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
The Hindu
4 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Is a ‘potentiality of abuse' of BNS Section 152 a ground to declare the law unconstitutional, asks the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 12, 2025) asked if 'potentiality of abuse' by the state of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which punishes 'acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India', could be a ground to declare the law itself unconstitutional. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi raised the question to senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the Foundation of Independent Journalism and Siddharth Varadarajan, one of the founding editors of the online news portal The Wire, who is facing a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 152 and other offences under the BNS at Morigaon Police Station, Assam, for the publication of a news article. The petition submitted that the arrest of Mr. Varadarajan and/or others was 'imminent'. The Bench protected Mr. Varadarajan and the members of the Foundation from any coercive action by the police. It issued notice to the Union government and the State of Assam, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, while noting that a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India had issued notice on a separate petition, filed by S.G. Vombatkere, identically challenging Section 152 a few days ago, on August 8. Ms. Ramakrishnan argued that Section 152 of the BNS, though worded differently and avoiding the term 'sedition', was 'in essence' the colonial sedition provision of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). BNS had replaced the IPC at a time when the legality of Section 124A was considered suspect by the apex court, and had been referred to a Constitution Bench for judicial scrutiny and an authoritative pronouncement. The senior counsel submitted that Section 152 was vaguely worded, its ambiguity cloaking an immense capacity to chill free speech, especially of journalists. At this point, Justice Bagchi agreed with Ms. Ramakrishnan that vagueness in a penal provision was a valid ground to challenge it. He referred to how the apex court had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for its vague terminology, which indirectly worked to aid authorities to use arrest as a tool to crush dissent. Justice Bagchi said the apex court's judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh case had clearly defined that sedition could not be invoked under Section 124A until there was clear proof that words or action had incited violence. 'The acts which come within Section 124A and Section 152, by way of comparative interpretation, would be covered by the ratio of the Kedar Nath Singh verdict that unless there is a clear threat to unity and sovereignty, the offence [of sedition] need not be attracted,' Justice Bagchi observed. Justice Kant said a general list of acts endangering sovereignty could not be prepared by the court; it would depend on a case by case basis 'For example, mere political dissent cannot endanger sovereignty,' Justice Kant said. Again, on the issue of the vagueness of Section 152, Justice Kant indicated that being too specific would also be an invitation for trouble. 'Inviting the Legislature to define 'sovereignty' would be a big danger,' Justice Kant remarked. Mr. Mehta asked whether a challenge to a provision could be used as a ground to gain anticipatory bail or seek the quashing of an FIR under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Justice Kant responded by asking Mr. Mehta whether custodial interrogation was necessary in the case of journalists. 'When media persons get entangled, it is usually something they wrote or a programme aired, etc… These are matters which do not require custodial interrogation,' Justice Kant addressed the law officer. Mr. Mehta replied that journalists could not be considered a 'separate class' while applying the provisions of the criminal law. 'No, but we are on the balancing of their [journalists'] fundamental right to speech against your [the state's] right to investigate and maintain public order,' Justice Bagchi clarified to Mr. Mehta.
Mint
4 minutes ago
- Mint
Bombay HC's BIG verdict: Aadhaar, PAN or Voter ID alone do not make an Indian citizen
The Bombay High Court has said that possessing documents such as an Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID is not enough to determine Indian citizenship. The court emphasised that citizenship is determined strictly under the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 — not through identity documents meant for service access or identification. The verdict came while refusing bail to Babu Abdul Ruf Sardar, who the prosecution claims is a Bangladeshi national who entered India illegally more than a decade ago. Authorities allege he crossed the border without valid travel papers, obtained fraudulent Indian documents, and used them to pose as a citizen. Justice Amit Borkar noted that the Citizenship Act of 1955 is the 'main and controlling law' for deciding nationality in India. The Act lays down who can be a citizen, how citizenship can be acquired, and under what circumstances it can be lost. 'Merely having documents such as Aadhaar card, PAN card or voter ID does not, by itself, make someone a citizen of India,' the court ruled. 'These documents are for identification or availing services, but they do not override the legal requirements of citizenship.' The bench underlined the importance of distinguishing lawful citizens from illegal migrants, warning that allowing forged identities undermines national sovereignty and enables individuals with no legal status to wrongfully access benefits meant for citizens. The Bombay High Court denied Sardar's bail request, citing ongoing verification of his Aadhaar by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and concerns that he may abscond. Justice Borkar pointed out that the charges went beyond overstaying — they involved deliberate concealment of identity and the creation of forged documents to claim citizenship benefits. Police also indicated they are investigating whether Sardar's case is linked to a wider organised network involved in illegal immigration and identity fraud. When India's Constitution was drafted, the country had just undergone Partition, triggering large-scale migration. The framers created constitutional provisions to clearly define who would be considered a citizen at the start of the Republic, and gave Parliament the authority to legislate on citizenship thereafter. The Citizenship Act, passed in 1955, remains the definitive statute on the matter — and bars illegal migrants from obtaining citizenship through most legal routes. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the Election Commission of India's (ECI) view that Aadhaar should not be considered conclusive proof of citizenship, stating that it must be independently verified. A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing petitions on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the Bihar electoral roll. 'The EC is correct in saying Aadhaar cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship. It has to be verified," Justice Kant told advocate Kapil Sibal, who was appearing for the petitioners, as reported by LiveLaw. The Bombay High Court's ruling serves as a clear reminder: identity documents are not proof of nationality. For citizenship claims, the law — not paperwork — is the final authority.
