Punjab and Haryana High Court’s huge case list calls for urgent reform
The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s recent judicial order has brought to light what many within the legal fraternity have long whispered— a judge cannot humanly do justice to hundreds of matters in a single day.
The way forward, say legal observers, lies in structural recalibration—limiting the number of daily listings, rationalising cause lists, and adopting judicial calendar management practices that acknowledge the physical, mental and constitutional limits of the Bench.
International models cap daily hearings to 25–30 cases, ensuring that each matter gets the time, attention and hearing it deserves. Without such reforms, India’s higher judiciary risks becoming a procedural funnel—where justice is rushed, not rendered.
Arithmetic of overload
No less than 245 matters, one Bench, one day and 1.22 minutes per case. The numbers tell their own story. The High Court, one of India’s busiest, currently has 49 judges handling more than 4.34 lakh cases. The average caseload per judge runs into thousands. And yet, the expectation remains: deliver reasoned orders, hear lawyers patiently, and ensure timely disposal—all in under two minutes per case.
The court functions between 10 am and 1 pm, and again from 2 pm to 4 pm, giving a total of five working hours, or 300 minutes a day. If a determined judge wants to hear all the cases, an average of 1.22 minutes can be devoted to a matter with 245 cases listed.
Even for the most efficient Bench, this creates a near-farcical situation. A lawyer barely opens the file before the judge must move to the next. It turns the courtroom into a conveyor belt—robbing the process of its deliberative character.
“No human being, however capable, can deliver fair judicial application in 70 seconds per case,” a former judge observes.
Even procedural hearings — including adjournments, interim relief, or reply submissions — require comprehension, communication, and clarity. These processes, when rushed, become perfunctory, undermining both justice and judicial reasoning.
Cracking infrastructure
The sheer volume of daily footfall — from litigants, lawyers, clerks, and staff — has overwhelmed the High Court’s space, parking capacity, and support systems. On days with particularly heavy cause lists, courtrooms are overcrowded, corridors spill over, and judges sit in visibly congested spaces. “Even if the judge does not consciously register it, a suffocating courtroom, filled beyond capacity, creates an invisible pressure,” says a senior advocate. “It affects mood, attention span, and decision-making.”
Parking under siege
The parking problem has become chronic, and the High Court has over time passed a slew of directions to mitigate it. From creating additional parking lots to ordering the conversion of designated areas into temporary parking zones, every measure has been explored. Yet, the problem persists.
“It’s not just about cars — it’s a symptom of how overcrowded the High Court has become,” said an official aware of the infrastructure planning. The space crunch is so acute that the High Court is now compelled to seriously consider shifting parts of its operations to IT Park or Sarangpur village. “This wasn’t even thinkable five years ago,” the official added.
Judges are not slow — the system is overloaded
Contrary to public perception, delays are rarely due to judges taking their time. They are the last line of defence in an overloaded system. The Punjab and Haryana High Court currently has 49 judges handling over 4.34 lakh pending cases — an average of nearly 9,000 cases per judge.
When judges are handed 200 plus matters daily, even routine processes — like reading a file, hearing a party, or dictating a short order — become a race against time. Constitutional justice cannot be delivered in seconds.
Constitutional warning signs
The Supreme Court has consistently held that fair hearing is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty under Article 21 and repeatedly warned against reducing hearings to tokenism.
In Anokhilal versus the State of MP, the apex court made it clear that speedy trial cannot come at the cost of fairness. Legal scholars warn that the rushed hearing system threatens to violate the principle of natural justice, turning participatory litigation into a “tick-box procedural formality”. They insist that Article 39A guarantees equal access to justice. But access is not physical — it is participatory.
“Article 39A promises access to justice, but access is not about entering a courtroom — it’s about being heard. When the judicial system is forced to reduce hearing time to a mathematical minimum, that access becomes illusory,” adds a law scholar.
Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done, has all along been the guiding principle. But a two-minute hearing, squeezed between hundreds of others, cannot meet this standard. It undermines public faith in the legal process and violates the principle of natural justice.
Case management needed
Every litigant has a constitutional right to be heard — truly heard. And every judge has a right to time, space, and support to deliver justice without burnout or haste. Advocates are now calling for a structured case management framework to deal with the listing crisis. “We need rationalisation, not just reduction,” says senior member of the Bar. The solution, many say, lies in restricting the number of matters per Bench to 40–50 a day, including the fresh matters, with time-bound listings, advance cause list calibration, and mandatory categorisation of urgency.
Under such a system, adjournments must be managed through realistic calendar planning. “If a matter is not heard today, it must get a specific date, ideally within a two-week window,” a senior counsel suggests. “Routine adjournments without calendar placement simply recycle pendency.”
Restoring deliberative justice
Unless court functioning is reoriented towards limited listings and meaningful hearings, the judicial process risks becoming performative rather than participative. “A judge must remain a deliberator, not a traffic controller,” an advocate remarks. “Justice must be heard, not hurried.”
By reducing the number of daily matters, adopting rationalised case calendars, and investing in intelligent listing systems, the High Court can reclaim space — both literal and constitutional — to deliver on its promise of fair, timely, and dignified justice.
Punjab