The Karnataka High Court discussed rising courtroom overcrowding issues as lawyers, litigants, and staff faced space constraints. Justice M Nagaprasanna sought suggestions from advocates to manage the situation, saying, “How? All of you give me a solution, I’ll implement it.”
The issue of overcrowding in the courtroom came up for discussion in Courtroom No. 14 of the Karnataka High Court, where the Bench and the Bar exchanged views on the growing difficulties faced by lawyers, litigants, and court staff due to limited space.
Justice M Nagaprasanna raised concerns over the persistent crowding inside the courtroom and invited suggestions from advocates on possible measures to manage the situation. The discussion took place after lawyers pointed out that finding space to stand or sit had become increasingly difficult, especially during the later part of the working day.
Senior Advocate K N Phanindra brought the issue before the court, highlighting the shortage of seating arrangements and the limited capacity of the courtroom to accommodate the number of people present.
Responding to the concern, Justice Nagaprasanna asked the members of the Bar to suggest practical solutions, saying:
“How? All of you give me a solution, I’ll implement it,”
The judge clarified that the concern was not being treated as a complaint but as a genuine administrative issue requiring attention.
“I am not taking it as a complaint, even I want to solve this problem… We’ll discuss with the court officer and do something.”
During the discussion, the issue of interns occupying seats meant for advocates was also brought up.
Justice Nagaprasanna questioned how such situations should be handled and remarked:
“What should I do with interns? Ask them not to come. They can’t occupy the chairs,”
Senior Advocate Phanindra said that he had personally experienced difficulty getting a seat and had to request interns to vacate chairs for lawyers.
He observed:
“I had to request interns to get up and give me the chair. They are not taught this basic thing in college, but they are sent to intern to the court, unfortunately,”
Among the suggestions placed before the court, Phanindra proposed having a single cause list where matters would be taken up in a fixed and predictable sequence instead of switching between different lists.
However, Justice Nagaprasanna explained that maintaining multiple cause lists was necessary because of requests for fresh matters to be heard every day. Fresh cases are listed separately from older pending matters to ensure urgent issues receive attention.
The judge also pointed out that a large number of memos seeking urgent hearings are filed every morning even before matters in the cause list are taken up. The discussion also focused on increased crowding after the lunch break, when litigants and parties arrive hoping that their matters will be called.
Phanindra noted that many people remain inside the courtroom even when their matters are not immediately listed, making movement difficult for advocates.
He said:
“Advocates can’t even find a seat here. To come in is a problem, to go out…Parties say they have come here for settlement.”
Justice Nagaprasanna suggested restricting the entry of settlement parties before a certain time to reduce unnecessary crowding.
He stated:
“We will do one thing. None of the settlement parties will come in before 4 o’clock. That we can do. Whoever has settlement, we will get the policemen and tell them that none of the parties who come in for settlement will step inside the Court Hall till 4 o’clock. So 25 per cent of the crowd, gone,”
Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath also participated in the discussion and pointed out that some lawyers whose matters are scheduled later in the day occupy seats early to monitor whether their cases are taken up sooner. He suggested creating a clearer distinction between morning and afternoon matters to improve courtroom management.
Justice Nagaprasanna, however, expressed practical difficulties with the proposal, stating:
“(Senior counsel KN Phanindra) said, take one (cause)list, if I take one list, won’t the crowd be there? Nothing will reach. I can’t divide first list morning and 2:30 second list. That can’t be. Difficult. We’ll see, this space constraint, we’ll remove it.”
The Bench also recalled that overcrowding was less severe when fresh matters were listed only on specific days of the week. According to Justice Nagaprasanna, the system changed after repeated requests from lawyers seeking daily hearings of fresh matters.
The judge remarked:
“All of you started to complain that we want fresh matters every day. (It used to be) one day, I will take 400 fresh matters, finish those 400. Rest of the days, only admission matters, no crowd at all. You need to cooperate as well…(If 75-100 fresh matters have to be listed each day), naturally, (it) goes to the first list. Naturally, others come into the second list. Previous day’s leftovers come to the third list. What do you do?”
ASG Kamath suggested that resolving the issue may require experimentation and adjustments over time.
Justice Nagaprasanna assured the Bar that efforts would be made to find a workable solution to address the space constraints. He also highlighted the pressure involved in judicial administration and case management, saying:
“All of us are overworking. I am going home at 9:30 in the night. Then I have to go read the files, the next day’s files,”
The discussion highlighted the broader challenge of balancing increasing litigation, daily fresh filings, courtroom capacity, and efficient judicial functioning. The Karnataka High Court is expected to explore administrative measures to ease congestion and improve accessibility for advocates and litigants.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE