Justice Muralidhar, speaking at the 28th Dattatraya Shrinivas Borker Memorial Lecture, said that the judiciary’s record in protecting citizens from an “anarchic state” has been inconsistent and, quite often, disappointing, stressing the need to strengthen constitutional values, judicial accountability and access to justice as India looks towards 2047.
In his lecture on “A Few Visions of India 2047”, Justice Muralidhar outlined his vision for India’s legal system and judiciary, focusing particularly on judicial administration, systemic delays, judicial appointments, legal education, technology, the Bar and the need to make legal reforms more litigant-centric. He said the country continued to grapple with problems that had persisted for decades, including excessive pendency, inadequate judicial strength, costs, uncertainty and delays.
Judicial system continues to struggle with vacancies and pendency
Justice Muralidhar pointed to the enormous workload across all levels of the judiciary. He noted that the district judiciary has over 5.1 crore pending cases, with around 18,200 working judges against a sanctioned strength of approximately 19,500. The High Courts have around 65 lakh pending cases, with only 810 judges against a sanctioned strength of 1,122. The Supreme Court, he noted, has nearly 93,000 pending cases, with 34 judges presently in position against a sanctioned strength of 38.
He cautioned, however, against treating pendency merely as a question of appointing more judges. According to him, the system must distinguish between genuine arrears and cases that are effectively “dead”, including cases where parties are no longer alive, the subject matter no longer exists, or the law or government position has fundamentally changed. He suggested the deployment of law researchers and retired judicial officers to categorise such cases and help courts focus their energies on matters requiring urgent adjudication.
‘Judges alone are not responsible for delays’
Justice Muralidhar rejected the perception that judges alone are responsible for delays in the judicial system. He highlighted the pressures faced by judges, including case overload, anxiety over disposal, complaints, media scrutiny and the emotional and mental burden of dealing with human problems on a daily basis.
He also drew attention to the uneven distribution of judicial work across courts and said the mental fatigue of judges is seldom acknowledged or accounted for within the system.
He identified the State as one of the principal contributors to judicial delays, alleging that arbitrary government decisions, failure to take decisions, unnecessary criminalisation and repeated appeals drive citizens into litigation. He also criticised government litigation practices, including failure to appoint counsel in time, delayed filing of affidavits and repeated requests for adjournments.
Calls for reform of Bar and legal education
Justice Muralidhar also called for reform within the legal profession. He said the vision for the Bar in 2047 should include a democratic Bar Council of India insulated from executive and judicial interference, responsive to litigants, prompt in dealing with professional misconduct and committed to constitutional values and human rights.
On legal education, he called for greater uniformity in standards and argued that the present system under which the Bar Council of India determines legal education requires reconsideration. He advocated an autonomous body for legal education capable of setting minimum standards without dilution.
‘We do not need any more Commissions or Committees’
Justice Muralidhar said India already has extensive research and recommendations on judicial reform and therefore “does not need any more Commissions or Committees”, but needs implementation of the recommendations that already exist.
He was critical of the proliferation of special courts and tribunals without corresponding increases in judicial and administrative capacity. He said tribunals had themselves accumulated arrears, vacancies and infrastructure problems and had failed to provide an effective alternative to the formal court system.
He similarly observed that domestic arbitration had not yet emerged as a sufficiently effective alternative to the formal court system, with costs, delays and uncertainty affecting arbitration as well.
Technology can transform courts, but AI requires caution
On technology, Justice Muralidhar said there was “no shortage of money for judicial reforms”, pointing instead to the need to improve implementation and utilisation of available resources. He called for paperless courts at all levels, digitisation of court records and a dedicated technical support cadre for the judiciary.
Addressing the growing use of Artificial Intelligence in the legal system, he said AI was already being used for translation of Supreme Court judgments and transcription of oral arguments. However, he cautioned that its use in judicial work required safeguards, particularly in relation to hallucinations, confidentiality, data security, accountability and governance.
Legal reforms must be litigant-centric
Justice Muralidhar said several past reform initiatives had failed because they were not litigant-centric. He argued that the legal system had largely been designed around the convenience of lawyers, judges and the State rather than the people who use it.
He called for process re-engineering, standardisation, reliable judicial data and transparent consultation with users of the justice system. He also emphasised that judicial administration must become more democratic and accountable.
Judiciary must act as a check on State power
In one of the strongest portions of the lecture, Justice Muralidhar said that the Constitution exists precisely because of the prospect of State anarchy, with its primary purpose being to place checks on the abuse of State power.
He said:
“
“The judiciary’s track-record in delivering on the constitutional promise of being a bulwark between the people and an anarchic state has, at best, been inconsistent and quite often, disappointing.”
He stressed that the imbalance between the State, which possesses a monopoly over the use of force, and an individual seeking protection of basic rights must remain central to the constitutional understanding of fundamental rights.
Justice Muralidhar also called for greater public participation in law-making, judicial impact assessments for legislation and stronger institutional continuity in judicial administration. He argued that reform initiatives should be consultative and should involve judges from different levels of the judiciary as well as domain experts.
Vision for India 2047
Looking towards 2047, Justice Muralidhar envisaged a legal system rooted in constitutional values, social justice and fraternity, with courts capable of providing meaningful redress against State excesses and powerful dominant groups.
He said judicial academies should orient judges towards issues of law and poverty and strengthen their ability to demand accountability and transparency from the State. He warned that if courts and their processes themselves become sites of oppression, public faith in the justice system would be undermined.
He concluded on a note of hope, pointing to the younger generation’s willingness to question those in power and its commitment to democracy and constitutional values.