Karnataka’s civil justice reset

India’s legal system needs not only speedier justice but also a fairer, more inclusive, and efficient judicial process to restore and maintain public faith in the judiciary. According to the India Justice Report 2025, the country currently has approximately 15 judges per million people—far below the 1987 recommendation of the Law Commission, which called for 50 judges per million.

In a historic legislative step, Karnataka became the first state to comprehensively amend the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in an effort to accelerate the litigation process and resolve intractable judicial pendency in civil disputes.

On paper, the amendments are welcome; however, the ground reality may clash with procedural rigidity—especially for litigants from rural or disadvantaged backgrounds, who are often dependent on overburdened advocates. The judiciary must now balance the discipline and discretion to smoothen the litigation process and uphold the justice system.

India’s judiciary remains sluggish, burdened with over 4.5 crore pending cases. Persistent adjournments, poor case management, and outdated procedural practices are key contributors to this crisis. Several reports—including those by the Law Commission of India—and landmark cases like Salem Advocate Bar Associate vs UOI, have emphasised the urgent need for changes in operation and spirit.

The Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024, is a structural response to these challenges. While it pushes for a more disciplined and time-bound civil litigation framework, it also raises concerns about excessive rigidity that could limit access to justice.

The Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Cherian Varkey Construction Co plays a pivotal role in shaping India’s approach to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. Karnataka’s amendment includes Section 89A, under which every civil suit not seeking urgent interim relief must first be referred to mediation, to be completed within two months.

While this provision aims to reduce pendency and promote consensual settlements, its practical feasibility remains uncertain, mainly due to India’s underdeveloped mediation infrastructure and lack of trained mediators, especially in rural and lower courts. The state must invest more in training mediators and create mechanisms to ensure monitoring and compliance for Section 89A to decongest the judiciary. 

The concept of a case management system is well established in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom. Karnataka’s introduction of Order XV-AA—provisioning for “Case Management Hearing”—provides a structured timeline for each stage of the civil trial, aiming to conclude proceedings within 24 months. This is a historic development. For the first time, the power to monitor case progress shifts from litigants to the courtroom itself.

However, this shift demands extensive judicial training and enhanced accountability. As the courts take on new roles like maintaining deadlines, rigorous monitoring, and strict compliance, the system may face administrative burdens hindering substantive reforms; procedural tweaks alone cannot anchor meaningful judicial reforms.

Karnataka must invest in comprehensive judicial training to help judges adapt to their evolving roles, which now include oversight of mediation and active case management. Regular workshops and knowledge transfer mechanisms are equally important for advocates and litigants, many of whom remain unaware of the new procedures, causing procedural lapses. To breathe life into the mediation process under Section 89A, Karnataka must invest more in full-time mediators and improve mediation infrastructure and accessibility, especially in rural areas.

Most importantly, a dedicated committee must be set up to monitor the impact of the amendment over the coming years. Legal Aid committees must play a proactive role to ensure compliance; new procedures must not disadvantage litigants with low legal literacy. 

The Code of Civil Procedure (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2024, marks a shift from a colonial-era framework to a more contemporary and inclusive justice delivery model. It is not merely a technical upgradation--it is a step towards inclusivity and a clearer path of justice that is more accessible. It compels the entire legal community to revisit and rethink its roles; this paradigm shift must be inculcated through disciplined execution, humility, and an empathic approach towards litigants. Yet, the test lies in its implementation. If successful, it can set a precedent for the rest of the country; if not, it may offer important lessons as a cautionary principle. Either way, the process is necessary, and its outcomes will be instructive for India’s legal community.

(The writer is a Bengaluru- based advocate)