Set Time Standards for Different Categories of Cases

India’s courts have millions of cases that remain unresolved for years. One reason cases can drag on is that there is often no clear, publicly visible expectation of how long different types of cases should reasonably take.

Not every case can or should be completed in the same amount of time. A simple traffic matter, a property dispute, a commercial case, and a serious criminal trial have very different levels of complexity.

But without reasonable time standards, it becomes difficult to identify which cases are falling behind, where delays are occurring, and which courts need additional attention or resources.

Justice should take the time necessary to be fair—but unnecessary delay should never become normal.

India should establish reasonable time standards for different categories of cases, based on their complexity and the normal steps required to resolve them.

For example, different benchmarks could apply to minor civil disputes, family matters, commercial disputes, property cases, criminal trials, and appeals. More complex cases would naturally receive longer timelines.

These should not be rigid deadlines that force judges to rush decisions or compromise due process. They should be management standards that help courts identify cases that are taking significantly longer than expected.

Every court’s digital case-management system should automatically track each case’s age. When a case exceeds its expected time standard, it should be flagged so the judge and court manager can identify the reason for the delay and determine what is needed to move it forward.

Courts should publish simple performance information showing how many cases are resolved within the expected time and how many exceed it.

As part of early case management, courts should also identify disputes that may be suitable for mediation and give the parties a meaningful opportunity to resolve them without completing the entire litigation process. Litigants should be clearly informed about mediation, how it works, and any applicable incentives available under law for resolving disputes through settlement.

Resolving suitable disputes earlier would not only help the parties avoid years of litigation but also free judicial capacity for cases that genuinely require adjudication.

The United States federal courts provide a useful example of the time-standards approach. Under the Civil Justice Reform Act, the judiciary publicly tracks matters that have remained unresolved beyond defined periods. Reports identify, among other things, motions pending for more than six months, bench trials awaiting decisions for more than six months, and civil cases pending for more than three years. These reports are produced twice a year and identify delayed matters by judge.

The purpose is not to automatically decide a case when a deadline arrives. It is to make unusual delay visible and require courts to pay attention to it. The U.S. system also records reasons for delays, recognizing that some cases legitimately require more time.

India can take this further by creating appropriate standards for its major categories of cases and automatically tracking them through its digital court system.

What is measured can be managed. What is allowed to remain invisible can remain delayed for years.