How Indian Courts Function in Practice

India has one of the largest judicial systems in the world. As of March 2026, over 55.8 million cases are pending across all levels of the judiciary — including approximately 80,000 cases in the Supreme Court, over 6.2 million in High Courts, and more than 49 million in district and subordinate courts, which handle more than 85% of all pending litigation. 

The system is organised as a single integrated hierarchy, with the Supreme Court at its apex in New Delhi; High Courts in each state (25 as of 2025); and a vast network of district courts, family courts, consumer courts, tribunals, and judicial magistrate courts at the district and sub-district level, operating under each state's high court. The Supreme Court's decisions bind all other courts; High Court decisions bind subordinate courts within their territorial jurisdiction.

Representational Image: How Indian Courts Function in Practice

The day-to-day reality of a district court — where most Indians who litigate first encounter the formal system — is characterised by congestion, continuance culture, and procedural complexity. A civil suit filed today may take a decade to reach a final judgment at the district level, with appeals to the High Court and potentially the Supreme Court adding further years. Cases are listed for hearing through cause lists — daily schedules of matters assigned to each judge. 

On any given day, a judge may have dozens of matters listed; many receive only a brief mention and are adjourned to a future date. The DAKSH Rule of Law Project and the National Judicial Data Grid have documented that a significant proportion of hearings across high courts result in adjournments rather than substantive proceedings.

Essential Context

• As of March 2026, India has 55.8 million pending cases at all court levels; 49 million are in district and subordinate courts; 6.2 million are in High Courts; 80,000 are in the Supreme Court; approximately 180,000 cases have been pending for more than 30 years in district and High Courts, according to Wikipedia's compilation from official NJDG data.
• As of March 2024, 44 million cases were pending in district courts alone, of which approximately 33 million were criminal cases and 11 million civil cases; approximately 12 million cases had been pending for over three years, according to the National Judicial Data Grid.
• India has approximately 21 judges per million population against a 2002 Law Commission recommendation of 50 judges per million; the Malimath Committee Report recommended a further increase; the gap between recommended and actual judicial strength is a primary structural cause of pendency.
• The government itself is the largest litigant in India, sponsoring approximately 50% of all pending cases; land and property disputes account for approximately 20% of all cases and 66% of all pending civil cases, according to official data cited in Wikipedia's court pendency compilation.
• The World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index 2025 ranked India 114 out of 143 countries in civil justice and 89 out of 143 in criminal justice, reflecting access, timeliness, and enforcement gaps.

How It Works in Practice

1. The three-tier structure: India's judicial hierarchy runs from subordinate courts (munsiff courts, judicial magistrate courts, district and sessions courts) at the base, to High Courts in each state, to the Supreme Court at the apex. The Supreme Court functions both as a constitutional court — hearing fundamental rights petitions, presidential references, and constitutional questions — and as an appellate court of final resort. High Courts have original jurisdiction in constitutional writ petitions and appellate jurisdiction over district courts. Most citizens experience the judicial system primarily at district court level.

2. Filing and listing: A litigant filing a civil suit submits a plaint with court fees to the concerned district court. The case is registered, a number assigned, and a cause list entry created. The respondent is served a summons. At the first hearing, preliminary matters are dealt with — whether summons were served, whether the matter is in order. On subsequent dates, pleadings are settled, issues framed, and eventually evidence recorded and arguments heard. In criminal cases, the FIR and chargesheet drive the process, with bail applications, charge framing, trial, and judgment as sequential stages.

3. Adjournment culture: The most documented structural problem in Indian civil courts is the high rate of adjournments — hearings at which no substantive progress is made and the matter is postponed to a future date. Lawyers' strikes, non-appearance of parties, absence of witnesses, administrative delays, and judicial caseloads all contribute. DAKSH data found that a large proportion of hearings in High Courts resulted in adjournments rather than substantive proceedings. The 2018 amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure sought to limit adjournments, but implementation has been uneven.

4. Commercial courts: The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 established dedicated commercial courts in districts for commercial disputes above a specified monetary threshold, offering faster procedures including mandatory pre-institution mediation and stricter timelines. By 2024, commercial courts had functioned with somewhat faster disposal rates than ordinary civil courts, though pendency remains substantial.

5. Alternative mechanisms: Lok Adalats — statutory alternate dispute resolution forums under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 — have disposed of large volumes of pre-litigation and pending cases through settlement. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) data shows Lok Adalats settling hundreds of thousands of matters annually, primarily motor accident claims, bank recovery cases, and matrimonial disputes. Family courts and consumer forums provide specialised forums for specific categories of disputes.

What People Often Misunderstand

• A High Court and a Supreme Court hearing are not the same as a "trial": Most High Court and Supreme Court proceedings are appellate — reviewing what happened below; the original trial takes place in district courts; the upper courts hear arguments on law and review the record, not fresh evidence in most cases.
• The Supreme Court is primarily a constitutional court, not a general appellate court: The Constitution vests the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in inter-state and union-state disputes and grants it special leave to appeal from any court; in practice, it hears a very large volume of statutory appeals, creating a Supreme Court case load that is structurally different from comparable apex courts globally.
• Pendency does not mean all pending cases are dormant: Many pending cases are in various active stages; some are stayed by courts pending other proceedings; the pendency figure includes the entire stock of registered cases across all stages, not only cases that are not moving at all.
• Legal aid is a right but access is uneven: NALSA provides legal aid to eligible persons including women, children, SC/ST individuals, and persons below the poverty line; in practice, legal aid quality varies and the demand for legal aid lawyers far exceeds supply, particularly in remote districts.
• The new criminal codes are in early implementation: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam came into force on July 1, 2024, replacing the Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Evidence Act; their implementation is ongoing and their effect on case timelines cannot yet be assessed.

What Changes Over Time

The e-Courts Project has progressively digitised case management, implemented the National Judicial Data Grid for real-time case tracking, introduced eFiling, and established video conferencing for hearings — a process accelerated during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court's electronic filing and virtual hearing infrastructure now allows nationwide access to apex court proceedings. Pendency, however, has continued to increase despite these improvements, reflecting a structural gap between case filing rates and disposal capacity that technology alone cannot close without additional judicial appointments and institutional capacity.

Sources and Further Reading

• Cambridge Core — Decision time: illuminating performance in India's district courts: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/data-and-policy/article/decision-time-illuminating-performance-in-indias-district-courts/19F152C3E024BB0ED2BB2393E0E6DADB
• National Judicial Data Grid: https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in
• DAKSH India — State of the Indian Judiciary: https://www.dakshindia.org
• Supreme Court of India — Official website: https://main.sci.gov.in

(This series is part of a long-term editorial project to explain the structures, institutions, contradictions, and operating logic of constitutional governance, courts, and the rule of law in India for a global audience. Designed as a 25-article briefing cluster on the Constitution, Courts & Rule of Law in India, this vertical examines how constitutional power functions in practice — from judicial review, Public Interest Litigation, constitutional amendments, and High Courts to pendency, compliance gaps, constitutional morality, and the everyday operation of India’s justice system. Written in accessible format for diplomats, investors, researchers, NGOs, civil society actors, students, academics, policymakers, and international observers, the series seeks to explain both how India’s constitutional and judicial architecture is designed to function on paper and how the rule of law actually operates on the ground. This is Vertical 3 of a larger 20-vertical knowledge architecture being developed by IndianRepublic.in under the editorial direction of Saket Suman. All articles are protected under applicable copyright laws. All Rights Reserved.)