CHANDIGARH, July 24 — A recent judicial order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has brought stark attention to a crisis long acknowledged in whispers: no judge can humanly dispense justice in 245 cases within a single working day. Legal experts say the current system—marked by overwhelming caseloads and rushed hearings—risks reducing justice to a procedural formality.
On a typical day, a judge in the High Court may face over 200 matters, with an average of just 1.22 minutes available per case in a five-hour court day. “No human being, however capable, can deliver fair judicial application in 70 seconds per case,” a retired High Court judge observed.
The High Court, with only 49 judges, is grappling with a pendency of more than 4.34 lakh cases. That’s nearly 9,000 cases per judge. Legal professionals argue that such a setup turns the courtroom into a conveyor belt, stripping the proceedings of deliberation and reducing participation to symbolism.
“Even if the judge does not consciously register it, a suffocating courtroom, filled beyond capacity, creates an invisible pressure,” said a senior advocate, pointing to the effect of packed courtrooms and congested workspaces. The infrastructure, too, is cracking under pressure. On days with heavy cause lists, corridors spill over, and judges struggle to work amid the crowd.
Parking has emerged as a daily crisis. Despite court orders creating new lots and converting spaces for temporary parking, the issue persists. “It’s not just about parking—it’s about the overall stress the system is under,” said an official involved in infrastructure planning. So acute is the space crunch that officials are now considering shifting parts of court operations to IT Park or Sarangpur village—an idea once deemed unthinkable.
Contrary to public perception, delays are not due to judges taking their time. “Judges are not slow; the system is overloaded,” said a senior Bar member. “Constitutional justice cannot be delivered in seconds.”
The Supreme Court has consistently underscored the centrality of fair hearings to the right to life and liberty under Article 21. In Anokhilal vs State of MP, the apex court made it clear that speedy trials must not compromise fairness. Legal scholars now warn that rushed hearings may violate natural justice and the constitutional guarantee under Article 39A of equal access to justice.
“Access is not about entering a courtroom — it’s about being heard,” said a constitutional law scholar. “If the system reduces hearing time to a mathematical minimum, that access becomes illusory.”
Amid rising concerns, members of the legal fraternity are demanding structured case management. “We need rationalisation, not just reduction,” said a senior counsel, calling for a cap of 40–50 matters per Bench per day, with advance calendar planning and urgency-based categorisation.
Adjournments too need reform. “If a matter isn’t heard today, it must be placed on a realistic calendar—ideally within two weeks,” a lawyer said. Open-ended adjournments only recycle pendency and add to systemic fatigue.
Reforms in court scheduling, infrastructure, and listing systems, experts say, are now essential to restore deliberative justice. “A judge must remain a deliberator, not a traffic controller,” said another senior advocate. “Justice must be heard, not hurried.”
Unless urgent structural changes are made, legal experts warn, the court risks turning participatory litigation into performative routine, and public faith in the system may erode.
