Justice in Slow Motion

By Shayan Ahmad

One of the most unquestionable legal maxims in history is the saying: justice delayed is justice denied. Over centuries, this principle has been invoked as the moral and legal foundation of the right to a speedy trial. It is a reminder that justice loses its meaning if delivered too late. For those who suffer, a trial that drags on for years means the denial of prompt redress and, often, the erosion of hope. Legal reformers across the world have adopted the phrase to underline their frustration with courts, tribunals, arbitrators, commissions, and governments that fail to act swiftly. The causes of such delays are many—an overburdened system, complex legal processes, political indifference, or sheer administrative inertia.

India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, once remarked that legislation alone cannot fix deep-rooted social issues, though it is essential in shaping public opinion and offering both penalties and education. His observation continues to resonate today in the debate over judicial delays. Justice, after all, is not only about convicting the guilty or acquitting the innocent; it is also about ensuring that the process itself is fair and timely. A delayed trial can render justice meaningless, which is why international charters and treaties have consistently recognized the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental human right.

In criminal law, the rationale is clear. A prompt trial spares the accused from endless detention before conviction and, at the same time, offers victims closure without years of uncertainty. Indian courts have acknowledged this principle repeatedly. In the 1981 case of State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji, the judiciary stressed that judges must weigh whether delays were caused by the accused, the complexity of the case, an overburdened docket, or prosecutorial shortcomings. Despite such judicial recognition, systemic causes of delay remain deeply entrenched: long case backlogs, understaffed courts, lengthy vacations, and a shortage of judges relative to the population. Lawyers, too, sometimes worsen the problem through extended arguments, repeated adjournments, or lack of preparation. Accused individuals may also evade or obstruct proceedings, stretching trials even further.

The gap between principle and practice is glaring in cases of gender-based violence. As of September 2024, India’s Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs), set up to handle rape and POCSO cases, had over two lakh pending matters. These courts, established in 2019 with the promise of swift resolution, have disposed of just over half the cases filed. The reality is stark: while 52 percent of such cases were resolved, the other half remain stuck in a growing pile of pending trials. The backlog is not confined to sexual assault. Under the Domestic Violence Act alone, India had more than 471,000 pending initial cases and over 21,000 pending appeals as of mid-2022. Data from the National Legal Services Authority shows the sheer scale of delay confronting victims of domestic abuse.

The numbers tell an even harsher story in Jammu and Kashmir, where the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) recorded more than 11,000 crimes against women between 2020 and 2022. In 2022 alone, 3,716 incidents were reported—higher than the 3,405 cases in 2020. The catalogue of violence included 886 incidents of kidnapping or abduction, six cases of human trafficking, and 462 instances of abduction for forced marriage. There were 287 reported cases of rape that year, most involving perpetrators known to the victim—proof of the entrenched problem of intimate partner violence. Cases of assault with intent to outrage modesty stood at 3,214, while cybercrimes against women, a growing frontier of abuse, numbered 54. The J&K Police noted that of 5,667 cases filed for investigation in 2022, nearly 2,000 were carried over from previous years.

For many women, these figures are not just statistics but lived trauma, worsened by endless delays in the courts. Former J&K State Commission for Women chairperson Vasundhara Pathak Masoodi voiced alarm over the sharp rise in such crimes. She warned that low conviction rates embolden perpetrators, creating a climate where abusers believe they can escape accountability. The persistence of dowry demands, acid attacks, workplace harassment, and suicides linked to domestic abuse underscores the urgent need for judicial reform. Masoodi argued that the lack of deterrence leads families to spend excessively on dowries in an attempt to secure their daughters’ futures—often with tragic outcomes. “The conviction rate is so low,” she said, “that abusers feel they can get away with it. That emboldens others to follow the same path.”

The Constitution of India lays down a clear duty on the judiciary: to safeguard justice as a cornerstone of democracy. The right to a fair and speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21, which guarantees that no one shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except through procedures that are just, fair, and reasonable. Courts have repeatedly held that delay violates this principle. Justice Krishna Iyer once described the Indian legal system as suffering from a “slow-motion syndrome,” calling it fatal to the concept of a fair trial. He reminded society that justice is not only about punishing the guilty but also about ensuring that the innocent are not made to suffer endlessly under the weight of prolonged trials.

The Magna Carta of 1215, often considered the birthplace of modern legal rights, also enshrined the principle of timely justice. Centuries later, its relevance has only grown. In India today, despite constitutional guarantees and judicial pronouncements, millions still wait for justice that may come too late. The Supreme Court has clarified that any accused denied the right to a speedy trial can petition under Article 32, compelling the state to act. Yet stronger laws and harsher penalties alone cannot solve the problem. Judicial reform must go hand in hand with social reform, greater resources for courts, improved conviction rates, and a commitment to compassion as well as punishment.

The promise of timely justice is not just a matter of procedure but of dignity. It is tied to the ability of individuals to live as human beings, secure in their rights and confident that their grievances will be addressed. Yet for countless citizens, justice remains a distant dream, buried under adjournments, backlogs, and systemic inertia. The principle of a speedy trial, though recognized as a basic human right, still awaits meaningful realization in India. Until then, the maxim justice delayed is justice denied will remain more a lament than a guarantee.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of this newspaper.