Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna said judges use court vacations to write judgments and work late into the night due to heavy case workload. She also stated that the government is the biggest litigator and a major reason behind judicial backlog in India.
Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court of India recently spoke about the real working conditions of judges and the reasons behind the increasing number of pending cases in Indian courts. She explained that many people believe judges get long vacations, but in reality, judges use most of their vacation time to write judgments and complete pending work.
She shared these views during a panel discussion at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s first national conference on the theme
“Reimagining Judicial Governance: Strengthening Institutions for Democratic Justice.”
Justice Nagarathna explained that the work of a judge does not end when the court rises for the day. Judges spend the entire day in court hearing cases, conducting trials, and listening to arguments. After court hours, they spend their evenings and nights writing judgments and orders.
She said,
“Morning till evening, they are sitting in the court, adjudicating, conducting trial, hearing cases. But it is only after court hours, if the judgments are not dictated in open court, that they have time to dictate the judgments in the evening hours. Late into the night, weekends, summer vacation, Dasara vacation, Holi vacation, Christmas vacation, are all used by judges to write judgments and not to take only LTCs (leave travel concessions) and go here and there. So, therefore, this is the dual role of judges – both inside the court and after court hours,”
said Justice Nagarathna.
She also spoke about one of the biggest reasons for the huge backlog of cases in India, which is government litigation. She explained that the government is the biggest party in courts and keeps filing appeals in many cases, even where disputes could be settled earlier. This increases the burden on courts and leads to delays in justice delivery. Justice Nagarathna said that ideally, the government should act as a responsible and model litigant, but in reality, it continues to file appeals till the highest court.
She said,
“The government is also the biggest litigator, whether it is at the Central level or at the State level. The State is expected actually to litigate with restraint and be a model litigator, but that does not happen. It goes on litigating until the end. The government is not only a mere participant in litigation, it is also the largest single generator of litigation,”
noted Justice Nagarathna.
She further explained why government officers prefer filing appeals instead of settling disputes. According to her, if an officer settles a case, audit officials may question the decision later. However, if the officer files an appeal, it is seen as a safe decision and does not usually attract scrutiny. Because of this fear, many officers choose to file appeals even when it is not necessary.
She explained this situation by saying,
“A government officer who settles a dispute will face audit objections… By contrast, an officer who files an appeal or a revision rarely faces this criticism. So what does he do? He will go by caution. An appeal signals diligence, whereas a decision not to file an appeal will invite vigilance inquiries,”
she said.
Due to this system, many cases that should end in lower courts continue for years and reach High Courts and even the Supreme Court. This increases pendency and delays justice for many people. Justice Nagarathna said this situation creates a strange contradiction where the government complains about backlog but also contributes to it.
She explained,
“The result is predictable. Appeals become routine rather than rare. Cases that shouldn’t end in lower courts continue through successive layers up to Supreme Court. The behavior transfers the cost of bureaucratic caution into the judicial system,”
observed Justice Nagarathna.
She described the situation as a paradox and said,
“The pattern produces a paradox. The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation. The State becomes both the complainant and the cause,”
she said.
Justice Nagarathna also highlighted another major issue, which is lack of investment in judicial infrastructure. She said governments often focus more on visible projects like highways and welfare schemes because they bring political attention, while court infrastructure does not get the same level of attention or funding.
She explained,
“Judicial infrastructure rarely receives sustained political attention. Expanding courts does not generate the same immediate visibility as constructing highways or launching welfare programs. The political incentive is weak when it comes to judicial infrastructure investment. Therefore, the percentage allotted is also very less,”
she noted.
Because of this lack of investment, the number of courts and judges is not increasing at the same speed as the number of cases. With growing population, business activities, and new laws, disputes are increasing, but court capacity is not growing at the same pace.
She said,
“The consequence is stagnation. The volume of dispute grows with population, economic activity, and regulatory expansion. But the institutional capacity of courts grows slowly,”
observed Justice Nagarathna.
To solve the problem of pendency, Justice Nagarathna suggested the creation of a Judicial Reforms Commission. She said this body should include members from the judiciary, lawyers, government representatives, and law officers so that the problem can be addressed in a structured and practical manner.
She also explained that delays in the justice system are not caused by just one group but by the behaviour of multiple stakeholders. According to her, litigants sometimes want to delay cases to maintain status quo, lawyers benefit from adjournments, government departments prefer appeals to avoid risk, and judges also act cautiously to avoid their decisions being overturned in appeal.
She explained this by saying,
“From the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from status quo, so to prolong proceedings. And a lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat,”
she observed.
Justice Nagarathna said that because so many stakeholders benefit from delay, the problem cannot be solved just by expecting people to behave better. Structural and systemic reforms are necessary to reduce pendency and improve the justice delivery system in India.
Finally, she also suggested that courts should modernise the system of sending legal notices. She said many cases are delayed for years because notices are not served properly and some litigants try to avoid receiving notices. She suggested that courts should use electronic methods like WhatsApp and email to serve notices faster.
She said,
“We need reforms as to how notices must be served, not just through the usual RPAD system, we say the postal system… It should be by other ways such as WhatsApp methods or through the electronic methods which should be introduced and applied in the courts,”
suggested Justice Nagarathna.
Justice Nagarathna’s remarks highlight the real challenges faced by the Indian judiciary, including heavy workload of judges, excessive government litigation, lack of infrastructure, and systemic delays.
Her suggestion for structural reforms and a Judicial Reforms Commission shows that solving the problem of pendency requires policy changes, administrative reforms, and cooperation from all stakeholders in the justice system.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Justice BV Nagarathna
