“Why Do Laws Flood Courts?” Allahabad High Court Flags Legislative Blind Spot

The Allahabad High Court has suggested that Parliament and State legislatures consider incorporating a “Litigation Impact Assessment” clause in every law, observing that most enactments inevitably generate fresh litigation and that advance assessment could help plan judicial infrastructure, finances and manpower before pendency spirals.

The division bench of Justices Alok Mathur vs. Amitabh Kumar Rai said that anticipating the litigation burden at the stage of law-making would enable authorities to respond proactively rather than attempting to control backlog after it becomes unmanageable.

In the same proceedings, court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to take a final decision within a month on the creation of 900 additional courts, expressing concern over continued delays despite prior approvals and repeated directions.

The bench was hearing a suo motu public interest litigation concerning judicial infrastructure and rising pendency. It noted that the need for additional courts had been assessed using the methodology approved by the Supreme Court in Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another (2017), where a “unit system” was evolved to determine judge strength based on factors such as institution rates, disposal capacity and backlog. Applying this formula, it was found that 9149 additional courts were required in Uttar Pradesh to effectively address case pendency.

However, in view of financial and infrastructural constraints, the State decided to proceed in phases and granted in-principle approval, along with budgetary sanction, for creating around 900 courts in the financial year 2025–2026 based on a proposal forwarded by the high court.

Despite this, court recorded that the process has not been finalised even after the close of the financial year, and the matter has now carried forward into 2026–2027. It took note of a communication placed before it indicating that the State had raised fresh queries with the high court on March 13, 2026.

These queries sought details regarding the number of courts in each district, pendency of cases, norms governing creation of posts, and the financial implications of outsourcing staff. The bench observed that the first three queries related to information already available in the public domain, including official websites, and therefore did not warrant fresh clarification. As regards staffing, it was informed that the high court had already responded.

Court further noted submissions that similar queries had been raised earlier and answered, including responses sent on April 8, 2026. It expressed concern that raising repetitive queries, instead of moving towards implementation, indicated avoidable delay.

The bench observed that once the State had agreed in principle to increase the number of courts, only relevant queries with a direct bearing on implementation should be raised. It also emphasised that all queries should be consolidated and sent together, rather than in stages, which results in repeated cycles of correspondence and loss of time.

Highlighting the broader constitutional context, court reiterated that the right to speedy trial is a mandate under the Constitution and requires coordinated action by the judiciary, executive and legislature. It noted that while litigation continues to increase steadily, pendency has not reduced, making urgent intervention necessary.

Court also pointed to practical consequences of legislative changes, citing the example of cheque bounce cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where a surge in litigation has required multiple dedicated courts in each district. It observed that such outcomes could have been anticipated with prior assessment at the stage of enacting the law.

Taking note of the State’s submission seeking time, court said that the replies already furnished by the high court should now be considered and a final decision taken expeditiously, preferably within one month.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 19, 2026. Court directed that if no final decision is taken by then, the Legal Remembrancer of the State shall appear in person before the court.

Also Read| “Travesty of Justice”: Supreme Court Slams Alarming Pendency of 8.8 Lakh Execution Petitions Nationwide

Also Read| Supreme Court refuses PIL seeking National Judicial Manpower Plan to achieve '50 judges per million population'

Case Title: Suo Motu In The Matter Of Creation Of 9149 Courts vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law

Order Date: April 13, 2026

Bench: Justices Alok Mathur vs. Amitabh Kumar Rai