Government complains about backlog, but feeds it too as the biggest litigant, says Supreme Court judge Nagarathna

Supreme Court judge Justice B.V. Nagarathna on Saturday (March 21, 2026) said the government raises concerns about backlog in courts while simultaneously feeding that pendency through relentless litigation.

Justice Nagarathna was addressing judges and senior advocates at the Supreme Court Bar Association’s First National Conference on the theme ‘Reimagining Judicial Governance: Strengthening Institutions for Democratic Justice’ in Bengaluru.

“The pattern produces a paradox. The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation. The State becomes both the complainant and the cause,” Justice Nagarathna said.

The senior judge said the government donned a dual role. It was the provider of infrastructure and judicial reforms for courts, but also the biggest litigant. “The government is the biggest litigator, whether it is at the Central level or at the State level. The State is expected to litigate with restraint and be a model litigator, but that does not happen. It goes on litigating until the end. The government is not only a mere participant in litigation, it is also the single largest generator of litigation,” Justice Nagarathna said.

Justice Nagarathna interestingly said that a government officer who settled a dispute would face audit objections. On the other hand, an official who filed an appeal or a revision rarely faced criticism.

“An appeal signals diligence, whereas a decision not to file an appeal will invite vigilance inquiries,” the judge pointed out. As a result, bureaucratic caution has added to case pendency, Justice Nagarathna said. “The result is predictable. Appeals become routine rather than rare.”

Poor court capacity

Justice Nagarathna said the results of ceaseless litigation up through the multiple tiers of courts leads not only to growing pendency but even stagnation owing to the inability of the judiciary to cope with the docket explosion. “The volume of disputes grows with population, economic activity, and regulatory expansion. But the institutional capacity of courts grows slowly,” the judge said.

“Judicial infrastructure rarely receives sustained political attention. Expanding courts does not generate the same immediate visibility as constructing highways or launching welfare programmes. The political incentive is weak when it comes to judicial infrastructure investment. Therefore, the percentage allotted is also very less,” she noted.

Justice Nagarathna recommended the constitution of a Judicial Reforms Commission to address the problem of chronic pendency and recommend corrective measures.