Judicial infrastructure

What is Judicial Infrastructure

Judicial Infrastructure in its general meaning refers to the physical locations of courts, tribunals, attorney’s offices and other judicial facilities. It also includes the infrastructure for human and digital resources, including the accessibility of all the tools necessary to enable prompt distribution of justice.

Official meaning of Judicial Infrastructure

Adequacy of Judicial Infrastructure is a prerequisite for reduction of pendency and backlog of cases in Courts. Though primary responsibility of infrastructure development for the subordinate judiciary rests with the State Governments, the Central Government augments the resources of the State Governments by releasing financial assistance under this Scheme. The scheme aims at improving the physical infrastructure of the Subordinate Courts and also the housing needs for Judicial Officers of District and Subordinate Courts in the country with a view to facilitate better justice delivery. According to this scheme, it covers all States and UT’s but does not cover the infrastructure or the process of construction of the High Court buildings. This scheme allows the renovation, upgradation or any new construction of such existing court buildings but not the routine maintenance and upkeep

This scheme was first conceived on the idea that both the Central and the State government would share the funding on a 50:50 basis. Later the sharing quotient of both the State and the Central Governments were revised from a 50:50 to 75:25 and 90:10 for the North-Eastern states from the year 2011-12 onwards with the approval of the Union Cabinet. The funding pattern of the scheme was even further revised into 60:40 (Centre:State) and 90:10 for 8 North-Eastern and 3 Himalayan states with effect from 2 015-16 onwards. However, 100% Central funding was provided for the Union Territories.

Official Reports

NCMS Baseline Report on Court Development Planning System, 2016

This report of 2016, headed by Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed (then Judge of the Delhi High Court), is an advisory report to State Court Management Systems that aims to set certain minimum national standards for court infrastructure which must be ensured by the respective High Courts of States. It focuses on enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Indian judiciary through systematic planning and management. It provides for improvement of judicial infrastructure through a structural framework for court development planning, with a larger aim of improving judicial performance and service delivery. In respect of these plans, the Report requires the State Government to provide the requisite infrastructure and finances to see the plans through. Recommendations of the Report include:

• Performance metrics- implementation of measurable indicators to assess court efficiency.
• Capacity building- Training programs for judicial officers and staff to enhance skill and knowledge.
• Use of technology- Leveraging technology for case management, data collection and dissemination of information.

The report suggests a phased approach, starting with pilot projects in select courts to refine the planning system before broader rollout.

NCMS Baseline Report on Court Development Planning System, 2024

It is an advisory report on what may be considered as national common standards on Court Management Systems, which may be adopted by State Court Management Systems Committees. It seeks to facilitate dialogue amongst National and State Court Management Systems Committees at a policy level. In terms of court facilities, it emphasizes the need for modern, accessible, and secure court facilities. It advocates for standardized designs to ensure uniformity and efficiency, and recommends the integration of green building practices to promote sustainability.

The report also makes suggestions regarding financial planning and budgeting. It calls for the adoption of performance-based budgeting to align financial allocations with measurable outcomes. It suggests the establishment of dedicated budgetary provisions for maintenance and technological upgrades. It encourages transparency and accountability in financial management through regular audits and public disclosures.

Considering the importance of technology integration, the Report recognizes the need for incorporating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) tools to streamline court operations. Development of centralized databases for efficient case management and data analysis has been proposed. It supports the expansion of e-courts and virtual hearing facilities to enhance accessibility. In addition to the above recommendations, the Report also suggests monitoring and evaluation at various judicial levels to oversee the implementation of infrastructure projects, and to assess the effectiveness of implemented strategies and to make necessary adjustments.

National Judicial Infrastructure

This scheme was introduced by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) N.V.Ramana. He advocated for the need of better judicial infrastructure, especially in district courts. Therefore through the National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation (NJIC), an independent body at a national level is dedicated to overseeing any infrastructure related activities. The introduction of this scheme helped immensely as judicial infrastructure or the lack of it was the least discussed aspect of judicial reforms in India. Broken down buildings, overcrowded courtrooms, no proper assigned waiting rooms, unusable washrooms, inadequate or absence of proper information, signees,etc are all the stern realities lawyers, litigants and courtroom officers are forced to deal with. Hence it is indeed a much needed reform that Justice Ramana initiated and continued spreading, however it turned out to be a huge fail toward the end of his tenure. The only guiding document laying down the benchmarks for court infrastructure is the 2012 National Court Management Systems Committee of the Supreme Court. The first task for NJIC will be to lay down the standards for physical and digital infrastructure which, unlike its 2012 predecessor, cannot be a one-size-fits-all document. Instead, it must factor in or provide leeway to the states to allow for infrastructural requirements and constraints arising from topography, climate, litigation practice and so on.

