Kiran Raj

Addressing the Pendency Crisis in the Allahabad High Court: An In-Depth Examination of Challenges and Reform Measures

The Allahabad High Court, established in 1866, is one of the oldest and most prominent judicial institutions in India. However, in recent years, it has become emblematic of the judiciary's struggle with overwhelming pendency and systemic inefficiencies. As of April 2025, data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) shows that the Allahabad High Court, including its Lucknow Bench, has a staggering 1,164,087 cases pending adjudication. This figure includes 609,827 civil and 554,260 criminal cases. This article explores the root causes of this judicial backlog, the operational challenges it presents, and offers a detailed analysis of potential solutions based on data, expert opinions, and recent policy discussions.

1. Quantifying the Pendency: A Statistical Overview

From the NJDG data, we observe:

• Total Pending Cases: 1,164,087
• Civil Cases: 609,827
• Criminal Cases: 554,260
• Cases Filed in the Last Month:
• Civil: 11,768
• Criminal: 10,526
• Total New Filings: 22,294
• Cases Disposed in the Last Month:
• Civil: 9,425
• Criminal: 8,302
• Total Disposals: 17,727

This net monthly increase of 4,567 cases reveals the rate at which pendency is growing, far outpacing disposals.

Age-Wise Distribution of Pending Cases:

• Less than 1 year: 181,944 (16%)
• 1 to 3 years: 173,824 (15%)
• 3 to 5 years: 89,049 (8%)
• 5 to 10 years: 262,756 (23%)
• Over 10 years: 456,514 (39%)

The data clearly indicates that nearly 62% of pending cases are older than five years, with almost 40% pending for more than a decade. Such delays raise significant concerns about the right to speedy justice.

1. Structural and Systemic Challenges

1. Shortage of Judges According to the NJDG and insights from legal experts like Alok Prasanna, the sanctioned strength of judges at the Allahabad High Court is 160, but only 79 judges are currently serving. This 50% vacancy rate results in each judge handling an average of 14,600 cases. The backlog is insurmountable under such human resource constraints.
2. Inefficient Case Listing Mechanism The cause list system, which determines which cases are heard on which dates, often lacks strategic planning. Senior advocates have noted that new matters frequently take precedence over decade-old cases, contributing to the accumulation of older matters.
3. Digital Infrastructure and Technology Gaps Despite the post-pandemic push for digital transformation, the Allahabad High Court's usage of virtual court hearings and e-filing remains inconsistent. Issues include poor internet infrastructure, lack of training among court staff, and reluctance from the bar to shift fully to digital systems.
4. Inadequate Physical Infrastructure Many courtrooms in Allahabad lack modern facilities, including basic amenities such as air conditioning, proper seating arrangements, and functional digital display systems. These constraints affect not only judicial productivity but also public access to justice.
5. Scheduling of Old Cases While it is commendable that old cases are being listed regularly, without dedicated benches to dispose of them, such listing often leads to adjournments rather than final decisions. This creates a repetitive loop where old cases remain perennially pending.

III. Reform Measures and Best Practices

1. Filling Judicial Vacancies Urgently The Union and State governments must coordinate with the Collegium to expedite the appointment of judges. Temporary fast-track approvals, transparent selection processes, and additional recruitment drives are essential.
2. Setting Up Special Benches for Legacy Cases Special 'Backlog Clearance Benches' could be constituted to exclusively handle cases older than ten years. These benches would be guided by clear timelines and performance metrics.
3. Judicial Workload Rationalization Judges should be provided with administrative support staff and legal researchers to assist with case preparation and documentation, reducing delays in verdict writing.
4. Digital Modernization Full implementation of e-filing, virtual hearings, and digital paper books must be mandated. The Delhi High Court serves as a model in this regard. Integration with NJDG analytics can help monitor performance in real-time.
5. Engagement of Retired Judges Eminent retired judges may be appointed as ad hoc adjudicators to address pending cases, especially in civil and writ matters. This model has seen success in states like Karnataka.
6. Court Infrastructure Upgrades Judicial infrastructure must be included in state budgets with specific allocations for heritage courts like Allahabad. Public-private partnerships can be explored for funding courtroom renovations.
7. Working Hour Reforms Evening courts, weekend sittings, and extended hours for particular benches can drastically improve case throughput. These may be incentivized with compensatory remuneration and benefits.

1. Concluding Reflections

The crisis of pendency in the Allahabad High Court is not an isolated administrative lapse but a reflection of deep structural and policy deficiencies. Addressing this issue will require sustained political will, judicial leadership, and systemic modernization.

With close to 1.2 million cases awaiting adjudication, the scale of intervention required is monumental. Yet, with evidence-based planning, stakeholder coordination, and transparent monitoring, the Allahabad High Court can be restored to the stature its legacy demands.

Data sources: National Judicial Data Grid (April 2025);