The Scales of Justice: Why Our Courts Aren't Broken, Just Badly Maintained

It's easy, perhaps too easy, to point fingers at our judicial system. We hear the constant lament – 'justice delayed is justice denied' – and immediately, almost instinctively, we assume something is fundamentally, structurally broken. But what if, just what if, that's not the whole story? What if the elaborate, centuries-old framework of justice delivery in India isn't actually crumbling from within, but merely suffering from a profound, prolonged period of neglect?

You see, for all the talk about reform, about revolutionary overhauls, the truth, in fact, might be a good deal simpler, less dramatic. The bedrock of our legal system, a legacy from our colonial past, has, in many ways, proven remarkably resilient. It’s not the blueprint itself that’s faulty; it’s our collective, perhaps even intentional, failure to properly maintain the building. We’re focused on the squeaking door when the entire foundation needs a look-in, or at the very least, a regular inspection and a bit of care.

Think about it. When we dissect the issues plaguing our courts, what do we find? A daunting backlog of cases? Absolutely. A glaring deficit of judges at every level, from the high echelons to the grassroots? Undeniably. Substandard infrastructure that often makes courtrooms feel like relics from another era, ill-equipped for the demands of modern justice? Oh, most certainly. And then there's the patchy, often half-hearted, integration of technology, which, let's be honest, could revolutionize efficiency if only it were fully embraced and funded properly. These aren’t flaws inherent to the system’s design, are they?

No, these are symptoms of something else entirely: a distinct lack of political will, a chronic underfunding, and frankly, an alarming casualness towards a pillar of our democracy. For instance, the sheer number of judicial vacancies across India is nothing short of staggering. How can justice be dispensed efficiently, or even effectively, when the very people tasked with doing so aren't even present? It’s like trying to run a marathon with half your team sitting on the sidelines, waiting for a call that never truly comes.

And the infrastructure – oh, the infrastructure! Many courts still operate out of dilapidated buildings, lacking even basic amenities, let alone the advanced digital tools necessary for swift, transparent proceedings. We’ve had grand plans, yes, like the E-Courts project, which, on paper, sounds brilliant. Yet, its full potential remains largely untapped, hampered by implementation woes, training gaps, and an all-too-familiar budgetary squeeze. It’s as if we buy a state-of-the-art car but then begrudge the cost of fuel or regular servicing.

Then there’s the question of funding. Honestly, the judiciary's budget often feels like an afterthought, a meager slice of the national pie. How can we expect innovation, expansion, or even just basic functionality when the resources simply aren't there? We legislate with abandon, adding new laws and complexities, but rarely pause to consider the added burden this places on an already strained judiciary. It’s a classic case of piling more onto an already overflowing plate, then wondering why things spill over.

So, perhaps it's time to shift our perspective, isn't it? To stop obsessing over whether the system is inherently broken and start confronting the harder, more uncomfortable truth: that we've simply allowed it to languish. The path to truly effective judicial reform isn't about tearing down and rebuilding from scratch. Instead, it’s about a determined, unwavering commitment to filling those vacancies, upgrading that infrastructure, embracing that technology, and yes, allocating the necessary funds. It's about recognizing that the greatest hurdles aren’t structural, but rather the collective apathy and sustained neglect that have, for too long, defined our approach to justice.