Nyay Vikas

Under this scheme, central assistance is provided to the State Government or the Union Territory Administrations for the construction of the court halls and residential buildings for the Judicial Officers/ Judge of District or Subordinate Courts. With the scheme extension beyond 31.03.2021, new features like a Lawyers Hall, proper usable washroom complexes and digital computer rooms have also been added to make things easier for the lawyers and litigants. The funds sharing pattern under the Scheme for Center and State is 60:40 in respect of States other than North Eastern and Himalayan States. The funds sharing pattern is 90:10 in respect of North Eastern and Himalayan States; and 100% in respect of Union Territories.

National Courts Management and Systems Committee, 2012

A proposal was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India emphasizing the need for a comprehensive “National Court Management Systems” for the country that will enhance the quality, responsiveness, and timeliness of the Court. In pursuance of the directions of Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, Office Order dated 02.05.2012, was issued by the Office of Secretary General, Supreme Court of India. The objective of the committee included 6 main elements.

• A National Framework of court excellence to measure performance standards of the Indian Courts.
• A system for monitoring and enhancing the performance parameters established in the NFCE on quality, responsiveness and timeliness.
• A system to enhance user friendliness of the judicial system
• A court development planning system that provides a framework for five year plans.
• A Human Resource Development Strategy setting standards on selection and training of judges of subordinate courts.
• A National System of Judicial Statistics (NSJS) to provide a common national platform for recording and maintaining judicial statistics from across the country.

International Experience

United Kingdom

Court and Tribunal Design Guide

The judiciary in the UK is supported by HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), to provide a fair, efficient and effective justice system, across criminal, civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions. The court structure covers England and Wales, the tribunals system covers England, Wales and in some cases Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Court and Tribunal Design Guide (Version 3), published by HMCTS, outlines comprehensive standards for the design and redevelopment of court and tribunal buildings across England and Wales. It is structured around 5 core principles:

1. Appropriate: Designs should reflect the seriousness and dignity of the justice system.
2. Effective: Facilities must support the efficient delivery of justice services.
3. Accessible: Buildings should be usable by all individuals, regardless of physical ability or background.
4. Flexible: Spaces need to accommodate various types of hearings and adapt to evolving needs.
5. Sustainable: Designs should minimize environmental impact and ensure long-term viability.

United States of America

Best Practices for Court Building Security

In the US, The National Center for State Courts (NCSC), through its Court Consulting Services division, conducted security assessments of court buildings as well as personal security and safety training throughout the country. In conducting court building assessments, the NCSC has evaluated court security in terms of best practices or guidelines describing those security measures that should be in place concerning a comprehensive set of topics on court buildings and court operations. It offers a structured framework to enhance the safety and functionality of court facilities. It organizes recommendations into three categories, each comprising specific topics with phased steps leading to best practices: Fundamental- It provides for a security committee, policies and procedures, threat and incident reporting, and security training as vital elements for establishing a robust security infrastructure. Critical- This category identifies key operational and structural aspects of court security, such as Command Center, courtrooms and chambers, public access and screening, staff interaction zones. Essential- This category supports the overall security system. It deals with aspects of emergency equipment, juror security and circulation, and cash handling.

Research that engages with Judicial Infrastructure

India Justice Report

The “India Justice Report: Ranking States on the Capacity of Police, Judiciary, Prisons and Legal Aid, 2025” is the fourth edition of a collaborative effort undertaken in partnership with DAKSH, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Common Cause, Centre for Social Justice, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy and TISS-Prayas. It is a comprehensive quantitative index using the government's statistics to rank the capacity of the formal justice system operating in various states. It seeks to track improvements and persisting deficits in each state’s structural and financial capacity to deliver justice based on quantitative measurements of budgets, human resources, infrastructure, workload, and diversity across police, judiciary, prisons, legal aid and Human Rights Commissions. The main findings of the report are:

• As of December 2022, high courts were operating with only 778 judges against a sanctioned strength of 1,108. This shortage, along with stagnant sanctioned strength, has led to an increasing number of cases pending per judge over the past five years.
• While the number of court halls may be sufficient for the current number of judges, the report notes that if all sanctioned posts were filled, space would become a problem. Additionally, many lower court buildings lack essential facilities such as fully functional toilets and digital infrastructure, including video conferencing rooms and connectivity to jails and officers .
• India spends approximately 0.08% of its GDP on the judiciary, with most of the expenditure borne by state governments. This limited funding affects the ability to improve infrastructure and fill vacancies.
• Despite the sanctioned number of judges, courts often operate below capacity due to vacant positions. In 2022, there were 14.4 judges per million population in India, significantly lower than the recommended 50 per million.

The Report makes the following recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Indian judiciary, ensuring timely justice delivery, and upholding the rule of law:

• Filling Vacancies: Accelerate the appointment process to fill existing vacancies in judicial positions.
• Infrastructure Development: Invest in building and upgrading court infrastructure, ensuring adequate space, facilities, and digital connectivity.
• Increased Funding: Allocate a higher percentage of GDP to the judiciary to support infrastructure development and operational costs.
• Establishment of NJIAI: Implement the proposed National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India to oversee and coordinate infrastructure development across states.

