The article 'hasty online stagnant offline' emphasizes the need for more technological advancement in our country's judicial system.

The article 'hasty online stagnant offline' emphasizes the need for more technological advancement in our country's judicial system. The article revolves around the essential requirements to be followed in order to strengthen the system of justice with the help of law.

A Brief Introduction: Mode of Justice

The patience level is decreasing over time, and technology and the internet play a significant role. The source of entertainment gets changed too. People are demonstrating myopic behaviour. Reels, TikTok, and short videos give us 15–30 sec of entertainment, and the source of dopamine also changes; nowadays, people want everything to be done in seconds, from bank transactions to download a video. A recently published OHIO study reveals humans are impatient, even down to seconds.

We are so hasty online on the same level as our judicial level is stagnant offline. The justice delivery system in India is simple: each state has its own court, and civil and criminal courts are there. For the particular specialized branch of law—tribunals—justice is still denied, not because of the system but because of the delay. The formal PM of England, William Edward Gladstone, once said "justice delayed is justice denied," and I also believe in his quote.

Legislative Provision and Case Laws: Strengthened Justice

The 42nd constitutional amendment act of 1976 inserted Article 39A, which stated that the state should secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice.

In our current scenario, it would take 300 years to clear the backlog, which shows the justice system is sick and stagnant.

For example, in the well-known Nirbhaya case [Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) D No. 3334 of 2020], a three-judge bench led by Justice R Bahumathi and other judges Justice Bhushan and Justice A S Bopanna convicted four men of murder and gang rape in 2012. They were finally hanged after seven years of struggle by the victim's family. In line with another case, J. Jayalalitha v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 1912, a complaint against Jayalalitha was filed, and after the year 1997, the first charge sheet was filed. In February 2017, the Supreme Court of India issued a judgment in which it found Jayalalitha guilty, but at that time, she was dead. In the concluding line, one of the oldest cases in India is the Doshipura court case, which pitted Muslims against Sunnis over two acres of land. It started in 1878, long before independence, and continued till after independence.

The cause of hindrance in justice is the number of insufficient judges in the judicial system, India has 19 judges per 10 lakh people. Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said nothing had changed since the 1978 law commission when the law commission recommended an increase in the number of judges from 10 judges per 10 lakh people to 50.


Further, they strengthen the Lok Adalat so that the burden can shift too. Important changes should be made to remove the unnecessary ground for adjournment; it wastes the time of both the court and the judge. The right balance also has to be made between justice delayed is Justice denied, and justice hurried is Justice buried.


[1] Justice Delayed is Justice Denied, Available Here

[2] “Justice delayed is justice denied” – how can we deal with the inefficiency of courts in a fast-changing society, Available Here

[3] India has 19 judges per 10 lakh people, Available Here

Important Links

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams

Law Aspirants: Ultimate Test Prep Destination

Nikhil Yadav

Nikhil Yadav

Institution: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonipat

Next Story