Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has sounded the alarm—Allahabad High Court is running at just half its full strength, and the impact is staggering. Judges are drowning in a sea of cases, each juggling between 15,000 to 20,000 matters.

This isn’t just a bureaucratic headache, also it isn’t just a statistic —it’s a crisis. it directly affects people’s access to justice.

Why Is There a Backlog? Lawyers Speak Out

Advocate Shashwat Anand, who practices at the Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court, calls the situation "a denial of rights," and says that the urgency of filling the vacancies at the high court cannot be overstated. “Without it, the judiciary risks becoming irrelevant. The wait for justice is turning into a punishment in itself," Anand warns.

While echoing these concerns, Advocate Mohammad Kumail Haider, who practices at the Allahabad High Court, calls the court’s backlog a microcosm of India’s larger judicial crisis.

He points to deep-rooted inefficiencies, sluggish judge appointments, and lack of proper oversight as the culprits.

Haider also highlights another roadblock: inadequate infrastructure. He says that lack of additional benches and courts in regions like West Uttar Pradesh forces litigants to travel long distances, further delaying case resolutions.

Who’s Keeping Judges Accountable?

A crucial question looms: Who’s making sure sitting judges are pulling their weight?

Former Chief Justice J. S. Verma remarked on one occasion, “These days we (Judges) are telling everyone what they should do but who is to tell us? We have the task of enforcing the rule of law, but that does not exempt and even exonerate us from following it.” His words highlight a longstanding concern—judicial accountability must be an internal priority, not just an external demand. While the judiciary upholds the law, it must also subject itself to the same scrutiny it applies to others. The absence of structured evaluation mechanisms leaves room for inefficiencies and inconsistent performance among judges.

"Currently, there is no formal mechanism to evaluate the efficiency of sitting High Court and Supreme Court judges in India," says Advocate Haider. "While the Supreme Court and High Courts monitor case disposal rates, these metrics often fail to account for the complexity of cases or the workload of individual judges," he emphasises.

Delhi-based Advocate Bharat Chugh, however, sheds light on how trial court judges are evaluated. Their work is tracked through a points system which also setsincentives in place —old cases earn more points than new ones, encouraging judges to tackle long-pending matters, he tells.

But Chugh believes this system needs serious relook to reward quantity and quality both. “It doesn’t consider patience, compassion, or other judicial qualities,” he says.

“I’ve been told that most states don’t reward by units imitating perjury actions (which require a lot of effort) or at any rate don’t reward them enough. This is a gap. We need to rationalise the incentive structure better,” he suggests.

If trial court judges are held to efficiency standards, why should High Court and Supreme Court judges be exempt? Is it not time to introduce a similar system at the higher levels of the judiciary? The question demands urgent deliberation.

The Oversight Debate: Self-Regulation vs. External Monitoring

Should judges regulate themselves, or do we need external checks?

In 2011, former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Ruma Pal criticized the higher judiciary for several shortcomings, including turning a blind eye to colleagues' injudicious conduct, lack of transparency in judicial appointments, and professional arrogance. She emphasized the need for greater accountability within the judiciary. Justice Pal’s remarks underscored the judiciary’s reluctance to hold its own accountable, pointing out that self-regulation often results in opacity rather than integrity.

Advocate Shashwat Anand argues that while judicial independence is non-negotiable, unchecked power leads to inertia. " External oversight is not an infringement on independence—it is a safeguard against systemic collapse," he insists. "Courts must be held accountable, not only for the quality of their judgments but for the speed at which they deliver them."

Advocate Haider takes it a step further. "Judicial independence is a cornerstone of democracy, but the absence of robust oversight mechanisms has led to inefficiencies," he says. "While judges are expected to self-regulate, the sheer volume of cases and systemic delays suggest that external monitoring is necessary,"

He proposes a "balanced scorecard" system—evaluating judges on case disposal rates, judgment quality, and adherence to deadlines. He also suggests forming peer review committees and using AI to analyze case trends and flag bottlenecks.

Advocate Chugh also proposes setting up specialized benches to handle niche cases. "we need to hive off a lot of work on the criminal side at high court for instance - compromise quashing petitions to administrative managers instead of court, for instance, recording statements etc take a lot of court’s time which can be avoided," he suggests.

The Road Ahead

The Allahabad High Court’s backlog isn’t just a problem—it’s a crisis demanding immediate action.

Filling judicial vacancies is the first and most obvious fix, but true reform requires more. A modernized judiciary, better case management, specialized courts, and smart technology adoption could be the difference between a justice system that works and one that collapses under its own weight.

The question is—will the system rise to the challenge, or will it let justice slip further out of reach?