Chamarthi Pradeep Kumar
The phrase “justice delayed is justice denied” has echoed through legal and public discourse for centuries. Yet, it remains an undeniable reality in India’s judicial system. The Supreme Court’s recent remarks on the delay in disqualifying MLAs in Telangana—a situation likened to “the patient is dead, but the operation was successful”—ironically mirror the courts’ own inefficiencies. When courts take decades to resolve cases, often delivering judgments after they have lost relevance, can they legitimately criticize others for delays?
While lawmakers, especially the Congress Party and other regional players, often accuse the ruling BJP-led NDA government of undermining constitutional bodies, their own track record is far from clean. The latest example is the Telangana Legislative Assembly Speaker’s refusal to promptly implement the High Court’s directive to disqualify ten BRS MLAs over defection. However, the BRS—now seeking judicial intervention—was itself notorious for encouraging defections when in power, especially from the Congress and regional parties like the TDP and YSRCP. Now, the same party finds itself at the receiving end of a practice it once benefited from, proving that political convenience often trumps principles.
Judicial Delays: A Crisis of Credibility
The Supreme Court recently issued notices to the Telangana Speaker regarding the disqualification of BRS MLAs. While the delay in decision-making by the Speaker is undoubtedly problematic, the judiciary itself cannot escape the same criticism. Countless election petitions, criminal trials, and civil disputes remain unresolved for decades, rendering judgments meaningless when they finally arrive.
Take, for instance, the election petition against former Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR) in 2019. The High Court disposed of the matter only after the full five-year term had lapsed—when BRS had already lost the next election. This is not an isolated case; several election petitions across India are resolved only after the contested officeholder has completed their term. What purpose does such delayed adjudication serve? Is this not another case of “the patient died, but the operation was successful”?
24 Years for an Eviction Case: A Broken System
Judicial lethargy is not limited to election disputes. Consider a recent Supreme Court ruling in an eviction case that dragged on for 24 years. A landlord in Jharkhand fought for decades to reclaim his property, which he intended to use for his unemployed sons to set up a scanning center. Despite a favorable verdict, execution proceedings and potential review petitions could further stall the actual possession of the property. When justice arrives after decades, does it even qualify as justice?
Moral High Ground Without Accountability
The judiciary frequently criticizes other constitutional bodies for inefficiency, particularly in cases of legislative disqualifications and administrative delays. However, it has no structured accountability for its own backlog.
- Lakhs of Cases Pending: Over five crore cases are pending across Indian courts, with many awaiting even the first hearing for decades.
- Justice Beyond Relevance: In property disputes, by the time a verdict is delivered, litigants may have either passed away or the circumstances may have drastically changed.
- No Consequences for Judicial Delays: Unlike legislators and bureaucrats, judges do not face repercussions for failing to deliver timely justice.
Does the Judiciary Have the Moral Right to Criticize Others?
If courts take 20-30 years to resolve cases, do they have the authority to question delays by Speakers, governments, or other institutions? Should a system that routinely disposes of matters after petitioners have died, or after the relief sought has become redundant, be lecturing others on expediency?
The judiciary’s moral and ethical authority to critique delays is deeply questionable unless it first sets its own house in order. Institutional credibility depends on practicing what one preaches. As long as the courts continue to delay justice indefinitely, their words on efficiency will remain hollow.
The harsh reality is that justice in India is not just delayed but often rendered meaningless by the time it is delivered. Until this fundamental issue is addressed, judicial sermons on delay will remain nothing more than “devils quoting scriptures”—a tragic mockery of the very principles they claim to uphold.
If a Speaker can be called upon to explain legislative delays, the judiciary should also be held accountable for delays in justice. An independent and transparent mechanism for judicial accountability is not only justified but necessary to ensure that justice is timely and meaningful. Delaying justice is not just an institutional failure; it is a failure of justice itself.
