In a sharp and introspective critique of India’s litigation culture, Justice B. V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court of India has highlighted what she termed a “paradox” at the heart of the justice system the government simultaneously expressing concern over judicial delays while being the largest contributor to case backlog.
Speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s National Conference 2026 on “Reimagining Judicial Governance,” Justice Nagarathna underscored that the State, instead of acting as a model litigant, often fuels pendency through routine and excessive litigation.
Justice Nagarathna pointed out that the government’s conduct reflects a structural contradiction:
the State “publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation.”
She observed that the government is not merely a participant in litigation but “the largest single generator” of cases, frequently pursuing disputes through multiple appellate stages even where resolution at lower levels would suffice.
This critique gains weight against the broader backdrop of India’s judicial system, where over 55 million cases remain pending, and the government accounts for nearly half of all litigation.
A key concern highlighted by Justice Nagarathna was the institutional culture within government departments, where officials tend to file appeals as a matter of routine rather than necessity. She noted that Officers often prefer to “play safe” by appealing adverse decisions. Settlements or withdrawals may expose them to audit objections, vigilance scrutiny, or political criticism. This leads to automatic escalation of disputes from lower courts to higher forums, including the Supreme Court
The result, she explained, is a system where litigation becomes default governance, transferring the burden of administrative caution onto an already strained judiciary.
Indian constitutional jurisprudence has long recognised that the State must act as a “model litigant”, exercising restraint, fairness, and responsibility in legal disputes.
However, Justice Nagarathna observed that this expectation is routinely disregarded the fact that the state litigates aggressively rather than judiciously, appeals are filed mechanically rather than selectively and Government litigation lacks internal filtering mechanisms. This deviation, she suggested, undermines both judicial efficiency and public trust in governance.
The issue of judicial backlog is not merely administrative it has deep constitutional implications.
Excessive pendency directly affects the fundamental right to timely justice, recognised as part of the right to life and personal liberty. When courts are overburdened, litigants face delays that effectively deny meaningful remedies, particularly in service, taxation, and land disputes.
Justice Nagarathna’s remarks shift part of the accountability for pendency from courts to the executive branch, highlighting the need for systemic reform beyond judicial infrastructure.
Justice Nagarathna indicated that meaningful reduction in pendency requires administrative and institutional changes within government functioning, including:
- Better training of government officers in legal decision-making
- Adoption of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
- Reduction of unnecessary appeals through internal scrutiny systems
- Greater adherence to principles of administrative law to prevent disputes at the source
Her remarks suggest that litigation reform must begin before cases reach the courtroom.
The judiciary has repeatedly flagged concerns over rising pendency. Earlier observations within the Supreme Court have noted that delays are exacerbated by:
- Frequent adjournments
- Lack of preparedness by counsel
- Repetitive and avoidable litigation by state entities
Justice Nagarathna’s speech adds a crucial dimension by identifying the State’s litigation behaviour as a central driver of backlog, rather than merely a peripheral factor.
The remarks carry significant implications for governance and policy. If the State continues to dominate litigation without restraint; Judicial reforms alone may prove insufficient. Court backlogs will persist despite procedural improvements and Public confidence in dispute resolution mechanisms may erode
By framing the issue as a governance challenge rather than a purely judicial one, Justice Nagarathna has expanded the discourse on pendency.
Justice Nagarathna’s intervention marks an important moment in India’s ongoing debate on judicial delays. By calling out the paradox of the government being both critic and contributor to pendency, she has highlighted a structural flaw at the intersection of law and administration.
Her remarks reinforce a critical principle: efficient justice delivery cannot be achieved without responsible litigation practices by the State itself.
In doing so, the Court has once again reminded that the solution to pendency lies not only in more judges or better infrastructure, but also in discipline, restraint, and accountability in governance.
