The vision of Viksit Bharat@2047 dreaming to transform India into a developed nation by the centenary of its independence is very often dominated by and confined to economic growth, infrastructure expansion, technological advancement, and global leadership. However, India’s quest for Viksit Bharat 2047 is unfolding against the backdrop of a declining growth projection for 2026-27, fragile global order, trade disruptions, geopolitically-driven economic sanctions and energy price volatility which threaten to dampen India’s export growth, constrain employment generation and intensify inflationary pressures. But the Viksit Bharat dream extends far beyond the pursuit of higher GDP growth or enhanced economic indicators.
It envisages a comprehensive transformation encompassing efficient governance, inclusive development, social justice, institutional accountability, and the strengthening of democratic foundations. In this broader conception of development, the judiciary occupies a pivotal position. A robust judicial system facilitates economic activity by ensuring the timely enforcement of contracts, protecting property rights, resolving disputes efficiently, and fostering public trust in institutions. Conversely, judicial delays, procedural complexities, and uncertainty in legal outcomes impose significant economic costs and undermine investor confidence, thereby impeding the nation’s developmental aspirations.
The question, therefore should not merely be whether India can grow, but whether the existing justice delivery system is adequately prepared, or can be transformed, to achieve levels of efficiency, accessibility, and effectiveness comparable to those of developed countries. The simple answer is no. Therefore, as India dreams towards the ambitious goal of Viksit Bharat by 2047, its judicial system may emerge as the single biggest barrier. India has one of the lowest judge-to-population ratios in the world. While the Law Commission of India in 1987 recommended a benchmark of 50 judges per million population, India still hovers around 21 judges per million.
In a globalized world faced with similar problems of human misery, currently or historically, comparisons are inevitable. India’s judges/million population is not analogous to developed countries like USA (110), Brazil (77), Canada (75), Australia (58) and UK (51). Only Guatemala, Nicaragua and Kenya had a lower ratio than India according to a report. Application of all methods (weighted caseload method, HDI Method, Rate of Disposal Method, Literacy Rate method or Time-Based Method) converge to conclude that more judges are required to ensure the constitutional promise of meaningful justice. Even as there is a national debate on pending cases or arrears, new arrears are accumulating every day. Ignorance of government is at our peril.
Governments at both the central and state levels have made rhetorical commitments to expanding the judiciary to meet global standards, but these remain largely on paper, without substantive budgetary, administrative, or infrastructural backing. The situation is worsened by the government’s inability to even fill the existing sanctioned judicial posts at both the High Court and subordinate court levels. As of recent data over 30 per cent of High Court judgeships remain vacant while thousands of posts in subordinate judiciary (the backbone of the justice delivery system) are unfilled. Recruitment processes are routinely delayed, poorly coordinated, or mired in bureaucratic red tape between the State Public Service Commissions, High Courts, and the Executive.
The current approach of government to increasing judicial strength reflects a disconnect between policy pronouncements and on-ground realities. Without genuine political will, administrative reform, and adequate resource allocation, the dream of matching the standards of developed nations by 2047 will remain unsatisfied. Currently, the judicial wing of the state receives less than 1 per cent of the total budget, one of the lowest globally. As of December 2023, there were approximately 5 crore cases pending across all Indian courts. This includes over 61.7 lakh cases in the 25 High Courts and over 4.4 crore cases in district and subordinate courts. The Supreme Court also has a significant pendency, with over 80,000 cases.
The data demonstrates that the Indian judiciary continues to grapple with a crippling backlog of cases, delayed justice delivery, and overburdened judges. Delay in filling vacancies in the sanctioned strength of Courts and in increasing the sanctioned strength with increase in the institution of cases, renders the judiciary inadequate to deliver its constitutional mandate. Bringing the judiciary into this state of inadequacy has been the singularly constant finding of all Government Committees and Commissions on Arrears in Courts.
All these fact-finding bodies have uniformly recommended increasing the strength of judges based on the evidence of institution and disposal of cases and the net annual building up of arrears adding to the already pending arrears. These recommendations as well as those of the All-India Chief Justices Conference have remained unimplemented. The same applies to the implementation of the orders of the Supreme Court. While successive governments have often spoken about strengthening the judicial system in line with international standards, the actual performance, particularly regarding judicial cadre strength, reflects a deeply regressive and indifferent approach.
Putting courts in a situation whereby Judges are unable to deliver the public’s fundamental right to timely justice is to deny access to justice and thereby undermine the sole purpose of judicial independence and of constitutionalism. So, could Indian judiciary support the dream of Viksit Bharat@2027? The answer lies somewhere between promise and preparedness. The foundations are strong with constitutional values, and a rich jurisprudential legacy. However, realizing the vision of a developed India will require accelerated reforms, institutional innovation, and collective commitment.
Increasing the judge-population ratio to levels comparable with those prevailing in developed nations within a relatively short span of two decades appears to be an enormous, if not herculean task. Even assuming that India succeeds in substantially augmenting its judicial strength by 2047, several equally significant challenges would persist. These include the modernization of court infrastructure, transformation of traditional courtrooms into technology-enabled spaces, strengthening administrative support systems, and reorienting the judicial service from a predominantly authority-centric institution to a citizen-centric public service.
The demands of a developed India would require judges and court personnel not merely to adjudicate disputes but to function as providers of efficient, accessible, and responsive justice. Consequently, quantitative expansion of judicial capacity must be accompanied by qualitative reforms aimed at fostering professionalism, accountability, digital integration, and a service-oriented culture within the justice delivery system. The coming decade is likely to be decisive for India’s developmental trajectory. In an era characterized by geopolitical uncertainties, rapid technological disruptions, and the retreat of globalization, India’s quest to emerge as a developed nation is not merely a pursuit of accelerated economic growth; it is, in many respects, a race against time itself.
(The writer is Vice-Chancellor, National Law University, Tripura)