In a recent address at the 'DPIIT – CII National Conference on Ease of Doing Business,' Judge Manmohan of the Delhi High Court voiced his apprehensions about the strain placed on the judicial system in India. His remarks shed light on the challenges posed by an ever-increasing caseload, primarily stemming from matters that ideally fall under the jurisdiction of central and state governments.

Judge Manmohan's central concern revolves around the courts being compelled to address a significant number of public interest litigations, even though these cases should ideally be resolved through means other than the judiciary. The courts, however, find themselves handling these cases due to a lack of alternative solutions, as ensuring that no citizen is left without a remedy remains a paramount objective.

During his session, Judge Manmohan delved into a prevailing perspective that links the effectiveness of an institution to a higher caseload. According to this viewpoint, an upsurge in case numbers signifies a growing faith in that institution's credibility and significance. This perspective implies that the judiciary is perceived as the go-to avenue for addressing a wide range of societal and legal issues.

Judge Manmohan questioned why an array of issues, encompassing subjects as diverse as pollution, political disputes, and even matters like gay marriages, gravitate towards the courts in contemporary times. He raised concerns about the judiciary's increasing role in addressing such a broad spectrum of issues and its implications for the legal system's overall efficiency.

The primary reason for this trend, as outlined by Judge Manmohan, is the public's confidence in the judiciary. The belief that the courts are the only institutions willing to listen to the concerns of the general public and provide effective redressal fosters a high level of trust. This trust, in turn, results in a multitude of cases being presented before the courts.

However, Judge Manmohan directed his emphasis towards the substantial backlog of cases that currently plagues the judicial system. He pinpointed the states and the Union of India as central contributors to this backlog. In his observations, he noted a tendency for both the states and the Union to defer decisions on a wide range of issues, leaving the courts to resolve these matters. This situation results in a deluge of cases categorized as public interest litigations, which, in an ideal scenario, should not come under the jurisdiction of the judiciary.

Judge Manmohan went on to question the ethics of leaving citizens without a remedy when decisions are not promptly made, regardless of the issue's magnitude. He underscored the importance of ensuring that every individual has a means to seek justice and redressal when governance and decision-making processes falter.

To illustrate this problem, Judge Manmohan cited examples of even seemingly minor issues, such as problems with stray dogs becoming a menace, being brought before the court. This happens when civic administration fails to function effectively, leaving the public without a solution. It is expected that the government addresses these concerns and takes appropriate actions, but when they don't, the issues end up in court.

Judge Manmohan also called for several judicial reforms, including an increase in the number of judges, improved infrastructure, and the adoption of digital technology. He emphasized the need for allocating greater budgets to support these enhancements. Moreover, he commended the government for introducing progressive laws ahead of their time and expressed optimism about potential amendments to penal laws, suggesting a forward-looking approach to legal framework development. These reforms and progressive laws are seen as pivotal steps toward enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the judiciary in addressing a diverse array of issues while simultaneously reducing the burden on the courts.