Why India’s Courts Are Slow: The Need for Court Managers

Introduction

• Judicial delays in India have emerged as one of the most serious challenges confronting the country’s legal system because delayed justice not only affects litigants individually but also creates wider economic and social consequences across society.
• Court delays lead to financial resources remaining locked for long periods, increase the cost of doing business, discourage domestic and foreign investment, and place sustained pressure on public institutions and government resources. Various estimates indicate that the economic impact of judicial delays may amount to nearly 1.5–2 percent of India’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• With more than 5 crore pending cases across India’s legal system, the scale of the problem has become undeniable and continues to worsen over time. 
• This situation has revived discussions regarding structural reforms, particularly the need to professionalise court administration through the appointment of court managers.

Judicial Delays in India: A Growing Challenge

• Delays in Indian courts are caused by a combination of several interrelated factors that affect how cases enter the judicial system, how they are processed within courts, and how institutions supporting the judiciary function. Numerous studies have identified multiple causes behind rising pendency and slow disposal rates.
• The important causes include poorly framed laws, shortage of judges and supporting staff, inadequate infrastructure facilities, inefficient court procedures, growing litigation, and administrative burdens placed upon judges.
• Among all these factors, one of the most persistent yet often overlooked issues is the absence of professional administrative support within courts. Courts are no longer merely institutions for dispute resolution; rather, they function as large and complex organisations requiring effective management systems. However, a substantial portion of administrative responsibilities continues to remain with judges themselves.

Administrative Responsibilities Reduce Judicial Efficiency

• Judges in India perform not only judicial functions but also various administrative responsibilities that consume a considerable amount of their time and energy. Apart from hearing and deciding cases, judges are often required to oversee case management, supervise court staff, monitor infrastructure facilities, coordinate administrative work, and review institutional performance.
• These responsibilities include management of case flow systems, human resources administration, infrastructure maintenance, staff supervision, performance evaluation mechanisms, and coordination with external agencies and state authorities.
• As judges devote significant time to these non-judicial functions, less time remains available for adjudication, resulting in slower case disposal and increasing pendency. Professional administrative support can therefore help judges focus on their primary role of delivering justice while improving overall institutional efficiency.

Origin of the Court Manager Initiative

• The concept of appointing court managers was formally introduced during the period of the 13th Finance Commission (2010–2015). Recognising that judges were increasingly burdened with administrative work, the Commission proposed the creation of a dedicated cadre of professionally trained court managers at both district courts and High Courts.
• The Commission recommended appointing individuals possessing professional management qualifications, including MBA degrees, who could assist courts in administrative functions. To support implementation of the initiative, the Commission allocated ₹300 crore as a one-time grant for five years.
• The underlying objective of the proposal was straightforward: judges should focus on deciding cases while court managers should handle administration.
• Court managers were expected to undertake responsibilities such as case-flow management, human resource administration, infrastructure supervision, institutional planning, performance monitoring, and efficiency improvement measures.

Weak Implementation of the Court Manager Scheme

• Despite the clear vision behind the initiative, implementation remained limited and uneven across the country. During the five-year grant period, only a small proportion of the allocated funds was actually utilised, with certain reports suggesting utilisation levels as low as 13 percent.
• Only a few states, including Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, and Rajasthan, proceeded with appointing court managers, and even these appointments were largely contractual or temporary in nature.
• By March 2015, when the period of the Finance Commission ended, only around 128 court manager positions had been filled across the entire country, reflecting the limited scale of implementation.
• The situation deteriorated further after the conclusion of central financial support because responsibility for funding shifted to state governments and High Courts. In many states, absence of dedicated resources resulted in discontinuation of court manager positions altogether.

Reasons Behind the Failure of the Reform

• The failure of the court manager initiative cannot be attributed solely to funding shortages because structural and institutional issues also contributed significantly.
• Firstly, the scheme was never institutionalised as a permanent administrative cadre within the judicial system, making it dependent on temporary financial support and therefore vulnerable once central funding ended.
• Secondly, institutional resistance emerged because many judges considered administrative responsibilities as an integral part of judicial functioning and were hesitant to transfer these duties to external professionals. Court managers were frequently viewed as outsiders by existing court staff, limiting their acceptance and effectiveness.
• Thirdly, the initiative suffered from unclear role definitions because responsibilities, authority structures, and performance evaluation mechanisms for court managers were not adequately standardised.
• Finally, there existed a mismatch between professional qualifications and institutional requirements because many appointees possessed general management expertise but lacked sufficient understanding of court procedures and judicial processes. Consequently, they often remained under-equipped to support judicial administration effectively.
• These combined weaknesses prevented the reform from developing into a sustainable institutional framework.

Supreme Court’s Renewed Intervention

• The Supreme Court of India has once again revived the issue of court managers and judicial administration reforms. The Court had earlier issued directions regarding appointment and functioning of court managers in August 2018, but implementation remained inadequate across states.
• In May 2025, the Supreme Court expressed concern regarding the failure to comply with earlier directions and instructed all High Courts to frame or revise service rules relating to court managers within three months. The Court further directed state governments to approve these rules within the subsequent three months.
• This intervention reflects renewed efforts to professionalise court administration and improve judicial efficiency through institutional reforms.

Importance of Court Managers in Judicial Reforms

• The success of modern judicial reforms such as digitisation, technological integration, e-courts systems, and process automation will remain limited if judges continue to remain burdened with administrative work.
• Creation of a permanent and professionally trained cadre of court managers can significantly improve judicial functioning by enhancing administrative efficiency, reducing case backlogs, improving disposal rates, strengthening implementation of technological reforms, and enabling judges to dedicate their time exclusively to adjudication.
• A clear separation between judicial and administrative responsibilities can therefore become one of the most impactful reforms for improving India’s justice delivery system.

Conclusion

• Judicial delays in India are not merely the outcome of rising case numbers but also reflect deep administrative challenges within the court system. Continued dependence on judges for managerial functions has reduced institutional efficiency and contributed to mounting pendency.
• The establishment of a robust and permanent cadre of court managers, accompanied by a clear distinction between judicial and administrative functions, represents one of the most practical and high-impact reforms available to the Indian judiciary.
• The Supreme Court of India has already provided the framework and implementation timeline; however, the ultimate success of this reform will depend upon whether states and High Courts can institutionalise these changes and transform court administration from an ad hoc arrangement into a professional management system.