SC judges joke about dharna for foot overbridge; lawyers flag 95k pending cases

The Supreme Court judges used a protest threat to press for basic pedestrian safety. They said they might sit at the Delhi High Court’s main gate if the government did not complete a foot overbridge and pedestrian paths by November 25. The facilities are meant to help lawyers, litigants and members of the public cross safely.

Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan told Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee that they would not go home until the work was completed. Their remark was made in a lighter vein, but it showed their urgency. The disputed stretch is on Mathura Road, near the High Court and the Zoological Park.

Amicus curiae Gaurav Agrawal told the court that a traffic signal had been installed. The judges were still not satisfied. Their reaction also raised a wider concern: if judges suggest dharna to secure public work, people may question why similar urgency is not possible for delayed cases.

A dharna is a sit-in protest. People remain at a place to draw attention to a demand and pressure an authority to act. In this article, the judges jokingly suggested using that method to secure safer road crossings near the Delhi High Court. It is a public protest, not a judicial remedy.

A mandamus works differently. It is a formal court direction requiring a public authority to carry out a duty required by law. The court can issue such an order after considering the legal issue and the authority’s obligations. Compliance is pursued through the legal process rather than through a physical sit-in. The article contrasts the judges’ dharna remark with issuing a mandamus to the government.

The difference matters because judges are expected to resolve disputes through court orders. Their lighter-vein comment highlighted the frustration created when a public safety project remains incomplete. It also prompted lawyers to consider what could happen if litigants copied the protest approach to seek faster hearings.

The article describes a large backlog at every level. More than 95,000 cases are pending in the Supreme Court. About 36,000 of them have been pending for only five years, while nearly 60,000 form the remaining balance. The figures show that delay is not limited to one court or one type of case.

The High Court burden is also severe. The Allahabad High Court has over 12 lakh pending cases, with many pending for decades. In the trial courts, more than 5.1 crore cases are pending. Of these, 47 lakh are more than 10 years old, and 81 lakh are between five and ten years old.

These figures explain why the judges’ protest remark triggered concern. The article links speedy justice with the right to life and notes that litigants often wait years for hearings. It also says many applicants seeking early hearings, especially before the Allahabad High Court, are told to await their regular chance.

Lawyers saw an uncomfortable contrast in the judges’ joke. The Supreme Court pressed the government to complete a public safety project quickly, even mentioning a sit-in if necessary. Yet the same court has more than 95,000 pending cases. The article says this could make people question how strongly the court can insist on speedy justice while its own backlog remains so large.

The contrast becomes sharper because the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that speedy justice is part of the right to life. The article says about 36,000 cases have been pending for five years, while nearly 60,000 others remain. Litigants therefore face the same frustration that the court expressed about the unfinished crossing facilities.

Lawyers raised the issue in a lighter vein, but the implication is serious. If judges can threaten a dharna to obtain action for the public, litigants might ask why they should not use similar pressure for hearings. That could challenge the court’s authority and create further disorder.

If litigants across all court levels began holding sit-ins, court access and public order could be disrupted. People would gather at Supreme Court, High Court and trial court premises to demand early hearings. The article says Delhi police, already stretched, could find it difficult to handle such a situation. Large demonstrations could also obstruct lawyers, staff and other litigants.

The pressure would extend beyond Delhi. The article points to the Allahabad High Court and its Lucknow bench, where over 12 lakh cases are pending. It also describes more than 5.1 crore pending trial-court cases. If even a fraction of those litigants protested, the number of participants could overwhelm court premises and police arrangements.

Such protests would not solve the underlying delay by themselves. They could make hearings harder to conduct and create fresh law-and-order problems. The article presents the scenario as a warning: a joking call for dharna may encourage people who have waited years, exhausted their finances and suffered repeated adjournments to demand attention through protest.

A court can address an unsafe crossing through a formal order rather than a sit-in. It can issue a mandamus directing the responsible government authority to perform its public duty. It can also set a clear completion deadline, require affidavits or progress reports, and list the matter for compliance. These tools keep the dispute within the legal process.

The article provides a concrete starting point. A traffic signal was installed on the Mathura Road stretch near the High Court and Zoological Park, but the court said that was not enough. The government still needed to construct a foot overbridge and pedestrian paths. Officials could coordinate the relevant road and civic agencies, inspect the site, and use temporary traffic management while construction proceeds.

Regular monitoring could make the order effective without judges personally protesting. The court could review progress at the next hearing and respond to unjustified delay through lawful directions. The article does not specify which agency must build the facilities, so responsibility would need to be established through government records and court proceedings.

The right to a speedy trial is treated as part of the constitutional right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The principle means justice should not be delayed without adequate reason. A legal case can affect a person’s liberty, livelihood, property, reputation and family life. Endless waiting can therefore become a serious constitutional harm, not merely an administrative inconvenience.

The article says the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that speedy justice is part of the right to life. It also describes the human cost of delay. Trial-court litigants may be financially drained, physically exhausted by repeated adjournments and mentally disturbed by prolonged pendency. These effects explain why timely hearings are connected to constitutional protection.

The principle does not guarantee an immediate decision in every case. Courts still need time for fair hearings and proper consideration. It requires proceedings to move without unreasonable delay. The article’s figures show the challenge: over 95,000 cases are pending in the Supreme Court, and more than 5.1 crore are pending in trial courts.