What Happened
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court of India, speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's first National Conference 2026, flagged the paradox of the government publicly lamenting judicial backlog while being the single largest generator of litigation
- She stated: "The government is not only a mere participant in litigation, it is also the largest single generator of litigation. The State is expected to litigate with restraint and be a model litigator, but that does not happen. It goes on litigating until the end."
- Law Ministry data (February 2026): the central government is a party in nearly 7 lakh cases pending across courts; the finance ministry alone accounts for nearly 2 lakh cases
- Justice Nagarathna described the system as trapped in an "equilibrium of delay" where multiple stakeholders have rational incentives to prolong litigation
- She called for the creation of a Judicial Reforms Commission to identify and address systemic contributors to case pendency
Static Topic Bridges
Judicial Pendency in India: Scale and Structural Causes
India's judiciary faces one of the highest pendency burdens globally. As of early 2026, over 5 crore cases are pending across district courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court alone has over 80,000 pending cases.
- District/subordinate courts: approximately 4.4 crore cases pending
- High Courts: approximately 60 lakh cases pending
- Supreme Court: approximately 80,000+ cases pending
- Judge-to-population ratio: India has approximately 21 judges per 10 lakh population, far below the Law Commission's recommendation of 50 judges per 10 lakh (120th Law Commission Report, 1987)
- Government litigation: central government party in ~7 lakh cases; finance ministry alone ~2 lakh (as of Feb 2026)
- Average time for resolution: civil cases in district courts average 3-5 years; some High Court cases run for decades
- National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms (2011): targets included filling judge vacancies and reducing pendency — not fully achieved
Connection to this news: The government's structural role as the country's largest litigant multiplies the backlog in several ways: it appeals almost every adverse order (even in small-value tax and service matters), rarely settles cases out of court, and treats litigation as a default strategy rather than a last resort.
Government as a "Model Litigant": Policy Framework and Failures
The concept of "model litigant" — a government that litigates with restraint, withdraws frivolous appeals, and accepts adverse orders in clear cases — has been endorsed by multiple Supreme Court judgments and official policies, but remains poorly implemented.
- National Litigation Policy (NLP) 2010: introduced to transform the government from a compulsive litigant to a responsible one; directed ministries to avoid filing appeals where settled law was against them; established an Empowered Committee to monitor compliance — largely ineffective in practice
- National Litigation Policy 2015 (revised draft): proposed stricter controls but never formally notified
- State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chufal (2010): the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the state filing appeals in matters clearly covered by binding precedent, calling it a "waste of judicial time"
- Justice Nagarathna's charge adds an institutional voice to a long-standing critique: ministerial officials face no personal accountability for adding to the State's litigation docket; the cost is borne by taxpayers and the justice system
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 mandates pre-institution mediation; Section 89 CPC provides for courts to refer disputes to ADR — but uptake is low for government cases
Connection to this news: Justice Nagarathna's call for a Judicial Reforms Commission implicitly acknowledges that informal nudges (like the NLP) have failed. Structural reform — possibly including mandatory mediation thresholds, personal accountability for officers who file meritless appeals, and appellate filtering mechanisms — may be needed.
Judicial Reforms Commission: Constitutional and Institutional Context
The demand for a Judicial Reforms Commission is not new, but gains urgency in the context of rising pendency and the government's dominant role in it. Comparable bodies exist in several jurisdictions.
- Article 39A of the Constitution (inserted by the 42nd Amendment, 1976): directs the State to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity and provides free legal aid
- The Law Commission of India is the standing advisory body on law reforms; it has made recommendations on judicial reform in reports 14, 77, 120, 245, and 266, among others
- Supreme Court's Collegium vs. Executive: the debate over judicial appointments (NJAC Act, 2014 struck down in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, 2015) reflects the underlying tension between judiciary and executive over court governance
- The NJAC case: 2015 judgment by a five-judge Constitution bench held that the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 and the 99th Constitutional Amendment were unconstitutional as they "abrogated the primacy of the judiciary" in appointments — the Collegium system was restored
- Pending reform proposals: increase in judge strength, dedicated commercial benches, e-filing, time-bound case management, mandatory pre-litigation mediation for government disputes
Connection to this news: Justice Nagarathna's proposal for a Judicial Reforms Commission would need to operate independently of executive control to be credible — a direct tension with the current architecture where both the judiciary's governance and the government's litigation behaviour feed the crisis she describes.
Key Facts & Data
- Speaker: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Supreme Court of India
- Forum: Supreme Court Bar Association's first National Conference 2026
- Central government cases pending (Feb 2026): ~7 lakh across all courts
- Finance ministry pending cases: ~2 lakh
- Total national judicial pendency: over 5 crore cases (all levels)
- Judge-to-population ratio: ~21 per 10 lakh (recommended: 50 per 10 lakh)
- National Litigation Policy 2010: government's failed model-litigant framework
- Article 39A (42nd Amendment, 1976): equal justice and free legal aid as directive principle
- State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chufal (2010): Supreme Court deprecated meritless government appeals
- NJAC Act (2014) struck down: Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015)