Building Better Courts Surveying the Infrastructure of India’s District Courts

This Report of August 2019 by Sumathi Chandrashekaran, Diksha Sanyal and Reshma Sekhar investigates the link between access to justice and judicial infrastructure by qualitatively assessing 665 district court complexes across India based on the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2012. The Report identified Delhi and Kerala as the top performing states, while Bihar and Manipur among the states having the poorest infrastructure. It assesses 665 district court complexes across India against Supreme Court’s e National Court Management Systems (NCMS) benchmarks. It finds that most courts lack basic facilities—only 54% have waiting areas, 40% have functioning toilets, and 27% are accessible to people with disabilities. Critical infrastructure like help desks, ramps, security systems, and digital tools are missing in many courts. The report recommends infrastructure upgrades, grievance redress platforms, and national-level design reforms to ensure dignified, user-friendly court access. The Report makes the following policy recommendations:

• The Department of Justice should publish a comprehensive list of courts with geo-tagging, detailed annual budgets, and accessible judicial data, while also upgrading court websites for disability access. In the long term, it should initiate renovation schemes for old court buildings and create a public feedback platform.
• The Supreme Court should revise its infrastructure standards by involving key stakeholders, and ensure all services are accessible, while also requiring High Courts to submit annual infrastructure reports and share best practices.
• High Courts should establish grievance redressal cells in district courts, audit infrastructure regularly, require district courts to report annually, incentivize high-performing courts, and facilitate knowledge sharing among them.
• District Courts should create infrastructure complaint mechanisms, prepare regular reports, and actively inform higher authorities about their infrastructure needs.
• The Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities should audit all courts for accessibility and guide future design improvements.
• The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation should address washroom deficiencies and revive the Swachh Nyayalaya initiative.
• The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs should improve public transport connectivity to courts, including last-mile access.
• Civil society organisations should compile and share data on court infrastructure, raise public awareness, engage with disability rights groups, and conduct regular social audits.
• The National Sample Survey Organisation should design a comprehensive survey to assess judicial infrastructure across the country.
• Lawyers and litigants should actively provide feedback, document poor conditions, and participate in calls for improved court facilities.

Court Design Handbook

The Handbook, a piece of work by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, serves as a comprehensive resource aimed at enhancing judicial infrastructure in India. It provides detailed guidelines to ensure that court complexes are designed to be accessible, efficient, and responsive to the needs of all users, including litigants, lawyers, judges, and administrative staff. The Handbook provides a guide for building District Court Complexes by: • Establishing a set of non-negotiable principles and guidelines for a user- centric approach to Court design; • Recommending design considerations and specifications for site-level and building-level space planning and circulation; • Recommending design considerations and specifications for the organisation and planning of spaces within the Court Complex; • Recommending a policy framework for implementation; and • Providing survey and audit templates which may be used for gathering user feedback and ensuring continued monitoring and evaluation. It emphasizes on designing court buildings that prioritize the experiences and requirements of users. This includes considerations for ease of navigation, comfort, and accessibility for individuals with disabilities. It advocates for the adoption of standardized designs across district courts to ensure uniformity in facilities and services, thereby promoting equality and efficiency in the judicial process. Recognizing the importance and use of digital advancements, the guide recommends incorporating technology into court infrastructure. This includes provisions for e-courts, digital case management systems, and virtual hearing facilities to streamline judicial proceedings. The handbook advises on sustainable building practices and inclusive architectural designs that cater to diverse user groups, ensuring environmental responsibility and social equity.

Ayodhya Development Plan seems to have ‘no plans’ for its Courts

The DAKSH India article titled "Ayodhya Development Plan seems to have ‘no plans’ for its Courts" offers an in-depth look into the current state of the Ayodhya District Court, highlighting significant infrastructural and operational challenges amidst the city's rapid development. It highlights the crucial position of district courts as first point of contact for citizens seeking justice, which requires due attention to be given to introduction and internalization of digitalization such as e-filing, real time reflection of case status, uploading of orders. The study makes certain key observations: Neglect of district courts amidst urban development: The district court remains overlooked, lacking basic amenities such as functional washrooms and accessible facilities. Resistance to Digitization: Despite training sessions on e-courts, there is a noticeable reluctance among court staff and advocates to adopt digital tools. Processes like e-filing are underutilized, with a continued preference for paper-based methods. Operational Inefficiencies: The court's functioning is frequently disrupted by strikes and extended breaks, leading to delays in case proceedings. Additionally, cause lists are often uploaded only 5-6 days in advance, and there is a lack of real-time updates on case statuses. To counter such challenges, the study recommends infrastructure enhancement to include essential amenities like elevators, accessible washrooms, and facilities for individuals with disabilities. It also suggests embracing digitalization to streamline court processes and improve efficiency, and operational reforms to reduce unwarranted strikes and ensure consistent court operations, and therein enhance the reliability of the judicial system.