At the SCBA ’s first National Conference 2026 on “Reimagining Judicial Governance”, Justice BV Nagarathna highlighted how the state’s own litigation practices are fuelling the nation’s court backlog. Key Developments The government publicly decries judicial pendency yet remains the largest generator of litigation , filing routine appeals to avoid audit or political scrutiny. Officials prefer appeals over settlement, especially in service and taxation cases. Insufficient investment in courtrooms, staff, and technology hampers capacity growth, creating a mismatch between rising dispute volume and institutional resources. Systemic incentives – lawyers seeking adjournments for per‑appearance fees, judges exercising caution to avoid reversal, and departments preferring appeals – collectively deepen delays. Justice Nagarathna questioned the methodology of pendency statistics, urging that only cases that reach the judge’s docket be counted. She advocated for reforms: a dedicated judicial reforms commission , robust case‑management, limited adjournments, and greater use of technology, including electronic service under the CPC . Important Facts • The state files appeals as a precaution, fearing audit objections or vigilance inquiries. • Defective filings are currently counted in pendency statistics, inflating backlog figures. • Traditional service by post (Order V Rule 20 CPC) is slow; Justice Nagarathna suggested electronic modes like WhatsApp. • Higher courts sometimes allow delayed written statements, contrary to strict timelines in lower courts (Order VIII Rule 1 CPC). • Blanket stays under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC often replace conditional stays, adding another layer of delay. UPSC Relevance Understanding the causes of judicial delay is vital for GS 2 (Polity) – it touches on the functioning of the judiciary, separation of powers, and administrative law. The discussion also links to GS 3 (Economy) through taxation disputes and the economic cost of prolonged litigation. Aspirants should note the role of institutional design, incentive structures, and policy choices in shaping judicial efficiency. Way Forward Adopt a ADR framework to divert suitable cases from courts. Implement strict case‑management protocols: limit adjournments, enforce procedural timelines, and use technology for e‑filing and service. Formulate a clear government litigation policy that treats the state as a model litigant, avoiding unnecessary appeals. Allocate higher budgetary share to judicial infrastructure, matching the political priority given to highways or welfare schemes. Establish the proposed judicial reforms commission to recommend systemic changes and foster inter‑institutional dialogue among the judiciary, executive, and bar. Justice Nagarathna concluded by urging conference delegates to submit concrete suggestions to SCBA President Vikas Singh , facilitating dialogue with the Chief Justice of India, senior Supreme Court judges, and the Attorney General for actionable reforms.