost.

Is a speedy trial a fundamental right in India? Yes. The Supreme Court has held that the right to a speedy trial is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. There is no fixed time limit; delay is judged case by case.

How many cases are pending in Indian courts? According to the Law Ministry’s Lok Sabha reply of 13 February 2026, 92,101 in the Supreme Court, 63,66,023 in the High Courts and 4,76,57,328 in the district and subordinate courts, as on 31 December 2025, about 5.4 crore in all. The figures change daily on the NJDG.

Is there a time limit for judgment under the BNSS? In a Sessions trial, the Judge is to give judgment within 30 days of the completion of arguments, extendable to 45 days for reasons recorded in writing (Section 258(1)). Section 392(1) separately requires judgment in every trial in a criminal court of original jurisdiction to be pronounced within 45 days of the end of the trial.

When can an undertrial be released because of long detention? Under Section 479 BNSS, generally after detention for half the maximum sentence, or one-third for a first-time offender, except for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, subject to the conditions in the section (including the court’s power, for recorded reasons, to order longer detention); courts can also consider bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration under Article 21.

Conclusion

Delay is more than an administrative problem. It is a rights problem that falls on victims, on accused persons and on public trust in the courts. The numbers, with about 5.4 crore pending cases at the end of 2025 and 325 vacancies in the High Courts alone on 1 May 2026, show its scale, and the new criminal laws show that the legislature is prepared to write time limits into the process.

The measure of success is not speed alone. The maxim has a familiar counterpart, “justice hurried is justice buried”, and the answer is neither delay nor haste. It is a system that removes avoidable delay, such as vacancies, adjournments and weak case management, and keeps the safeguards that make a verdict worth waiting for.