Expand Court Infrastructure to Match Judicial Capacity

India cannot solve its enormous court backlog simply by appointing more judges. Every additional judge needs a courtroom, support staff, technology, records systems, security, and basic facilities for citizens.

India currently has about 21,000 working judges and roughly 22,700 court halls. If India substantially increases the number of judges over the next decade, court infrastructure will have to expand at the same pace.

India also invests relatively little in its judiciary. Judicial spending has been estimated at about ₹276 per person per year—roughly 0.13% of India’s per-capita income. By comparison, European countries devote around 0.31% of their economic output to their judicial systems, while lower-income European countries spend around 0.44%.

Without adequate investment, India may appoint more judges only to find it lacks enough courtrooms, staff, or systems for them to work effectively.

More judges without more court capacity will simply shift the bottleneck elsewhere.

India should create a 10-year Court Infrastructure and Investment Plan that matches the 10-year period proposed to increase the number of judges.

Every state and judicial district should have annual targets for new courtrooms and supporting facilities. Planning at the district-court level should identify existing infrastructure gaps and ensure that expansion reflects actual caseloads, judicial vacancies, projected judge strength, and local requirements.

Investment should cover court buildings, judges’ offices, court staff, digital systems, records and evidence storage, security, waiting areas, toilets, accessibility for people with disabilities, and other basic facilities.

India should substantially increase judicial investment over the next 10 years, potentially to two or three times today’s level, based on the number of judges, courtrooms, staff, technology, and supporting infrastructure the country actually needs. The objective should not be to copy another country’s spending level, but to provide enough resources for an efficient and accessible justice system.

Digital court infrastructure should also be expanded nationwide rather than concentrated in better-resourced courts or regions. Citizens should have access to a consistent standard of digital court services regardless of where they live.

New courtrooms and supporting infrastructure should be ready before the judges who need them are appointed. Judicial capacity and court infrastructure should therefore expand together, rather than one repeatedly waiting for the other.

Progress should be published every year, showing how much was invested, how many courtrooms were needed, funded, built, and put into operation, and whether infrastructure expansion is keeping pace with the increase in judges.

A stronger and more efficient judicial system also has wider economic benefits. Businesses and investors depend on courts to enforce contracts, protect rights, and resolve disputes within a reasonable period. Greater confidence in the ability of the justice system to enforce the law can therefore strengthen confidence in India as a place to invest and do business.

Countries with well-functioning judicial systems demonstrate what sustained investment in courts can provide.

Denmark, for example, allows citizens and lawyers to use a digital court portal to file civil cases, submit documents, receive court communications, follow cases, and access case materials online. Its courts also use digitally equipped courtrooms and video hearings.

The difference shows up in how quickly cases move. In 2023, first-instance criminal cases in Denmark had an estimated processing time of about 96 days, while civil and commercial cases were about 265 days.

India cannot simply copy Denmark. Its population, costs, and legal system are very different. But the lesson is clear: enough judges, courtrooms, staff, technology, and sustained investment can make justice faster and easier for citizens to access.

India’s 10-year plan should therefore measure success not simply by how many court buildings are constructed or how much money is spent, but by whether citizens can file cases easily, get hearings on time, and receive decisions within a reasonable period.

Investing in courts is not about building more buildings. It is about building the capacity required to make justice faster, easier, and more accessible for every citizen.