Chief Justice of India B R Gavai emphasised the issue of trial delays as a distinctive challenge within the Indian legal system during his Convocation Address at Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad, held at Justice City on Saturday. The CJI remarked that the Indian legal system is in dire need of reform. “While I conclude that our legal system requires significant improvements, I remain cautiously optimistic that my fellow citizens will confront these challenges,” he stated. The delay in trials represents a significant issue within the nation’s legal framework, as innocent individuals often spend years, or even decades, awaiting their court hearings. “Our nation and legal system are encountering unique difficulties. Trial delays can extend for decades. We have witnessed instances where individuals have been exonerated after enduring years of imprisonment as undertrials. Our most talented individuals can assist in addressing the issues we face,” he continued.
Justice Gavai encouraged students to pursue studies abroad through scholarships, emphasising the importance of not imposing financial burdens on their families. He urged the graduating students to seek mentors based on their integrity rather than their influence. Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy and Supreme Court Judge Justice PS Narasimha were also in attendance at the convocation ceremony. The acting Chief Justice of the Telangana High Court, Justice Sujoy Paul, presided over the event.
The Deep‑Rooted Problem of Delayed Trials:
India’s judicial system is currently facing a significant backlog, with over 5 crore (50 million) cases pending in courts, a number that continues to rise annually. The causes of these delays are deeply rooted in the system and span various domains. A major concern is the persistent shortage of judges. With only 21 judges available for every million citizens far below the global standard courts are overwhelmed, and unfilled vacancies persist due to a slow and opaque appointment process. Additionally, the complex and outdated procedural laws involve multiple layers of paperwork, rigid court protocols, and an adversarial system that frequently allows for adjournments, which are often exploited by lawyers to strategically postpone proceedings.
The situation is further aggravated by inadequate infrastructure:
Many courts lack sufficient space, digital equipment, or staff to effectively manage the increasing caseloads. Furthermore, reliance on paper-based record-keeping hinders the timely retrieval of information, compounding delays. Inefficient collaboration among stakeholders such as police, prosecutors, and court administrators often results in delays in filing charges or presenting evidence. Lastly, the limited use of technology in most lower courts contributes to poor case management and oversight.
Collectively, these factors create a judicial system where justice is postponed for years, if not decades, particularly for individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds or rural areas. Tackling this enduring problem requires comprehensive reforms in judicial appointments, the integration of technology, court management, and procedural simplification, ensuring that the promise of a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely a theoretical guarantee but a tangible right in practice.
Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial :
The right to a speedy trial is not simply a procedural objective; it is a Constitutional entitlement enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures the right to life and personal liberty. This right was first judicially articulated in the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), where the Supreme Court determined that the prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners without trial constituted a blatant violation of their constitutional rights. The judgment advocated for numerous voiceless undertrials confined in jails without having been convicted, leading to reforms in legal aid and criminal procedures.
Despite the robust constitutional foundation, the actual implementation of the right to a speedy trial is significantly lacking. In numerous instances, particularly in criminal cases, trials can extend for years or even decades, undermining the fundamental principle of justice. This causes not only mental and financial distress to the accused but also erodes public trust in the judicial system.
A protracted trial often translates to a denied trial, especially for the impoverished, marginalized, and those without legal representation. The Supreme Court has reiterated this right in several subsequent rulings, including Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) and A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992), emphasising that neither state nor judicial delays should be utilised to penalise the accused.
Furthermore, courts have acknowledged that extended detention without trial violates the principle of natural justice, particularly when such delays stem from administrative inefficiencies or systemic flaws.
Why Reforms Are Urgent in 2025:
The necessity to reform India’s judicial system in 2025 has reached unprecedented levels. With over 5 crore cases pending, the legal framework is overwhelmed, resulting in sluggishness and, in many instances, dysfunction. Despite numerous reform attempts in previous decades, structural inefficiencies persist. This year marks a pivotal moment as three new criminal codes the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) are poised to replace the colonial IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act.
