The subordinate judiciary is an economic pillar India must fix

Now multiply her story by 45 million, the number of cases clogging India’s district courts. What if these delays aren’t just inconveniences but a silent economic haemorrhage, draining about 0.5% of India’s GDP annually, or roughly ₹1.5 trillion? What if fixing our ‘first centre of justice’ could spark an economic and social transformation? 

These aren’t hypotheticals; they’re urgent realities facing India’s judicial system and our country’s economic future.

Also Read: We need judicial system reforms to ensure swift disposal of cases

The subordinate judiciary, handling 87.5% of India’s cases, is the foundation of our legal system. Yet, there are 4,859 vacancies in lower courts, a backlog of cases and outdated systems that fail to harness the beast. The vision of ‘Citizen First, Dignity First, Justice First’ demands a reinvigorated district judiciary.  

As shown by global success stories, from Singapore’s 80% cases resolved through mediation to Kenya’s 346-day cut in commercial case timelines, efficient subordinate courts can boost GDP through their positive impact on the economy. India’s district courts, however, remain growth inhibitors. To realize Viksit Bharat, we must confront four critical challenges and embrace bold reforms.

First, solve the vacancy crisis: With 4,859 of 22,750 judicial posts empty, judges juggle 746 cases annually as against the global best practice of 200–300. In Uttar Pradesh, cases often drag on for five years, eroding the confidence of small businesses and deterring entrepreneurship. 

The World Bank estimates that reducing judicial vacancies from 25% to 15% can  boost investment and business optimism. Kenya’s reforms drew more foreign investment into productive sectors. There are many good practices that India can borrow to create a system that improves the quality of appointments. 

Our judicial services, governed by states, are of uneven quality. We need an All India Judicial Service on the lines of services like the Indian Administrative Service and Indian Forest Service that can attract good quality personnel for our courts. With the expansion of our law universities network, we have legally qualified human capital for the purpose. The proposed service could standardize recruitment while respecting state autonomy to ensure swift merit-based hiring. They would also be helpful for the early promotion of district judges to high courts, etc.

Also Read: Tribunal reforms hold the key to efficient dispute resolution in India

Second, investments must go beyond brick and mortar: The government’s ₹8,000 crore spending on building court halls is welcome, but only 6.7% of district courts are women-friendly, which limits half the population’s participation. 

The Prime Minister’s vision of e-Courts, with AI and digital text-scanners to “analyse pending cases and predict future litigations" is a game-changer, but fragmented digitisation undermines its potential. 

Thailand’s digital case management cut delays by 40%, Malaysia’s AI scheduling saved 15% processing time and Estonia’s fully digital courts process cases 60% faster. India must integrate its e-Courts ecosystem into a unified platform linking the police, forensics and courts, as envisioned by the Prime Minister. This could add to GDP growth by easing the business environment.

Also Read: Open Network courts can enable vast judicial process reforms

Third, the three-year practice requirement for district judges risks sidelining diversity: Only 15% of practising lawyers are women, limiting the candidate pool. 

South Africa’s competency-based assessments and the UK’s scenario-based tests offer better solutions, prioritizing skills in new legal frameworks over rigid years-of- practice records. Estonia’s tech-savvy judge selection boosted digital case management by 40%, a model India could adapt to ensure inclusive, capable courts.

Fourth, case management needs to improve: Hybrid systems of digital filing alongside manual tracking exclude small businesses that are unable to navigate complexity. The Prime Minister’s call for AI-driven analytics and a unified platform is transformative but underused. 

Singapore’s Integrated Case Management System cut processing times by 35%, Brazil’s e-process system reduced backlogs by 25% and Ghana’s double-shift courts maximized infrastructure availability. India’s 7,500 new court halls could adopt Ghana’s model, while AI tools could slash disposal times.

Also Read: A judiciary that refrains from judicial overreach can better serve the cause of justice

Reforms carry risks. Digital systems may exclude rural litigants, fast-track hiring can compromise quality and budget constraints may strain states. India’s linguistic and educational diversity demands that we avoid a digital divide. Yet, global models offer hope. Kenya’s reforms cut commercial case disposal times from 465 to 346 days, boosting GDP. Singapore’s mediation resolves 80% of disputes at the pre-court stage. Malaysia’s AI tools enhance judicial consistency.

A judicial transformation demands stakeholder synergy. The government must prioritize the modernisation of district courts. Bar associations should champion reform, legal aid groups can offer pre-litigation support and tech firms must provide digital solutions. The economic stakes are colossal. Judicial delays are too costly. The International Monetary Fund suggests efficient courts could add 0.28 percentage points to GDP per capita growth. 

Sunita’s wait isn’t just her loss, it’s India’s. Backed by Articles 233–237 and the Prime Minister’s vision, district courts can serve India as an economic pillar. The question isn’t whether we can. It's whether we will.

The authors are, respectively, secretary general and research associate, CUTS International.