Beyond Pendency: Counting Cases Correctly

by Pavithra Manivannan, Siddarth Raman and Bhargavi Zaveri-Shah.

The discourse on Indian judicial reform is dominated by questions of pendency and the workload of courts. However, official sources of caseload estimates in India have been found to be deficient in terms of both the methodology used, and the quality of underlying data (Jain and Reddy, 2025; Damle and Anand 2020). This leads to miscalculation of the caseload of courts and renders it unamenable for comparison across courts. In this article, we propose a new approach for estimating the caseload at Indian courts. We apply this to analyse the caseload at the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, which accounts for 35% of the total caseload of the Court. Our analysis yields three main findings. First, the caseload at the Original Side of the Bombay High Court (the Court) is being overcounted by 66%. Second, the caseload composition of the Court has remained largely stable over the 7-year period of our study with two case-types, namely, inheritance cases, and writ petitions filed against the government, accounting for half the cases filed in the Court. Third, suits as a case-type generates the most number of sub or interim cases.

In India, there are two official sources that publish information on caseloads – the annual report of the Supreme Court and the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). Apart from the quality of the data, there are two specific problems with the estimation methodology used by these sources. First, as a case progresses in a court of law, it generates multiple sub-cases. For instance, if a case is filed as a “Suit” for recovery of money, several interlocutory applications may be filed through which the main money suit (the ‘main case’) progresses. Such sub-cases could range from simple applications seeking the addition of a new party to the proceedings to an interim injunction seeking a stay on the transfer of assets of the respondent. Currently, the NJDG counts such sub-cases as distinct cases. This leads to overestimation of the caseload, inflating pendency and disposal rates. This is because the hearings for sub-cases are held as part of the main case proceedings. Further, a reading of the orders of cases suggests that more often than not, the final disposal order is common for both the main case and its sub-cases. Second, the taxonomy for case-type categorisation is inconsistent across official sources. The Bombay High Court’s website lists 142 case-types on its Original Side. On the other hand, the NJDG reports only 19 case-types for the Original Side of the Bombay High Court. This includes an ‘Original’ and an ‘Other’ category, which provides little to no information on the case-type filed in the court. Further, the annual report of the Supreme Court has an altogether different classification system, which cannot be readily mapped to the other two official sources. It has a large bucket under ‘Other’ which does not have a clear definition. Our approach attempts to address these problems.

We count sub-cases as part of its corresponding main case. That is, we adopt the ‘family of cases’ as the unit of analysis for caseload estimation. This involves collapsing the 142 case-types on the Original Side of the Court into 17 main case-types and two sub case-types, based on their subject. For example, of the 142 case-types, 80 case-types are in the nature of sub-cases such as “Interim Applications”, “Leave Petitions”, “Chamber Order Lodging” and “Notice of Motion”. We classify these as “Interim Applications” and count these as sub-cases. Similarly, “Arbitration Petitions” and “Arbitration Applications” are categorised as “Arbitration cases”. This standardisation of case-types makes the caseload estimation exercise scalable and amenable to comparison across similar courts. The list of the 142 case-types and the classification assigned by us can be accessed here.

Data and Methodology

We collect the life-cycle data of 2,36,953 cases filed at the Original Side of the Court between the period January 2017 to December 2024 (Study Period). The Bombay High Court exercises original jurisdiction or jurisdiction over first time civil cases, and appellate jurisdiction or jurisdiction over cases that come before it as appeals from lower courts. We source the information on the life-cycle of cases filed at the Court’s original jurisdiction from its website, and it is comprehensive to the extent the Court has made the data available.

As on the date of our data collection exercise (February 2025), the Court’s website reported 1,43,514 (61%) cases as disposed of and 93,254 (39%) cases as pending. If the status of a case was unknown or marked as transferred, we classify it into the ‘Other’ category (185 cases).

We tag each case in our dataset as a main case or a sub-case. Next, we create a family of cases using the CNR number assigned by the Court as the unique identifier. This family of cases becomes our unit of analysis. Finally, each family of case is classified into one of the 17 case types.

Finding 1: Official sources overestimate caseload

The Court’s website shows that about 2.5 lakh cases are filed before its Original Side during our Study Period. That is, on an average, about 30,000 cases are filed every year. However, we find that about 40% of these cases are sub-cases (Table 1 below). Viewed in this light, the 30,000 new cases per year can be understood as an overestimate. The annual average of new main cases filed before the Original Side of the Court is about 18,000, almost half of the original estimate.

Table 1: No. of filings

Nature	Count	Average per-year	% of total
Main cases	1,41,608	17,850	60
Sub-cases	95,435	11,769	40
Total	2,36,953	29,619	100

Finding 2: Six case-types dominate caseload

On applying our categorisation framework, we find that six case-types contribute to about 95% of the caseload at the Original Side of the Court (Table 2). In that, Inheritance cases and Writ petitions constitute half the caseload. We also find that the share of case filings across years for these categories do not vary significantly.

Table 2: No. of filings per case-type

Case Category	Count	% of Total
Writs	36,145	25.5
Inheritance and Succession cases	32,979	23.3
Execution cases	19,779	14.0
Tax cases	19,665	13.9
Arbitration cases	16,529	11.7
Suits	8,652	6.1
Other	7,859	5.6
Total &nbsp &nbsp	1,41,608	100.0

Finding 3: Suits generate the most sub-cases

We take a closer look at the number of sub-cases per main case in Table 4 for the top six case-types. We find that, while Inheritance cases and Writ petitions are the highest contributor to the caseload of the Court, Suits that is at the bottom of Table 2, has the highest number of sub-cases per main case. 50% of Suits have upto two sub-cases, suggesting that on a per-case basis, Suits may generate more workload for judges compared to Writ petitions and Inheritance cases.

Table 3: Sub-cases per case-type

Case category	Sub-cases per main case (in %)
	0	1-2	3-5	6-10	>10
Writs	86	13	1	0	0
Inheritance and Succession cases	77	21	2	0	0
Execution cases	86	13	1	0	0
Tax cases	84	16	0	0	0
Arbitration cases	84	15	1	0	0
Suits	31	52	14	3	0

Conclusion

Our finding that the caseload of the Bombay High Court is overestimated by about 66% likely means other courts across India are overreporting caseloads as well. When official sources like the NJDG count sub-cases as distinct new filings, it exaggerates the problem of pendency. This prompts the policymakers to focus on solutions like increasing the number of judges, and creating more courts or courtrooms. Such a sole focus on this metric not only neglects the underlying data quality issues leading to inefficient resource allocation but also ignores the unique challenges that each type of case filed in the court face.

Measures of the economy such as GDP, inflation, and employment rate, took decades to be built and continue to be challenged and improved, by researchers and policy-makers alike. Similar sound systems for the measurement of court metrics, of which caseload is only one part, need to be developed. Such systems are imperative for any meaningful discussion on court reform.

References

Chitrakshi Jain and Prashant Reddy T. Tareekh Pe Justice: Reforms for India’s District Courts. Simon and Schuster India, 2025.

Devendra Damle and Tushar Anand. Problems with the e-Courts data. NIPFP WP Series, 314, 2020.

Mugdha Mohapatra, Siddarth Raman and Susan Thomas. Get them to the court on time: bumps in the road to justice. The Leap Blog, 2025.

The authors are researchers at XKDR Forum, Bombay.

Source: https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2025/10/beyond-pendency-counting-cases-correctly.html