However, these legislative changes may prove to be merely symbolic unless accompanied by procedural, staffing, and technological enhancements to ensure swifter and more effective justice. The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, along with the current CJI BR Gavai, has emphasised in their recent speeches that legislation alone cannot remedy systemic issues. It is essential that infrastructure, personnel, digitisation, and accountability progress in tandem with legislative reforms (LiveMint, 2025).
Most importantly, India’s demographic shift where over 50% of the population is under 30 demands a judicial system that is dependable, responsive, and accessible. As younger citizens increasingly seek transparency and accountability from government institutions, the judiciary must evolve or risk losing public confidence. As climate-related disputes, cyber crimes, mass data litigation, and ethical concerns surrounding AI become prevalent, the justice system in 2025 must be equipped for the future. Without substantial reforms to strengthen court structures, increase the number of judges per capita, and integrate advanced technology, India risks widening the trust gap between the law and the general population .
Ongoing and Suggested Reforms :
In light of the growing delays and backlog of cases, India has initiated a series of judicial reforms; however, significant work remains. Currently, the government has introduced the e-Courts Mission Mode Project in its third phase (2023–2027) aimed at digitizing case records, facilitating online filing, and live-streaming court proceedings to enhance transparency (eCourts.gov.in). Several High Courts have also adopted Artificial Intelligence systems such as “Suvira” and “SUPACE” to assist in filtering and summarizing cases. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) now offers real-time tracking of case statuses to both advocates and litigants, thereby improving accessibility and accountability (njdg.ecourts.gov.in).
Despite these initiatives, the pace of reform remains sluggish, particularly in lower courts where digital infrastructure and human resources are lacking. Experts argue that there is a need to recruit more judges, increase the sanctioned strength of judges, and hire specialised court staff and court managers to handle non-judicial responsibilities. Procedural reforms are equally crucial: streamlining the processes of the CrPC and CPC, minimising adjournments, and expediting bail and minor offence cases could significantly reduce the backlog.
Furthermore, there is mounting pressure to enhance Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalat as effective methods to alleviate the burden on traditional courts. Reforms in legal education and increased funding for legal aid services can also improve access to justice for marginalised groups.
Student Voice and Responsibility :
In the struggle for judicial reform, students particularly law students are agents of change. With more than 40 lakh law students in India today, this is not a passive audience; it is an active force with the ability to affect public discourse as well as institutional change. The crisis of delayed justice is not a challenge students can comfortably ignore by their very future as lawyers, judges, and policy-makers, students are personally affected by delayed justice. Their voice is important in keeping institutions in check, raising awareness about rights such as the right to a fair trial (Article 21, Constitution of India) and fighting for more access to justice.
The current generation of students is best positioned to narrow the disconnect between legal theory and ground-level activism.They can engage with Legal Aid Clinics, Lok Adalats, and court observation schemes so that they know what works and what doesn’t on the ground. Acting as volunteers at District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) or pursuing public interest litigations (PILs) for prison reforms, pendency of cases, or judicial transparency are specific means of translating class-room learning into civic intervention. Campus blogs and magazines and social media can become strong platforms for students to create awareness about judicial vacancies, incarceration of undertrial prisoners, and delay of cases. Legal education is now required to be transformed from mere statutes teaching to instilling social responsibility and legal activism. Mock legislative drafting, student parliament, and policy competitions with a theme on justice delivery reform should be promoted in law colleges.
In 2025, the legal environment requires new minds more than ever students willing to challenge the status quo, who champion tech adoption in courts, improved legal aid, and mental health care for undertrial prisoners. Students aren’t merely the lawyers of tomorrow they are the justice influencers today.
Conclusion:
Time to Act on Justice :
Justice that is postponed is not merely justice that is denied it is also a denial of democracy. As Chief Justice Gavai rightly emphasized, India can no longer endure a justice system hindered by procedural bottlenecks and outdated frameworks. The constitutional promise of a swift trial must be realized not just in theory but in actual practice. Changes in the judiciary, legislation, and societal attitudes must converge. Policymakers, students, and all other individuals are integral stakeholders. The time for debating delays has passed the moment for action is now. A just society is not built solely on the judgments rendered it is built on the speed and fairness with which those judgments are delivered.
