by Mugdha Mohapatra, Siddarth Raman and Susan Thomas.
India's district courts currently face a staggering backlog of 4.6 crore pending cases (as of May 2025): 3.5 crore criminal and 1.1 crore civil. Proposals to solve this are familiar: hire more judges, build special courts, adopt new technology. But before rushing to solutions, it is important to understand where cases get stuck in their journey through courts. We hand-collect and analyse the life-cycle of a sample of cases from district courts, with some surprising observations. First, between 50-70 percent of cases are disposed before they get to trial, which is before the judge hears the substantive matter of the dispute. The time spent waiting for parties to appear is over a year. While criminal cases necessarily require strict adherence to due process, even civil cases face delays. These findings challenge conventional wisdom about judicial delays and point to a unexpected bottleneck. If getting people to show up in court is the core source of delays and pendency, strengthening the administrative processes of the court rather than the size of the bench, could lead to more speedy justice delivery from our courts.
The objective of building judicial capacity to achieve judicial efficiency requires an understanding of how cases move through courts, not just tracking pendency rates. This is because the journey of a case moves through deterministic stages, which vary in duration, and imposes varying resource demands from judges and staff. There have been few systematic studies of how a case moves through court. While some studies examine the total time for case disposal, few break this down by stage.
This study analyses stages for two common types of cases that represent a significant portion of the workload of courts: cheque bouncing cases (criminal matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act) and motor accident claims (civil matters under the Motor Vehicles Act).
Cheque bouncing cases account for 10-15% of criminal court workloads, while motor accident claims constitute over 10% of pending civil cases. Cheque bouncing cases happen when a cheque issued does not deliver payment as expected. Motor accident claims are filed to claim compensation for damages caused in the accident against the owner of the vehicle involved, with the vehicle insurance company as a co-respondent. Cheque bouncing cases are filed in a magistrate court, and the motor accident claims at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT). Across these two types of cases, there are differences in procedures: whether it is for criminal and civil cases, and for different types of courts.
We use this analysis to answer the following questions:
- What fraction of the cases go through the whole life-cycle?
- How much time is spent in different stages of the case life-cycle? Is this different for civil and for criminal cases?
Methodology
The analysis examined 200 disposed cases randomly sampled from from the e-courts database for district courts from courts across Maharashtra, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Telangana and Rajasthan, filed between 2018-2022. After excluding transfers and circumstances where cases never went a court process, the final sample included 147 cases - 77 cheque bouncing cases and 70 motor accident claims cases.
Each case was tracked through its entire journey by analysing court orders and hearings. Cases go through different stages - filing, admission, summons, warrants, bail, written statements, framing of issues, evidence and others. We classify these different stages of 'Pre-Trial' and 'Trial'. Trial begins after both parties appear before the judge - in cheque bouncing cases, after the accused files for bail; in motor accident claims, after written statements are filed and issues are framed.
Results
The first finding relates to the stage at which the cases are disposed. Table 1 shows the number of cases disposed at each stage.
The second finding relates to the time spent in the two stages
Table 1: Where cases end their journey
| Stage | Case type: MV | Case type: S138 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of cases | Percentage | No. of cases | Percentage | |
| Pre-trial | 38 | 54 % | 55 | 71 % |
| Trial | 32 | 46 % | 22 | 29 % |
More than half of the cases analysed never reached trial. This is higher for the (criminal) cheque bouncing cases, where 70% of cases are disposed before they reach trial. For the (civil) motor accident claims cases, 54% of the cases are disposed before reaching trial.
Table 2: Time taken by stage
| Case type | Total no. of cases | Pre-trial | Trial |
|---|---|---|---|
| MV | 70 (32 reached trial) | 9.5 months | 4 months |
| S138 | 77 (22 reached trial) | 12 months | 3.5 months |
Once all parties are in present in court, cases resolve quickly - usually in 3-4 months. Most of the delay in matters is in the pre-trial stage where the court is waiting for parties to appear (usually the respondent). This takes between 9 months to a year.
