Supreme Court judge Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah has called for a shift in the narrative regarding judicial delays, asserting that the mounting pendency of cases in India cannot be attributed solely to judges. Speaking at the 5th edition of the ICA International Conference on "Arbitration in the Era of Globalisation" on April 11, 2026, Justice Amanullah emphasized that the legal profession—specifically the Bar—plays a significant and often overlooked role in the speed of justice delivery.
Justice Amanullah pointed out that the rate of disposal is heavily dependent on how lawyers conduct their cases. "There is absolutely no connection between a judge and the disposal rate. It depends on the Bar, how long they want to argue," he stated. He noted that while judges are often under public pressure due to backlogs, they are frequently constrained by their duty to allow lawyers to present their arguments fully, even when those arguments become repetitive or prolonged.
To illustrate the immense workload on the bench, Justice Amanullah shared striking statistics regarding case rosters. He observed that at the trial court level, it is rare for a judge to have a daily roster of fewer than 400 to 500 cases, a number that climbs even higher in the High Courts. Despite these staggering numbers, he noted that judges consistently adhere to fixed court hours, making it rare for a case to be delayed because a judge failed to sit.
The Justice further explained the delicate balance judges must maintain. While he admitted to occasionally intervening when lawyers repeat themselves, he emphasized that a judge cannot arbitrarily silence an advocate. "Can I say you don't have the intellect or that your argument is absurd? No, because he may still say something relevant. I have to give him that space," he remarked. This duty to hear, he argued, is a structural component of the system that naturally contributes to the duration of proceedings.
Justice Amanullah's remarks serve as a call for introspection within the legal fraternity. He urged members of the Bar to reflect on practices such as seeking frequent adjournments and delivering excessively long oral submissions, which hinder the efficiency of the courts. By framing pendency as a shared responsibility, the Justice aimed to redirect some of the systemic criticism away from individual judges and toward the broader culture of litigation in India.
This intervention comes at a critical time as India continues to grapple with millions of pending cases. Justice Amanullah’s perspective highlights that any meaningful reform in the judicial system must involve the cooperation of lawyers and a transformation in how legal disputes are managed, rather than focusing exclusively on the number of judges or the hours they keep.