Summary
An opinion piece in the Indian Express by Bombay High Court advocate Abhinav Chandrachud argues that chronic delay in civil courts is producing a parallel justice system run by the police. He cites a 1947 Bombay High Court suit settled only in 2026 and National Judicial Data Grid figures of 648,725 cases pending in the Bombay High Court, including 9,454 civil suits.
He alleges that well-connected creditors recast contractual defaults as cheating or criminal breach of trust and that debtors are pressed into settlement during police preliminary inquiries through threats of arrest. The Supreme Court has repeatedly called such criminalisation of civil disputes an abuse of process, notably in Indian Oil Corporation v.
NEPC India (2006). He concludes that civil procedure and not only judge strength, needs structural reform.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
The Bombay High Court's 1947 suit, settled after 79 years, has prompted a debate on how judicial delay pushes creditors to use police coercion through preliminary inquiries, now codified in Section 173(3) of the BNSS, in place of civil adjudication.
Standard News
Fix the Decree, Not Just the Bench
TAN's Position
When civil courts are too slow to enforce a contract, the police end up enforcing it instead, by fear rather than by law. TAN's position is that the remedy is reform of civil procedure and decree execution, together with strict control of police preliminary inquiries, not simply more judges.
The Problem in Numbers
- A suit filed in the Bombay High Court in 1947 was settled out of court only in 2026, after 79 years.
- The Bombay High Court has 648,725 pending cases on the National Judicial Data Grid, 9,454 of them civil suits.
- By the author's count, Maharashtra has about 15 judges per million people and the Bombay High Court about 1.9 per million.
How Coercion Fills the Gap Abhinav
Chandrachud's piece describes what happens when the courts can't deliver. Well-connected creditors file complaints recasting a missed payment as cheating or criminal breach of trust. A mere failure to pay under a contract is neither offence.
He describes debtors summoned at short notice, kept waiting for hours and threatened with the arrest of family members until they settle. He alleges that some officers act on a share of the recovery. By accounts he cites, about half of such matters end at the preliminary-inquiry stage without an FIR, which suggests that the inquiry itself is doing the work of a court.
The Supreme Court has condemned this repeatedly. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India (2006), it criticised the business practice of turning civil disputes into criminal cases to put pressure on the other side. The practice continues anyway, because the civil alternative is so slow.
The Strongest Objection
Some fraud really does look like a contract dispute. In Rajesh Bajaj (1999), the Supreme Court held that a complaint should not be thrown out merely because the transaction has a civil profile, if it discloses cheating on its face.
And the Law Commission's 245th Report warned that judge-population ratios are a poor guide to what courts actually need. On this view, closing the police route would protect real fraudsters and the judge-shortage diagnosis is itself doubtful.
Why the Position Holds Both objections point towards procedure, not away from it.
- Rajesh Bajaj needs a filter, not an interrogation room. Section 173(3) of the BNSS now gives preliminary inquiries a legal basis, with a 14-day limit. That inquiry should be a written, time-limited test of whether a complaint shows criminal elements, with reasons recorded. It should never be a negotiation conducted under threat of arrest.
- The 245th Report strengthens the case for procedural reform. If raw judge numbers are the wrong measure, the answer is case management, fixed timelines and fast execution of decrees. As the Privy Council observed back in 1872, a litigant's difficulties in India begin once he has obtained a decree.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
A suit filed in the Bombay High Court in 1947 was settled out of court in 2026, after 79 years. 2.
-
NJDG: 648,725 cases pending in the Bombay High Court, of which 9,454 are civil suits. 3.
-
The Bombay High Court has a sanctioned strength of 94 judges and a working strength of 75 as of late October 2026. 4.
-
Law Commission 120th Report (1987): recommended 50 judges per million people; the national ratio is about 21 per million. 5.
-
Law Commission 245th Report (2014): called the judge-population ratio a flawed metric and favoured a rate-of-disposal method. 6.
-
Section 173(3) BNSS, 2023: allows a preliminary inquiry of up to 14 days for offences punishable with three to seven years of imprisonment. 7.
-
Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2014): FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences, but preliminary inquiry is permitted in categories including commercial and matrimonial disputes. 8.
-
Privy Council, 1872, General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga v. Coomar Ramaput Sing: a litigant's difficulties in India begin when he has obtained a decree.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
The full reasoning chain: how slow decrees create the incentive, how preliminary inquiries supply the leverage and why the debtor gives in regardless of the merits.
The strongest counter-argument at full strength: Rajesh Bajaj on fraud with a civil profile and the Law Commission's 245th Report on why judge ratios mislead.
Exactly where each objection's logic stops and why both end up supporting procedural and execution reform.
A concrete package: written, recorded BNSS 173(3) inquiries, a screen based on IOC v NEPC, time-bound execution of decrees and disposal-based case management.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free