The governance structure in India is fundamentally based on three essential pillars: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. Within this framework, the judiciary holds a crucial position in maintaining justice, providing impartial judgments, and offering remedies to the citizens. It serves as a guardian of democracy, ensuring both stability and the protection of rights. The Indian Supreme Court possesses a unique authority known as judicial independence, which is regarded as a foundational element of the Indian Constitution. This principle signifies that the judiciary operates free from external influences in its decision-making processes.
However, recent developments suggest that judicial independence may be harming the public. It often lacks transparency, accountability, and due process. Consequently, these issues contribute to a growing distrust in the judicial framework. This analysis seeks to investigate the underlying factors that contribute to the diminishing trust among the populace in India’s justice delivery system.
Contributing factors
Delays and case backlog
A significant factor contributing to the erosion of public trust is the pervasive issue of delays and case overload. The Indian judiciary faces a huge backlog, with around 5 crore cases pending in early 2025—a 30% rise since 2020. A decade ago, it was recommended to have 50 judges per million people, but currently, there are only about 15. This shortfall causes long delays: nearly half of high court cases have been pending over five years, and 25% remain unresolved for more than two decades.
Such extensive delays stem from factors including excessive case filings, frequent adjournments, and inadequate time management within the courts. This uncertainty surrounding case hearings significantly undermines public trust in the judiciary, reinforcing the notion that delayed justice equates to denied justice in the eyes of the public.
Corruption and Nepotism
A major reason for declining trust in the Indian judiciary is the widespread perception of corruption and nepotism. Allegations of corrupt judges and favoritism in appointments and rulings have persisted for years. Surveys show that many Indians suspect misconduct in the justice system. For example, the 2007 Global Corruption Report by Transparency International found that 77% of Indian respondents viewed the judiciary as corrupt.
High-profile scandals involving judges have further solidified this negative perception. Lengthy delays in the judicial process often push people toward shortcuts like bribery, increasing cynicism about the courts. While bribery is rare in higher judiciary, fears of favoritism based on connections and money still undermine the institution’s legitimacy.
Political Interference
Political influence and executive interference have further eroded trust in the judiciary. Though the judiciary claims to be independent, its autonomy has been questioned multiple times. Critics allege that the ruling party influences judicial appointments, case allocation, and court functioning. In 2018, four senior judges publicly warned that the judiciary was at risk of political compromise. They voiced their criticism regarding the manipulation of judicial appointments and case assignments during the tenure of the Modi administration.
The BJP government’s long delay in finalizing the memorandum of procedure for judicial appointments has been seen as a deliberate move that fuels mistrust. Recently, former CJI Khanna emphasized that the judiciary must earn public trust actively, rather than expect it by default.
4.1-mini
Lack of Transparency and Accountability
The absence of transparency and accountability significantly contributes to the issues at hand. The Indian judiciary operates with significant secrecy, keeping key processes like judicial appointments, case scheduling, and internal inquiries confidential. While some confidentiality is necessary, excessive secrecy breeds suspicion and weakens public trust in the system. Until recently, there was no standard practice for the public disclosure of judges’ assets. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that all judges must disclose their assets on their websites, but high court judges’ compliance is voluntary. By March 2025, only 97 of 770 high court judges had made their asset declarations public, revealing a major transparency gap.
The Yashwant Varma incident highlighted the urgent need for greater transparency, raising doubts about fairness and public trust due to opaque judicial processes. Without clear insight into judges’ decisions, the public tends to grow suspicious. Thus, the judiciary must adopt clear ethical guidelines and transparent procedures, ensuring independence is seen as a duty, not arbitrary power.
Legal Inconsistencies
A major problem for citizens is the complex and inconsistent legal language, causing confusion in judicial decisions. Similar cases often have different outcomes, undermining public confidence in the judiciary’s consistency. This situation indicates that the interpretation and application of law are heavily influenced by the individual judges presiding over cases. A recent example from 2025 illustrates this concern, as a higher court reprimanded a lower court for issuing contradictory orders in the same case, which has been a significant factor in eroding public trust in the judiciary.
India strongly values the rule of law, which depends on citizens following the legal system. The rule of law works only if people respect and follow court decisions. This depends on public trust that the judiciary is fair and impartial, but this trust is declining. To restore it, strategies must focus on reducing case backlogs, improving transparency and accountability, protecting judicial independence, and using technology to strengthen court administration.
Recommendations
Speeding up case resolution is key to restoring public trust. This includes addressing staff shortages by meeting the Law Commission’s target of 50 judges per million people. Current vacancies remain high—about 33% in high courts and 21% in lower courts. Setting up new courts, enforcing strict verdict timelines, and reallocating cases when judges are absent are also essential steps.
Furthermore, enhancing the transparency of judicial processes is vital to alleviating public skepticism. Publishing regular data on case outcomes, resolution times, and pending cases can make the judiciary more data-driven and accountable. Technology like public e-court portals, offering real-time updates on hearings, orders, and costs, can further enhance transparency.