These findings align with broader patterns visible in the National Judicial Data Grid for district courts (NJDG). The data shows that 72% of pending cases are stuck before trial: 48% are at the appearance stage, 14% are awaiting service of summons, and 10% are awaiting service of warrants. While the data from the NJDG is useful to know where cases are placed within the judicial system, it does not provide insights on the time spent in different stages. Our analysis quantifies the extent of the bottleneck.
Discussion
The analysis points to two key observations: Most cases that are filed in court do not reach trial, where judicial mind is applied to decide issues of the case. Further, the bulk of the time is spent in getting the parties to court. Once all parties are present, the time to resolution is much lower. The puzzle is in understanding what shapes these features, and how this understanding can be used to improve court efficiency in dealing with case workload.
- Are the delays in court cases inevitable?
- Administrative and judicial functions of the court
- Digital service of summons and notices could reduce delays, though this requires updated legal frameworks and reliable technology infrastructure.
- Police-court integration might improve warrant execution, though this raises questions about optimal resource allocation - should a capacity constrained police forces pursue cheque defaulters or focus on serious crimes?
- Quicker escalation to warrants may secure attendance faster, but wielding state power to restrict liberty demands careful consideration. A judge's decision to issue an arrest warrant carries real consequences.
- Penalties for non-appearance could be introduced to create stronger incentives for timely court attendance.
- Private process servers, as used in U.S. courts, offer another model worth exploring.
The analysis points to the paradox of procedural protections for some cases. Cheque bouncing cases and other criminal matters demand the presence of the accused. This creates an inherent tension between speedy resolution of the matter and judicial procedure. The accused, facing potential imprisonment, has every incentive to delay appearing in court until forced by warrant. The very protections meant to ensure fair process become tools for delay.
In India, these procedures continue to evolve. Under Section 223 of the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, magistrates must now offer the the accused an opportunity to be heard before admitting a complaint as a criminal case. This involves sending a notice by post, a process not unlike the current summons process. While intended to enhance due process, this additional step could further extend the timeline for cheque bouncing cases. The new code also allows for trial 'in absentia' under Section 356. If a person is declared as a 'proclaimed offender', and if the judge thinks that they are absconding to evade trial, the court can proceed without the accused. How these practices are implemented remains to be seen.
The findings expose a fundamental blind spot in how courts actually work. The popular image of justice - a judge hearing arguments, weighing evidence and delivering verdicts - represents only one aspect of the judicial system. Behind every courtroom drama lies an extensive administrative operation of filing documents, scheduling hearings, maintaining records, and getting parties to court. These two systems complement each other, but our understanding of the administrative aspects of the court system is limited, because it is behind the scenes.
Current reform proposals focus heavily on expanding judicial capacity: hiring more judges, creating specialised courts, and implementing new technologies for case management. While these interventions have merit, they miss the core issue revealed by this analysis. The judicial system extends far beyond judges and courtrooms. Delivering summons and notices typically involves police officers, postal services, or process servers. When the simple act of getting parties to court becomes the biggest bottleneck, the solution requires rethinking the entire administrative infrastructure supporting the courts.
What does imply for potential solutions for institutional reforms of the judiciary? Some approaches that could address the summons/notices bottleneck include:
Conclusion
The clamour for court reform has been dominated by traditional solutions: more judges, rewritten procedures, and new technology. But when the relatively simple task of getting parties to court becomes the system's biggest bottleneck, a more nuanced approach is essential. Court reform must recognise that efficient justice delivery requires strengthening both judicial and administrative capacity in parallel. Separating court administration from judicial functions, as some countries have done, could allow specialised focus on each component while maintaining their complementary relationship.
The invisible administrative machinery of courts deserves as much attention as the visible judicial functions. Until administrative capacity matches judicial capacity, Indian courts will continue struggling with delays that have less to do with complex legal reasoning and more to do with basic case management. The path to speedier justice may lie not in the courtroom, but in the clerk's office, the process server's route, and the administrative systems that bring cases to life. Only by addressing both aspects of the judicial system can India's courts deliver the swift justice that 4.6 crore pending cases demand.
Siddarth and Susan are senior research lead and senior research fellow at XKDR Forum. Mugdha was a research associate at XKDR Forum. We thank Pavithra Manivannan for insights, Shubho Roy for help with the interpretation, and Ajay Shah for inputs.
