In a major step towards addressing judicial pendency and improving the efficiency of India's justice delivery system, the President of India has promulgated an ordinance increasing the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges to 37 (excluding the Chief Justice of India). This decision comes at a time when the Supreme Court is facing a massive backlog of more than 93,000 pending cases, as reported by AXIA IAS ACADEMY. The move aims to reduce delays in justice delivery, strengthen judicial capacity, and improve access to justice for citizens. It also reflects the growing need for judicial reforms in a rapidly evolving democratic system.
India stands at a defining moment in its economic journey as the nation progresses towards a developed India whose benefits reach every citizen, including those at the margins. According to reports from NDTV Profit, two interlinked objectives are critical to addressing this challenge: fostering a trust-based relationship between business and government at both central and state levels, as well as with regulators and investigating authorities. The second objective involves judicial reform that ensures efficient and accessible justice delivery while ensuring speedy punishment of those who betray that trust through financial sanctions or incarceration. The twin objectives of judicial reform and building trust, of which decriminalisation is a vital subset, are central to building a modern, efficient, business-friendly regulatory environment, one that is crucial for the aspirational nation that India is.
The scale of India's judicial crisis is staggering, with 3.97 crore pending criminal cases as per data from the National Judicial Data Grid, according to NDTV Profit reports. Of these, approximately 3.78 crore cases are before district courts, 19.2 lakh before high courts, and 20,689 before the Supreme Court. The situation has deteriorated significantly since early 2020, when CII first made recommendations on decriminalisation, with nearly 25 lakh cases added annually since then. Millions of civil cases are also pending before courts, with most courts across the country seeing annual institution of fresh civil cases exceed disposals, leaving minimal judicial time for pending matters. This pendency does not include disputes before various Tribunals dealing with matters under key statutes including tax, company law, insolvency, exchange control, and prevention of money laundering, meaning delay in disposal of matters is inevitable.
While calibrated decriminalisation (excluding serious offences) cannot address the full magnitude of the problem, it represents a significant progressive initiative within the broader reform landscape. As reported by NDTV Profit, this approach promotes an environment of trust by signalling the Government's intent to eliminate the fear of possible misuse of prosecution and arrest powers by investigative agencies. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 represents a landmark step, rationalising over a thousand offences and replacing imprisonment with monetary penalties or warnings. The Act introduces graded enforcement with leniency for first-time offenders and moves from court-determined fines to in-statute penalty mechanisms, supporting both ease of doing business and ease of living. When implemented appropriately, it can help de-clog the courts by reducing both the pipeline and backlog, as demonstrated by the Companies Act where revised financial sanctions for decriminalised cases have been successfully implemented. The Act moves fines from court-imposed judgments to fixed amounts specified in law, a long-sought industry change expected to cut legal delays.
Looking ahead, as decriminalisation progresses further, consideration should be given to removing bars against retrospective application of decriminalised provisions, as reported by NDTV Profit. The article suggests introducing limitation periods for filing criminal complaints starting from offence identification time, which would improve investigation efficiency since witnesses and evidence are more likely to be available while also reducing the pipeline of cases where complainants have not acted in a timely manner. To further the trust-building objective, even where offences are not decriminalised, some tests of proportionality must be applied, as an example for frequently invoked offences such as cheating involving parting with property, de minimis thresholds before arrest is permitted (as in the GST law) or for it to constitute a predicate offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Additionally, investigations should focus on the party under investigation and those against whom there is sufficient evidence of abetment, while avoiding roving enquiries against persons who are not the subject of investigation. Further progress requires removing restrictions on applying decriminalized rules retroactively and setting clear deadlines for filing complaints, which could dramatically reduce the flow and backlog of cases.
