The other day, during a visit to Bharat Mandapam, I was struck by an unexpected sight: half the roads around the Supreme Court were choked with cars parked by lawyers, leaving barely any space for movement. A visit to the Delhi High Court shows no different picture, and the situation at the Tis Hazari and Patiala House Courts is equally stark—entire stretches of road effectively swallowed by rows of lawyer-driven vehicles, turning public spaces into overflowing extensions of the courtroom.
This visual congestion raises an uncomfortable question: Have citizens suddenly become more litigious, or has the Government emerged as the country’s largest and most irresponsible litigant? The scene compelled me to pause, sit back, and reflect on what truly fuels this ever-expanding universe of cases.
India’s justice system is burdened with more than five crore pending cases, and the pressure on courts continues to mount each year. While much public attention is placed on judicial vacancies, procedural delays, and increasing disputes, one critical factor remains insufficiently examined: the widespread judicial and administrative indiscipline at the first level of decision-making.
Where the litigation really begins
A substantial volume of litigation originates not from genuine disputes but from authorities disregarding binding precedents or interpreting settled law inconsistently. When quasi-judicial bodies and departmental officers pass orders contrary to established legal principles, the result is a predictable spiral of appeals, revisions, writ petitions, and remands. This cycle, repeated across thousands of cases, fuels an ever-expanding backlog that strains the entire judicial system.
Congestion Inside and Outside Court Complexes
The impact of this indiscipline is not confined to the case files. It is visible around court complexes across the country. Narrow approach roads are heavily encroached, overcrowded with vehicles, kiosks, agents, and litigants who are compelled to revisit the courts repeatedly for matters that should have been settled correctly at the first stage. These congested surroundings are a physical manifestation of a systemic failure that produces litigation faster than the judiciary can resolve it.
Bureaucratic Impunity and Its Consequences
A major contributor to this problem is the reluctance to hold erring officials accountable when they flout judicial discipline. The absence of consequences emboldens authorities to repeat violations.
This pattern is evident across several domains.
- In works-contract matters, despite clear judicial pronouncements that a buyer cannot be held responsible for a seller’s default, authorities continue issuing notices and creating disputes contrary to settled law.
- In environmental governance, even under the supervision of the Supreme Court, 31 Aravalli hills disappeared during the pendency of proceedings, revealing the extent of administrative non-compliance and the belief that judicial directions can be bypassed without repercussions.
Such actions deepen public distrust and significantly burden the courts with disputes arising from preventable administrative errors.
Government’s Appeals Policy: A Revealing Indicator
Another telling indicator is the Central Government’s recurring decision to raise the monetary threshold for departmental appeals in tax matters. Each increase triggers the withdrawal of thousands of appeals previously defended as important. This practice amounts to an implicit acknowledgment that a large proportion of these cases were not substantial enough to justify litigation in the first place.
For citizens and businesses, however, the damage has already been done—years lost in defending unsustainable demands, financial strain, and uncertainty that could have been avoided had judicial discipline been observed from the outset.
The Wider National Impact
Judicial indiscipline undermines the rule of law and causes enormous economic and institutional harm. It leads to criminal wastage of judicial time, delays justice for genuine litigants, and diverts administrative machinery towards contesting disputes of little legal merit. It also creates barriers to investment and economic activity, directly affecting the country’s “ease of doing business” and “ease of living” goals.
Conclusion
The importance of judicial discipline lies not only in ensuring consistency of legal interpretation but also in preventing the relentless growth of avoidable litigation that clogs courts and burdens citizens. When authorities apply settled law uniformly and respect judicial hierarchies, disputes reduce substantially, and justice becomes timely and accessible.
Strengthening judicial discipline is therefore essential—not merely as a matter of legal propriety, but as a national necessity for institutional credibility, administrative efficiency, economic progress, and public trust. India cannot hope to reform its justice delivery system without first addressing the systemic indiscipline that continues to generate litigation at a scale the judiciary cannot sustain.