Fast-track courts may not be the cure

The Karnataka District Judiciary Reforms Bill 2025 is the most recent attempt at judicial reform in the state. In 2024, the legislature enacted amendments to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), introducing case management hearings in district courts, before which the high court had issued rules allowing email and courier use to serve notice to parties.

This Bill seeks to establish fast-track courts (FTC), mandates case completion timelines for the FTCs, and introduces artificial intelligence (AI) for automating assistive functions inside courts. This article examines whether the Bill can address structural causes of delay, or merely provides temporary band-aids.

The Bill earmarks land disputes, especially those involving farmers, cases where the parties are ‘unemployed or job-deprived people’, and cases pending beyond five years (based on directions from the high court or recommendation from the district judge) for the FTCs. This proposal raises several questions.

First, why are the FTCs positioned as the solution for case backlogs? The Bill does not specify how the FTCs will tackle the delay. As per the National Judicial Data Grid, 33.7% civil suits in Karnataka’s trial courts are stuck at witness examinations, and 20% at the stage of service of notice. These delays arise from process inefficiencies, not from a shortage of courts. Witness examinations drag on because outstation witnesses must travel long distances to reach courts. Courts routinely grant adjournments to avoid depriving parties of the opportunity to present evidence. Minor errors in addresses result in notices/summons going undelivered to witnesses and respondents/defendants.

The CPC amendments, and the high court’s rules for serving notice through e-mail and courier in civil cases are a welcome step. However, without broader process reforms like adherence to case management schedules and process re-engineering, the FTCs will have little effect.

Second, why should specific case types be selected for fast-tracking? Special courts serve a purpose in contexts like POCSO. But the Bill’s reasons for fast-tracking the identified case/litigant types remain unclear. The reasons for delay vary the case types identified by the Bill. By clubbing several case/litigant types with varying requirements, the FTCs replicate issues plaguing regular courts.

Timeline and incentives for judges

The Bill requires the FTCs to resolve cases within 12 months. Statutory timelines need to be based on empirical evidence. In 2025, ~63% cases (as on November 20) in Karnataka took more than one year for disposal, thus demonstrating the infeasibility of the time limit.

Previously, the imposition of such timelines has failed. For example, POCSO mandates the same timeline. A 2022 report found that POCSO courts on average took 510 days for disposal, and evidence took 183 days. A 2018 study found that 72% of POCSO cases in Karnataka remained pending for over a year. According to a 2019 report, more than 60% of civil cases in each district court across Bengaluru Rural remained pending for over two years, with land acquisition cases reporting an average of 6.5 years.

Court workloads vary greatly with geographic differences, and timelines cannot be fixed uniformly across the state. Within Bengaluru Rural, one court complex had an average pendency of 5.5 years for civil cases, while another complex had an average of 1.5 years.

The Bill rewards judges with adjournment rates of below 10%, placing the burden of reducing delays on them. This pressurises judges to dispose of many cases within possibly unrealistic timeframes, which may affect the quality of hearings. District judges already face multiple challenges, and this pressure will only intensify existing burdens.

Institutionalising AI

The Bill enables AI automation of scrutiny of pleadings, case scheduling, legal research, transcription, and other assistive functions, while prohibiting AI use that can influence case outcomes. It outlines safeguards, including an expert committee, a digital audit trail, and compliance with data privacy standards laid down by the high court.

AI safeguards are positive developments if the high court takes sufficient steps towards prescribing them, especially given the danger of shadow use of AI by judges and staff to resolve cases quickly.

The continued prioritisation of district court reforms and the provision of AI safeguards are necessary measures for access to justice. However, the Bill constrains judicial reforms to mere questions of speed and efficiency. Anxieties over judicial delay have resulted in a quest for ‘quick-fixes’, and AI is its latest silver bullet.

Unfortunately, issues of delay have no single fix. These are systemic issues requiring rigorous evidence, careful deliberation, and political will. Reforms for the district judiciary must focus on creating an administrative cadre to handle administrative stages, process redesigning, and updated case management rules for effective change.

(Leah is Research Manager, and Lakshmi is Research Consultant, DAKSH Society)