Mindmine Summit 2026: Technology, Fewer Appeals And Judicial Reform — How India’s Courts Can Catch Up

The Mindmine Summit on June 15 discussed not only India’s expanding economy but also evolution of governance through accessibility of justice, integral to democratic confidence. 

At the 16th edition of a session titled Justice in Slow Motion: How can India’s courts catch up? examined the structural challenges facing India’s judicial system. 

The discussion brought together Ajay Bahl, Co-Founder and Managing Partner at AZB & Partners; Pallavi Shroff, Managing Partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas; and Bansuri Swaraj, Member of Parliament, in conversation with AK Bhattacharya, Editorial Director of Business Standard.

Bhattacharya began the discussion by stating that 5.5 crore cases are pending in India’s courts, a huge number which traps India’s capital and reputation, along with having a social cost. 

Bhattacharya asked what India must do to reduce judicial delays and address the heavy case backlog. Directing the question to  Swaraj, he asked, “what does it take to reduce this waitlist?”

esponding, Swaraj said that as a parliamentarian, she sees the social cost of judicial delays up close. “It is a plague that has infested our judicial system,” she said.

According to her, the solution is implementation driven, particularly through the effective use of technology.

Taking the example of Covid years, Swaraj argued that virtual hearing had already come in handy. She noted that it helped reduce dropout rates among female lawyers by allowing them to continue appearing in court while balancing responsibilities at home.

“Video-call hearings will definitely expedite the number of cases that can be disposed of,” she said.

She also argued for adoption of artificial intelligence within the judicial system. “Judges end up wasting a lot of their time on procedural aspects,” she said, suggesting that routine functions could be supported through AI, allowing courts to focus more time on adjudication and reducing delays.

Bahl said that the almost 4 crore of pending cases are at the district court, mentioning that “justice is starting from the ground level,” he said.

Taking the concept of supply and demand, he said that if infrastructure — including courts, judges and technology — is seen as the supply side, then the pipeline of incoming cases represents demand. However, there has been almost no emphasis on trying to manage that demand. He noted that criminal cases are growing by about 20 lakh every year and that, in almost every court, the annual institution of cases is greater than disposal, making the task of clearing older cases increasingly difficult. 

“The supply side will continue, we have to do what we have to do, the demand side has to be addressed,” he stated.

He added that for every offence carrying a punishment of more than three years, there is currently no limitation period for filing cases, arguing that this is another issue that needs to be addressed. According to him, introducing reforms in this area could also help unclog the judicial system. 

Shroff brought a wider perspective , stating that “one of two solutions will not solve the problem, we need a multi-pronged approach.” 

 Shroff brought a broader perspective to the discussion, arguing that no single reform would be enough to solve India’s judicial backlog.

“One or two solutions will not solve the problem, we need a multi-pronged approach,” she said.

According to her, addressing judicial delays requires a serious and long-term commitment. Agreeing with Swaraj’s emphasis on implementation, Shroff said that execution is the real crux of the issue.

She added that if the conversation is about reducing the number of cases entering the system, attention must also turn to who is generating the largest volume of litigation.

“The largest litigant in the country is the government,” she said.

Questioning institutional incentives, she asked: “Can anybody in the government today take a call not to move further if they have lost a matter? Can they decide not to file an appeal and not go all the way up to the Supreme Court?”

Her answer was no. “If an officer decides not to appeal, then 10 years later there could be a CVC inquiry against him, a CBI inquiry against him. So they keep filing until every remedy is exhausted.”

She argued that these appeals significantly contribute to court congestion.“That clogs up all the courts.”

Shroff concluded by asking whether policy changes could reduce avoidable government litigation. “Can we do something to ensure that the government would stop filing these litigations?”

She said a committee could be formed or a retired judge could be consulted to see whether a case should be filed or not.

She also mentioned the lack of number of judges. “We are 22 judges per million,” which ideally should be more than 50. Even if the number of judges cannot be increased, at least the vacancies should be filled that exist today. “Vacancies are not filled for years,” she said.

After these changes are made, an efficient infrastructure infused with technology is required for the system to work, she said. “Where is wifi, where are the computers, where are the trained people who can manage the court?” she asked. 

“If we don't want to spend money on the judicial system, what do we expect?” Shroff concluded.