Delay in Justice is a disease that demands surgery

04/02/2026

Justice delayed is no longer a mere administrative lapse. It has become a chronic disease eating away at the very foundations of the judicial system. The persistent and systemic delay in adjudication resembles a malignant condition that now requires immediate chemotherapy, surgical intervention, and removal of dead institutional cells. Cosmetic reforms and ceremonial assurances will no longer suffice. What is at stake is the faith of the common litigant and the credibility of the judiciary itself.
The legal fraternity must introspect whether it supports or silently tolerates a narrative that allows justice to be destroyed gradually by passing the litigant's baton from one generation to the next. When disputes outlive the litigants and cases are inherited like ancestral property, justice ceases to have any meaning. Such a situation is not only alarming but morally indefensible in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law.
It has become convenient to hide behind the excuse of shortage of judges while simultaneously permitting frivolous adjournments without any cost or consequence. Shortage cannot justify indiscipline, inefficiency, or lack of accountability. When statutory timelines prescribed under various laws are routinely ignored, the authority of legislation itself is undermined. Laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures clearly prescribe limitation periods and procedural timelines. The failure to adhere to them reflects a systemic disregard for legislative intent.
The judicial academy exists to train judicial officers not only in subst-antive and procedural law but also in the discipline of timely adjudication. The purpose of such training is defeated if cases remain pending for years due to habitual adjournments and casual case management. If a court or a judicial officer repeatedly violates timelines and treats adjournments as a routine entitlement, such conduct must be firmly discouraged. Delay should not be rewarded with silence or institut-ional see no evil attitudes.
Accountability with-in the judiciary remains an uncomfortable topic, yet it is unavoidable. Every other constitut-ional institution is subject to scrutiny, audit, and performance standards. The judiciary cannot remain an exception indefinitely.
Accountability does not mean interference with judicial indepen-dence. It means responsi-bility, transparency, and adherence to the discipline imposed by law itself. Efficiency is not the enemy of justice. On the contrary, efficiency is its strongest ally.
A particularly disturbing practice is the reservation of judgments for unlimited periods. Matters are heard in full, arguments are concluded, and then silence follows. Judges are transferred or superannuated, and judgments remain undelivered. This institutional inertia indirectly commits mischief within the system. Justice becomes the casualty, not due to lack of law, but due to lack of will. A reserved judgment without a time limit is a denial of justice by another name.
The constitutional promise of justice cannot survive in a system where delay is normalized and accountability is avoided. Courts are the last hope for the common citizen. When that hope erodes, faith in democracy itself begins to weaken. It is time to recognize that delay is not a side effect but the core disease. The treatment must be swift, decisive, and uncompromising.
Saving the judiciary is a collective constitutional duty. The system must move from denial to diagnosis and from diagnosis to decisive action. Justice cannot wait endlessly. A system that fails to deliver justice in time ultimately fails the Constitution it is sworn to uphold.
(Writer is a practising Advocate and former President J&K High Court Bar Association Jammu)

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty