Indian courts burdened with backlog of 5.29 crore cases: Official data
The maximum number of 4.65 crore cases are pending in district and subordinate courts, followed by 63.30 lakh cases in High Courts and 86,742 cases in the Supreme Court, the data showed.
Apart from the burgeoning case backlog, the district and subordinate courts appear to have struggled to work at full strength.
According to the Department of Justice, as against a sanctioned strength of 25,843 judicial officers as on July 21, 2015, the lower courts are working with a strength of 21,122.
'Filling up of vacancies in District and Subordinate judiciary falls within the domain of the State/UT governments and High Courts concerned,' according to a statement by the Law and Justice Ministry.
As a measure to reduce backlog, arrears committees have been set up in all 25 High Courts to clear cases pending for more than five years, and similar arrears committees have now been set up under District Courts as well, the Ministry said.
Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, in a recent reply in Parliament, shared details of government measures taken to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
'From May 1, 2014, to July 21, 2025, 70 Judges have been appointed in the Supreme Court. Apart from this, 1,058 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 1,122 till date,' said Meghwal.
He also informed that Fast Track Courts have been established for dealing with cases of heinous crimes, cases involving senior citizens, women and children. As of June 30, 2025, 865 Fast Track Courts are functional across the country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
13 minutes ago
- India.com
Cheap Russian Oil Fails To Benefit Common Indians: Oil Companies' Profits Soar 25-Fold, Govt Collects Over 40% Tax
New Delhi: India has been importing Russian crude oil at discounts ranging from 5 to 30 dollars per barrel for the past three years. According to a report by Moneylife, private companies such as Reliance and Nayara, along with state-owned firms like Indian Oil and Bharat Petroleum, pocketed around 65 percent of the benefits from these discounted imports. The Indian government received the remaining 35 percent. Ordinary consumers saw little or no relief at fuel stations. Recent tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump, including a 50 percent levy on India, cite India's Russian oil imports. He accused Indian refineries of processing this crude and selling refined products to Europe and other regions. India has maintained that its oil purchases are aimed at ensuring domestic energy security, regardless of the conflict in Ukraine. Petrol and diesel prices remain largely influenced by taxes. Excise duties levied by the central government in Delhi amount to Rs 21.90 per litre for petrol and Rs 17.80 per litre for diesel. State governments apply additional taxes, with Delhi charging Rs 15.40 per litre on petrol and Rs 12.83 per litre on diesel. Overall, taxes constitute over 40 percent of retail fuel prices. In April 2025, a Rs 2 hike in excise duties generated an additional Rs 32,000 crore for the central government. These funds serve as a reliable revenue source for the government, leaving consumers without any benefit from discounted Russian oil. Private refiners have also significantly profited. Reliance Industries and Nayara Energy refined substantial volumes of Russian crude, achieving refining margins of 12.5 dollars and 15.2 dollars per barrel respectively. According to data from Kepler Analytics, both companies accounted for 45 percent of India's 23.1 million barrel Russian crude imports in the first half of 2025. The crude was converted into petrol, diesel and jet fuel and exported to Europe, the United States, the UAE and Singapore, generating massive profits. India's imports from Russia began in February 2022 following Europe's sanctions. The share of Russian crude in India's imports grew from just 0.2 percent in 2021 to 35.1 percent in 2025, supplying around 1.67 million barrels per day, roughly 37 percent of the country's total requirements. Long-term contracts, such as Reliance's 10-year deal signed in December 2024 to import 500,000 barrels per day, make sudden shifts difficult. Alternative suppliers include Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United States and other nations like Nigeria, Brazil, Guyana and the UAE. These sources are costlier than Russian oil. India strongly objected to the U.S. tariffs, calling them 'unfair, unexpected and impractical'. The Ministry of External Affairs highlighted the double standards of Western nations, emphasising that the United States and the European Union continue extensive trade with Russia in energy and raw materials. It further said that its imports of Russian crude ensure domestic energy security and are conducted transparently. Even as Russia-Ukraine conflict disrupts global energy markets, India continues to rely on Russian crude to stabilise domestic fuel prices and protect the energy needs of its 1.4 billion population. (Data source: Petroleum Planning and Analysis Cell, NZZ, Moneylife, Reuters, New York Times)
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC to set up panel to name Kerala varsity heads
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would set up a search committee for the appointment of vice chancellors to two universities in Kerala to end a stalemate between state government and the governor and told the two sides to submit four names each within a day for consideration as members of the search panel. SC to set up panel to name Kerala varsity heads A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said, 'In the larger interest, since you have not been able to arrive at a consensus, we will appoint a Search Committee.' The five-member search committee will have four members along with a nominee of the University Grants Commission (UGC). The court asked the lawyers representing the two constitutional authorities to suggest four names each out of which the court will constitute the committee. On July 30, the court had expressed anguish over the prevailing stalemate over the appointment of vice chancellors to the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and the Digital University of Kerala. It had directed the process of appointing regular V-Cs to commence soon and urged both sides to avoid confrontation and work harmoniously without bringing in politics keeping the best interests of students and the institutions in mind. On Wednesday, two weeks after its last order, the court observed, 'We are requesting you with folded hands. The Chancellor (Governor) and government should sit over a cup of coffee and resolve this. Why create this stalemate at the stage of appointment of the Search Committee.' Attorney General R Venkataramani appearing for the governor Rajendra Arlekar said that pursuant to the last order, the Governor held extensive consultations with the state government. He told the court that, as directed by the court,, the Chancellor issued an order extending the tenure of temporary V-C at APJ Abdul Kalam University till the appointment of a regular V-C. The state opposed this notification claiming that the Chancellor did not consult the state before issuing the notification. Senior advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for the state along with advocate CK Sasi said, 'Section 13(7) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015, allows appointment of VC to be recommended by the state. There is