India’s Slow Courts Could Be Its Fastest Route to Growth
District courts are more than halls of justice – they are engines of credit, confidence, and economic growth.
View as PDF
Manaswini Rao: The Alfred Lerner College of Business and Economics, University of Delaware.
SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth | SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Institutions: Ministry of Law and Justice | Supreme Court
India’s district courts – the frontline of India’s judicial machinery – are burdened by 44 million pending cases. As delays stretch into years, contracts weaken, investment hesitates and credit markets sputter. A system meant to enforce agreements now slows them instead. Yet if strengthened, these same courts could become one of India’s strongest engines of growth – proof that justice is an economic institution.
Judicial Staffing and Economic Growth
Adding one judge to a district court lifts annual case resolutions by about 200 and slows backlog growth by roughly a tenth. Where benches expanded, bank disputes moved faster, capital locked in litigation was released, and lending strengthened – especially to smaller borrowers.
The effects are measurable. Districts that added judges recorded an expansion in formal sector economic activity, and firms reported higher wages and profits as faster adjudication lowered legal costs, interest burdens, and cash-flow risk. Every rupee invested in judgeships yields about 6 in net tax returns and 30 in economic returns. Judicial spending stands at 0.1% of GDP, compared with about 0.3% in advanced economies, leaving ample room to expand. This is one of the few public investments where returns are both measurable and immediate.
Beyond Growth: Safer and More Predictable Markets
Judicial efficiency shapes not only credit and commerce but also citizens’ everyday sense of security. A large share of district-court cases concern property offences – theft, fraud and embezzlement – often small-value matters handled through summary trials. Quicker adjudication deters repetition, lowers security costs and makes commerce less risky.
Districts that gained judicial capacity saw a 6-8 percent fall in reported property crimes — modest in scale but meaningful for firms. When citizens and businesses trust that disputes will be resolved swiftly and fairly, they are less likely to take enforcement into their own hands. That trust makes markets not only efficient but also secure and reliable.
That same confidence in law that steadies markets can also widen opportunity.
From Efficiency to Inclusion
When courts function effectively, they widen access to justice – particularly for those outside traditional centres of power. Small entrepreneurs, informal workers and first-time litigants gain most from processes that are predictable, affordable and timely.
Judicial reform thus promotes both efficiency and equity. It strengthens formal institutions in places long reliant on informal resolution and gradually draws more activity into the formal economy, where rights are protected and obligations enforced.
Every additional judge not only clears cases but also strengthens the social contract – turning legality into inclusion and predictability into empowerment.
Broader State Capacity Imperative
A well-staffed judiciary is more than an administrative ideal; it is a measure of the state’s credibility. State capacity rests not only on the ability to make policy but on the discipline to deliver it – the steady performance of institutions that do what they are meant to do. Courts that dispense timely justice embody that capacity in its most visible form. But this credibility has eroded under the weight of vacancies and procedural delays.
Why India’s Courts Stay Overburdened
India’s judge-to-population ratio is barely a fifth of that in advanced economies, and nearly a quarter of district-court posts lie vacant. Each judge now handles over 1,500 cases – well above global norms.
Responsibility is divided: the judiciary appoints, the executive funds, and the legislature regulates - yet no single institution owns the outcome. The result is fragmentation without accountability. Recruitment drives are sporadic, retirements remain unfilled for months, and frequent transfers erode local capacity.
From Fragmentation to Coordination
If the economic case is so clear, why does reform lag? Because judicial administration sits in that grey zone between institutions – where responsibility is shared but ownership is missing.
India has long recognised this gap – the Law Commission’s workload-based staffing norms remain largely unimplemented. Fixing this does not require constitutional overhaul. It requires coordination, data, and resolve. Judicial staffing should reflect actual caseloads rather than outdated population formulas, and recruitment calendars must be synchronised between High Courts and state governments to prevent long vacancies.
Transfers and rotations should be planned to preserve institutional memory rather than disrupt it. Technology can amplify these efforts – through digital filing, automated case-tracking and transparent dashboards that make each judge more productive and each courtroom more accountable. But technology cannot substitute for people; capacity must rise on both fronts.
Towards a Judicial Growth Strategy
India’s reform debates often focus on physical infrastructure – roads, power, logistics. But the infrastructure of law is no less foundational. Contracts, credit, and commerce depend on it, and district courts are where this infrastructure is built – case by case, order by order.
When these courts function well, they do more than resolve disputes: they lower transaction costs, make markets predictable, and allow enterprises to plan with confidence. Ensuring that they are adequately staffed, coordinated, and equipped could do more for growth than many large public-spending schemes.
Justice as Infrastructure
Yet the case for judicial reform is not only economic; it is moral and institutional. Prompt, fair justice is the most tangible expression of good governance. A judiciary that keeps pace with its citizens becomes the clearest emblem of a confident state – one capable of upholding rights, enforcing contracts, and inspiring trust.
Economists often distinguish between “hard” and “soft” infrastructure. Courts belong to both: they are the quiet hardware of the rule of law and the software of trust that keeps markets functioning. For a country seeking sustained growth and deeper formalisation, strengthening the judiciary is among the most effective low-cost, high-return public investments available.
India’s growth story is written not only in its factories and boardrooms but also in its courtrooms. If the country seeks a reform that strengthens both its economy and its democracy, it may find it not in a new law, but in a better-staffed bench.
View as PDF
Authors:
The discussion in this article is based on author’s working paper on the subject. Views are personal.