Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka addressed the 45th JP Narayan Memorial Lecture ("Reclaiming Justice") in Mumbai, drawing attention to systemic flaws that hinder the Indian judiciary’s ability to meet constitutional expectations. Key Developments Union Government takes months to clear names of advocates recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium , affecting candidates' livelihood and privacy. Judge‑to‑population ratio remains far below international standards, leading to a “docket explosion” in trial courts. Inadequate court infrastructure prevents newly created judicial posts from being filled, especially in states like Uttar Pradesh. Excessive reliance on higher courts for bail; magistrates often deny bail, forcing litigants to approach the Supreme Court. Debate over prioritising commercial and arbitration matters over the “common man’s litigation” such as cases under Negotiable Instruments Act . Justice Oka cautions against over‑dependence on AI for clearing backlogs. Important Facts • A young Karnataka lawyer waited nine months for his name to be cleared, losing work opportunities. • In many states, judges handle 100‑150 matters daily, spending considerable time on routine tasks like attendance marking. • High Court judges often receive only six holidays a month, three of which are spent in workshops, limiting innovative judicial practices. • A Supreme Court notification giving priority to senior‑citizen cases was criticised for potentially sidelining long‑pending matters involving younger litigants. UPSC Relevance Understanding these challenges is crucial for GS Paper II (Polity) and GS Paper III (Economy & Governance). The Judge-to-Population Ratio directly relates to the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial (Article 21). Infrastructure deficits and appointment delays illustrate the interplay between the executive and judiciary, a core topic in Centre‑State relations and judicial independence. Way Forward Introduce a time‑bound mechanism (e.g., 90‑day window ) for the government to clear collegium recommendations. Set a target Judge-to-Population Ratio comparable to OECD nations (e.g., 1 judge per 20,000 people) and monitor progress annually. Allocate dedicated funds for building courtrooms and modernising trial‑court infrastructure. Empower Magistrates with clear guidelines to grant bail in deserving cases, reducing unnecessary escalation to higher courts. Prioritise “common man’s litigation” (family, criminal, cheque‑bounce cases) while ensuring a balanced docket for commercial and arbitration matters. Leverage AI for ancillary tasks such as document translation and error‑checking, but retain human judgment for substantive adjudication. Addressing these structural bottlenecks will enhance access to justice, uphold the rule of law, and align India’s judicial performance with its developmental aspirations.