Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s remarks in Mumbai go to the core of India’s justice delivery system. By describing High Courts as the “primary sentinel” of the rule of law, the CJI has reaffirmed a constitutional reality that is often eclipsed by the stature of the Supreme Court. For the ordinary citizen, the High Court is not merely a stepping stone to the apex court; it is the most immediate and consequential forum for justice.
This assertion comes at a time when the Indian judiciary is burdened with over five crore pending cases. While delays are often blamed on courts alone, the crisis cannot be viewed in isolation. A substantial part of the problem lies beyond judicial control. The lower judiciary, where most litigation begins, depends heavily on State governments for infrastructure, judicial appointments and staff support. Chronic vacancies, inadequate courtrooms and skeletal staffing have created a structural bottleneck that slows the entire justice pipeline.
Within this constrained framework, the constitutional role of High Courts becomes indispensable. Armed with writ jurisdiction and supervisory authority over subordinate courts, High Courts serve as the vital bridge between citizens and the justice system. As the CJI rightly observed, while the Supreme Court may pronounce the final word, High Courts often deliver the most decisive one. They hear the first cry of injustice—be it concerning liberty, livelihood, environment or dignity.
In recent years, High Courts across the country have shown commendable proactiveness in addressing pendency and access to justice. Prioritising old and long-pending cases, earmarking days for matters involving marginalised communities, curbing unnecessary adjournments, and expanding virtual hearings have all contributed to greater efficiency and accessibility. These measures reflect a conscious effort to restore public confidence in the judiciary.
However, as the CJI cautioned, proactivity cannot be occasional—it must be institutionalised. High Courts must remain vigilant to systemic failures in governance and law enforcement, intervening when necessary rather than waiting passively for disputes to escalate. Equally critical is the growing emphasis on alternative dispute resolution. Mediation, reconciliation and arbitration are no longer optional alternatives but essential pillars of a mature justice system. Innovative judicial approaches encouraging settlements outside courtrooms have proven effective in reducing pendency while preserving social and commercial relationships.
Other reforms—such as rationalising jurisdiction, grouping similar cases, expanding summary disposal, incentivising timely judgments, decriminalising minor offences, and curbing excessive government litigation—can further ease judicial congestion. Enforcing accountability on departments for avoidable appeals and delays is equally crucial.
The CJI’s warning against bypassing High Courts through direct access to the Supreme Court also carries a vital ethical message. Justice cannot be the privilege of wealth or influence. Queue-jumping through power or money erodes public trust and undermines fairness. A strong, accessible and efficient High Court system is the best safeguard against such distortions.
Timely justice demands a dual commitment. High Courts must continue to raise the bar through innovation, strict case management and proactive intervention. Simultaneously, governments must honour their constitutional responsibility by filling judicial vacancies, improving infrastructure and providing adequate financial support. This is not an overnight transformation, but it is achievable with sustained political will and institutional cooperation.
Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. If High Courts fully embrace their role as vigilant sentinels of the Constitution, guided by an unwavering commitment to the common citizen, they can significantly transform India’s justice landscape. The challenge is formidable, but with resolve and reform, the promise of timely justice can be turned into reality.
