Why in News?
High Judicial Pendency in Indian Courts is Undermining the Rule of Law. There is a shift from Rule of Law to Rule of Interim Law and it has its own challenges.

Context:  
The preamble of the Indian constitution has placed justice- social, economic and political on the highest pedestal above all other basic structures. 
Delay of justice is not the simple postponement of an action over some time but in its judicial meaning, it is an action in a process that has irreversible long-term consequences. This process with the progress of time slowly stealthily and silently kills justice.
As of 2021, there were around 4.5 crore pending cases across all courts in India, especially in the district and subordinate courts.
 In 2019, there were 3.3 crore pending cases this shows that in the last two years, India has added 23 cases every minute to its pendency.  This issue is raising serious problems.

History of speedy justice  
The evolution of the right to speedy justice, its jurisprudence and its growth as a fundamental human right originates from British constitution. 
The right to a hearing within a reasonable time is also recognised in the universal declaration of human rights of 1948.
Hence due to all these efforts the right to justice within the stipulated time is being accepted as a universal human right and so occupies the centre stage of national and judicial goals of all civilized democracy.

Reasons for Judicial Inefficiency  
Some of the major issues that lead to the inefficiency of the judiciary are as follows:
1. The government is the biggest litigant- poorly drafted orders have resulted in contested tax revenues equal to 4.7% of the GDP and are rising. 
Roughly Rs. 50,000 crores are locked up in installed projects and investments are reducing. Both of these complications arise because of injunctions and stay orders passed by the courts primarily due to poorly drafted and poorly reasoned judgements.
2. Less budgetary allocation- the budgetary allocation to the judiciary is between 0.08-0.09% of the GDP.
3. Low ratio of judges- one of the reasons for the backlog of cases is that the ratio of judges to the population is very low. The hopelessly inadequate number leads to judicial delays. The judges who are even appointed are incompetent and inefficient.
4. Habit of taking adjournment- nowadays advocates are taking the adjournment at the drop of the hat. It should be made a rule to allow an adjournment for sufficient cause. Seeking unnecessary adjournment on non-existent grounds with the motive of obstructing the proceedings of the case are instances of deviant conduct, tending to meddle with the justice system. 
5. Unnecessary inflow of cases- there is a high inflow of cases in the judicial system of India. People approach the courts even on petty cases.
6. Absence of work culture- judges aren’t motivated to work to their fullest. Work culture is absent in the Indian courts which leads to such delays.
7. Endless amendments- while making the laws up to date the legislature keeps on going with an endless number of amendments without realising that it creates a delay in the system. There are always loopholes that could be used in the laws and cases and these loopholes increase the burden on the judiciary.
8. Inadequate staff- there is inadequate staff in the courts which further leads to slowing down of the procedure.
9.  Shift from Rule of Law to Rule of Interim Law has its own challenges. An interim order, when passed in favour of the losing party in the final judgement, can effectively nullify any relief granted in the final judgement. 

Suggested Reforms  
Lok Adalat:
To address the case backlog, Lok Adalats were established around the nation. Lok Adalats encourage parties to resolve disputes out of the purview of the courts. These courts have resolved millions of disputes over the previous 20 years.
In India, the Lok Adalat, often known as the People’s Court, has grown in power. In this alternative dispute resolution process, court-pending matters or disputes are resolved in a single day. 
Most nations have supported this type of alternative dispute resolution process as a way to escape the maze of litigation, courts, and attorney’s offices.
Constitutionality- Lok Adalat were allowed by the 42nd amendment. 
Article 39-A was introduced to ensure that justice is not denied to any citizen of the country due to reasons of economic or other disabilities. 
Articles 14 and 22(1) also make it obligatory for the state to ensure equality before the law and a legal system which promotes justice based on equal opportunity for all.
Instead of building new organisations to address the same issues, it’s crucial to think about how these current systems may be improved. 
The introduction of Lok Adalats opened a new chapter in India’s legal system. Long-running cases in India are resolved outside of court at the Lok Adalat. 
Lok Adalats use negotiation and compromise to resolve conflicts. By 2015, there were more than 15 lakh public courts in the country, out of which, more than 8 crore lawsuits were settled. Most state governments have encouraged the Lok Adalats, as they reduce the burden on the judiciary.

Other than this, the Reforms include:  
1. To prevent needless litigation, government rules, orders, and regulations should be thorough and complete following extensive consultation with stakeholders.
2. In Proportion  to the population, there is a need to build new courts and hire more judges. The country’s population has grown significantly, as has the number of cases, but the judgement services seem to be understaffed. 
A similar situation exists with respect to the courts when there are less than necessary given the demand.
3. There are a set number of backlogged cases in the courts that are listed alongside the usual cases that are being heard. As a result, the judge is unable to finish hearing regular cases before moving on to backlog cases. So, frequent adjournments must not be given.
4. Apart from corruption, there is a long and costly judicial process and delays in delivering decisions. Hence the portion of the Judiciary in the budget must be increased. More money should be allotted for its expenditure.
5. In order to expedite trials, the judicial system in the lower courts needs to be corrected. 
6. Morale and enthusiasm among the Judges at all levels, has to be uplifted by providing adequate remuneration and favourable conditions of employment. 
7. Adequate administrative support may also be provided to the Judges and Magistrates.
8. Mediation and Conciliation should be encouraged and facilitated to reduce the workload and clear the backlog. Simultaneously, Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism may be resorted to and extended to all jurisdictions and put into optimum use.
9. AGI tools can be used to indicate statistically probable final orders in cases by considering the facts and circumstances of each case. 
They could enable courts to make more informed decisions on interim orders. This would minimize divergence between different orders and also the typical distortions seen in elongated cases.
The problem has become acute and warrants an urgent solution. Erosion of public trust in the legal process undermines the fundamental purpose of law: maintaining order and administering justice.

Conclusion:  
We might infer from the discussion above that statistics on the protracted backlog of court cases that have been pending for the “last six decades” is another indictment of the nation’s struggling legal system, which is eroding public confidence.
 The multifaceted reforms are a long-term undertaking, and any significant modifications to judges’ line of work must first be approved by them. 

Mains Question:
  Q: The legal process in India is often protracted and high pendency of cases is both a symptom and a cause. In this Context, Examine the Reasons for Judicial Delays and also Suggest Reforms?