Former High Court Chief Justice Critiques Lack Of Transparency In Judicial Appointments And Identifies State Litigation Policies As Principal Drivers Of Court Backlogs
Collegium System Faces Structural Concerns
Judicial Autonomy in India continues to face serious institutional challenges, according to Senior Advocate and former High Court Chief Justice Dr S Muralidhar. He raised these concerns while delivering the 28th DS Borker Memorial Lecture on the theme “Vision of India 2047.” He said the current judicial appointment process suffers from structural weaknesses, executive interference and a lack of transparency.
The Collegium system came into existence in 1993 to ensure judicial primacy in appointments. However, Dr Muralidhar said the system has not always selected the most suitable candidates. He also pointed to repeated friction between the judiciary and the executive over appointments.
According to him, the process lacks clear and publicly understood selection standards. Delays and unexplained executive intervention have also weakened the system. Therefore, simply increasing the sanctioned strength of judges may not solve the vacancy problem.
He argued that authorities must first improve the appointment process. Otherwise, a larger sanctioned strength could only widen the gap between available posts and actual appointments.
Court Backlogs Are Not Caused By Judicial Inactivity Alone
Dr Muralidhar also challenged the idea that judges mainly cause court delays through low productivity. He referred to high Case Clearance Rates across the judiciary. In many courts, the rate regularly exceeds 90%.
He noted that a significant group of judges manages cases with exceptional discipline. These judges follow strict case-management practices and handle a large share of the institutional workload.
District courts reportedly dispose of nearly 24 lakh cases against about 29 lakh fresh filings every month. High Courts receive more than 10 lakh new cases each year. They also dispose of roughly the same number.
The Supreme Court has a pending caseload of about 93,000 matters. In 2025, around 62,000 cases were instituted, while the Court disposed of nearly 57,000 matters.
These figures, he suggested, show that the backlog problem cannot be explained only by judicial productivity.
State Action Drives Fresh Litigation
Dr Muralidhar identified government conduct as a major source of litigation. He said arbitrary administrative action often forces citizens to approach courts.
He referred to cases involving administrative inaction, arrests and criminal proceedings arising from democratic expression. Peaceful protests can also generate unnecessary litigation when authorities respond through coercive measures.
The government also frequently challenges adverse orders before higher courts. It may continue such appeals even when the financial value of the dispute remains very small.
This approach can prolong cases involving wages, pensions and other basic entitlements. Citizens may then spend years pursuing relief in several courts.
Even after a final judgment, compliance is not always immediate. This creates another layer of litigation and adds pressure to the judicial system.
Government Litigation Policies Need Reform
The former Chief Justice also criticised the state’s approach to litigation management. Government departments often continue appeals without conducting a meaningful assessment of the legal or financial consequences.
A better litigation policy could reduce avoidable cases. It could also prevent routine appeals in matters where courts have already settled the legal position.
Such reforms would directly strengthen Judicial Autonomy in India by reducing unnecessary institutional pressure on courts and allowing judges to focus on disputes that genuinely require adjudication.
Weak Government Representation Causes Delays
Dr Muralidhar also pointed to problems in government legal representation. He said political considerations sometimes influence appointments to government counsel panels.
This can affect the quality and efficiency of representation. Courts often face delays when government lawyers remain unavailable or lack proper instructions.
Departments may also fail to file reply affidavits on time. In other cases, they delay the production of official records.
Judges then have little choice but to adjourn hearings. Effective adjudication becomes difficult when the state does not place the required material before the court.
Need For Transparent Appointments And Better State Conduct
Dr Muralidhar’s remarks highlight two connected institutional problems. The first concerns transparency and efficiency in judicial appointments. The second involves the government’s role as one of the country’s largest litigants.
He argued that India must address both issues to build a stronger justice system. Improving appointments, reducing executive interference and reforming government litigation practices could help reduce vacancies and delays.
Such changes could also improve public confidence in judicial institutions while allowing courts to function with greater independence and efficiency.