no power struggle but the Chancellor wants to ensure there is no role of the Kerala government in appointment of V-C. So the very nature of appointment affects federal structure envisaged under the Constitution.' The court told AG Venkataramani that its July 30 order had reproduced section 13(7) of the Act emphasising that the procedure as per law should be followed. However, since it was undertaking the process of appointing regular V-C on its own, it said, 'It is our request to the state. Don't precipitate the issue with regard to temporary V-C appointments. Let us put an end to this impasse.' AG Venkataramani pointed out that the similar issue prevailed with regard to temporary appointment of V-C for Digital University, governed by Section 11(10) of Digital University Act, which is akin to section 13(7). He informed the court that the Chancellor has been receiving requests from the V-C complaining about no financial audit being done at the University for the past five years. Gupta said that the unilateral approach adopted by the Governor was struck down by the Kerala high court last year,which held the constitution of the Search Committee to be contrary to the statute. He said that the state on July 12 initiated the process for having a Search Committee to appoint regular V-Cs, but the Chancellor formed a separate committee. The AG clarified that the committee proposed by the Chancellor is as per the UGC regulations. However, Kerala government maintained that the power to constitute a Search Committee belongs to the state. The proceedings before the top court were initiated by the Chancellor challenging a July 14 Kerala high court decision setting aside his order appointing V-Cs to the two universities. The high court order came after the Left Democratic Front (LDF) government objected to the November 27, 2024 notification on V-C appointments issued by the governor. The legal tussle between governor and state government over appointment of V-Cs is not limited only to Kerala. The top court is also considering a petition filed by the West Bengal government challenging the inaction of the Raj Bhavan to clear names of V-Cs for 36 universities in the eastern state. After the court intervened and appointed former CJI UU Lalit to head a panel for selecting V-Cs for each university, 34 appointments have come through.
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
State government stonewalling attempts to appoint VCs of varsities: TN Guv
The Governor of Tamil Nadu, RN Ravi, has accused the state government of 'stonewalling' the appointment of vice-chancellors (VCs) to state universities and of attempting to usurp the legal framework governing such appointments by vesting the power in itself in breach of mandatory University Grants Commission (UGC) provisions. State government stonewalling attempts to appoint VCs of varsities: TN Guv In an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the governor's office rejected the state's counter-claims that the chancellery had politicised universities or adopted an obstructive posture, and said the real cause of delays in filling vice-chancellor vacancies was the state government's effort to bypass the UGC Regulations, 2018 and divest the governor of the appointing authority. UGC also filed a separate affidavit endorsing the governor's position, saying that the state legislature's amendments run afoul of UGC Regulations and that the regulations have the force of law that must be followed by all universities. The dispute concerns a set of amendments enacted by the Tamil Nadu legislature that remove the governor's power, exercised as chancellor of state universities, to appoint VCs and instead empower the state government to constitute search committees, prescribe eligibility criteria and make appointments. The state has challenged an interim order of the Madras High Court on May 21 that stayed operation of those amendments to the extent they take away the chancellor's appointing power. The state is represented by senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi and P Wilson in the top court while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represents UGC. A bench led by Justice PS Narasimha is expected to hear the state's appeal on Thursday. The governor's affidavit sets out a chronological record of correspondence between Raj Bhavan and the state government about the constitution and reconstitution of search cum selection committees for Bharathiar University, the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University and the University of Madras. The record, the affidavit says, shows that the governor repeatedly sought the reconstitution of panels to include a nominee of the UGC chairman in line with UGC Regulations and with earlier judicial directions, but that the state either delayed or refused to accept those reconstitutions. According to Ravi's affidavit, after repeated reminders the governor as chancellor ultimately included the UGC chairman's nominee and notified the reconstituted committees, but the state persisted in refusing to accept the inclusion and later sought recall of the governor's notifications. 'As the government did not reconstitute the committee as per UGC Regulations, despite repeated reminders, the governor-chancellor had no other option but to add the nominee of the UGC chairman and to reconstitute the search cum selection committee and to notify the same,' it stated. The governor's affidavit further stressed that including the UGC chairman's nominee was mandatory under the 2018 UGC Regulations and that the chancellor's actions were aimed at legal compliance rather than delay. It contended that the state's amendments, which vest appointment powers in the government while leaving the governor nominally as chancellor, are inconsistent with the UGC Regulations and therefore cannot prevail. The affidavit further submitted that the UGC Regulations, once notified, become part of the statutory architecture governing higher education and have primacy over conflicting state enactments. The UGC's separate filing echoed this position, asserting that the state's exercise of legislative competence to transfer the appointing power to the government violates UGC Regulations and that the UGC's broad mandate to maintain higher education standards applies equally across all universities. The commission's affidavit argues that the state's attempt to circumscribe the UGC's role is a misplaced afterthought and that the regulations must be observed as having the force of law. In its appeal before the apex court, the Tamil Nadu government has contended that the high court acted with 'undue haste' and stayed the operation of nine statutes enacted by the state legislature, many of which had received deemed assent as per the Supreme Court's judgment dated April 8 in State of Tamil Nadu Vs Governor of Tamil Nadu. The amendments passed by the Assembly in April followed the Supreme Court's rebuke to the Governor over delays in assenting to pending bills, most of which pertained to the appointment of VCs. The April 8 ruling by the Supreme Court had struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent. The matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court. The state, in its special leave petition, argued that the high court's stay amounted to granting final relief at the interim stage. It pointed out that the high court passed its order without giving the state adequate opportunity to respond, file a counter-affidavit, or present its arguments on the merits.