Mint
4 minutes ago
- Mint
Lok Sabha passes Indian Ports Bill, 2025
The Lok Sabha on Tuesday passed the Indian Ports Bill, 2025, by voice vote amid continued protests by opposition members of Parliament demanding a discussion on the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. The bill proposes modernizing India's port governance, enhancing trade efficiency, and solidifying India's position as a global maritime leader. 'Replacing colonial-era regulations, the bill reflects Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision of a self-reliant, world-class maritime sector,' said the Union minister of ports, shipping and waterways, Sarbananda Sonowal, who introduced the bill in the lower house. The bill replaces outdated provisions of the Indian Ports Act, 1908, with modern and contemporary regulations. It aims to simplify port procedures and digitalize operations to enhance ease of doing business (EoDB). The legislation also emphasizes sustainability, incorporating green initiatives, pollution control, and disaster management protocols for sustainable port development. Furthermore, it seeks to improve port competitiveness through transparent tariff policies and better investment frameworks, while ensuring uniform safety standards and planning across all Indian ports. It will reduce logistics costs by speeding up cargo movement and enhancing connectivity. It is also expected to generate significant employment opportunities in port operations, logistics, warehousing, and allied industries. Additionally, the bill outlines strict anti-pollution measures and eco-friendly port practices, contributing to a cleaner environment. Exporters and MSMEs will benefit from streamlined procedures and improved infrastructure, reducing bottlenecks and facilitating smoother operations. 'This bill marks a decisive step toward making India's ports globally competitive while safeguarding the environment and empowering coastal communities. It embodies the vision of 'ports for prosperity' and ensures our maritime sector remains future-ready,' said Sonowal. For ports themselves, the bill provides greater autonomy with accountability, allowing ports to set competitive tariffs within a transparent framework. It introduces integrated planning for long-term port development, ensuring cargo growth and improved hinterland connectivity. A boost to coastal shipping is also envisioned, with seamless integration with inland waterways and multimodal transport systems. The bill provides flexibility in funding, making clear provisions for public-private partnerships (PPPs) and foreign investment in port projects. The Maritime State Development Council (MSDC), comprising representatives from central and State governments, will coordinate national port development strategies. State maritime boards will have authority to effectively manage non-major ports, while dispute resolution committees will expedite the settlement of conflicts between ports, users, and service providers. 'The bill also aims to boost cooperative federalism as the MSDC is aimed at ironing out differences and laying down a smooth way forward for the holistic development of our ports. The bill also provides for the state maritime boards, which help to effectively manage non-major ports, allowing a comprehensive framework for port development," said Sonowal. "We are creating an ecosystem that will empower our ecosystem to spruce up the maritime prowess of Viksit Bharat, propelling India to become one of the top global maritime nations by 2047,' he added. In terms of sustainability and safety, the bill mandates waste reception and handling facilities at all ports. It also enforces stringent pollution prevention measures in line with international conventions like MARPOL and Ballast Water Management. Every port will require emergency preparedness plans for disasters and security threats, while promoting renewable energy and shore power systems will help reduce emissions and foster environmental sustainability.
