The Chief Justice of India’s recent statement on the reluctance of judges in the lower judiciary to grant bail is noteworthy as it highlights a crucial issue of flooding of bail applications before the higher judiciary. The CJI recognised that the reluctance was not due to a lack of understanding or ability, but because of a sense of fear. The CJI’s acknowledgement of the issue is commendable as it indicates a positive step towards addressing the delay in justice delivery. The reluctance of the judges at the lower judiciary in not making impartial decisions due to a sense of fear, alongwith other factors such as frequent adjournments, lack of resources, outdated laws, and a lack of political will to reform the system, delays the judicial process, leading to judicial corruption. The relationship between judicial delay and corruption is a complex and multifaceted one.

This connection is particularly pronounced in India, where a backlog of cases and inefficiencies notoriously bog down the judicial system. A sluggish justice delivery system, characterised by long wait times and slow progress, breeds corruption in several ways. The figures provided by the government concerning pending cases, even without considering the alleged biased independent reports, are startling. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, as of December 2022, there were over 43 million pending cases in the Indian courts. In 2020, India’s ranking in the category of “Enforcing Contracts”, which takes into account the time, cost, and quality of the judicial process, was 163rd, with the time taken to resolve a commercial dispute being approximately 1,445 days. According to data from the law ministry, as of August 2022, there has been a significant improvement in the ranking of India, with a close to 50% reduction in the number of days taken to resolve a dispute.

Specifically, the time taken to resolve a dispute in New Delhi has been reduced to 744 days, and in Mumbai, it has been reduced to 626 days, which is again a commendable effort, but there is a long way to go. The Law Commission of India also shares the concern about the judicial delay and recommended steps to minimize backlog of cases. No doubt the current government and courts are also working towards reducing the backlog, but it’s too little, too late. One of the most obvious ways judicial delays contribute to corruption is through bribes to expedite the process. In a system where cases drag on for years, people are more than willing to pay bribes to ensure that their case is given priority or that a favourable ruling is handed down, leading to a culture of corruption where the only way to get justice is through illegal means.

According to Transparency International India’s report, the key form of corruption prevalent in the judicial sector is predominantly “paying money” to the “court official”. To add to the justice seeker’s misery, money sometimes must be paid to the public prosecutor and even the opponent’s lawyer to speed up the procedure. The judicial delay fuels corruption by creating an environment where the powerful and well-connected can evade accountability. The sluggish and inefficient legal system is acting as a catalyst to those with resources and influence, who use their position to evade prosecution or to have charges against them dropped by delaying the trial.

This has led to a perception that the justice system is tilted in favour of the wealthy and wellconnected, further eroding public trust and fueling corruption. It is a matter of record that most of the bails in huge scams are granted on the ground of “delay in the trial”, while in petty crimes, the bail applications do not even come on board for a hearing. Similarly, in many cases, the accused are acquitted in trials that take place many years after the alleged crime due to a lack of evidence. The impact of judicial delay can be particularly severe for victims and marginalised communities. When justice is delayed, victims cannot access compensation or other forms of relief and are left in a state of uncertainty and vulnerability. There are cases where poor who cannot afford a lawyer languish behind bars during the entire trial period without access to bail. This apathy has further led to a lack of faith in the justice system among these communities. There are countless examples where individuals who could not afford lawyers languished in prison even after serving their sentences, while individuals with influence were able to secure midnight court hearings. The fact that when the justice system is slow and inefficient, it creates opportunities for corrupt practices to take place cannot be countenanced by any argument to the contrary. When cases take a long time to be heard and decided, and the court system is overwhelmed and backlogged, it leads to a lack of accountability and transparency, creating opportunities for corrupt officials to take advantage of the situation and abuse their power. The justice system’s corruption can be immensely reduced by addressing the judicial delay issue.

The issue of judicial delays cannot be addressed by simply making hollow promises. To tackle the issue, it is essential for all stakeholders involved to take action and follow through with their commitments. This includes the government, judiciary, legal profession, civil society, and the media. They must work together to identify the root causes of the delays and implement practical solutions to address them. For example, the government can invest in improving the infrastructure and resources of the court system to reduce overcrowded court dockets. The judiciary can implement court management systems to increase efficiency and reduce delays. The legal profession can work to increase access to justice for disadvantaged groups. Civil society can raise awareness about the issue of judicial delays and advocate for change. The media can report on the issue and hold the stakeholders accountable for their actions. In the backdrop of the statement made by the Chief Justice of India regarding the reluctance of judges in the lower judiciary to grant bail, we must not forget that nobody came in support of erstwhile Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, who was forced to resign from the Bombay High Court as her judgment on POSCO did not go down well. Thus, until there is a genuine intent to eliminate delay in the justice delivery system, any commitment to reduce corruption in the judicial system is nothing but a pipe dream.