Civil Disputes, Criminal Justice Resolutions

/
Articles and Blogposts /
Civil Disputes, Criminal Justice Resolutions

SUMMARY – In this piece, Lakshmi Menon examines how delays, bottlenecks, and weak enforcement in civil courts drive lawyers and litigants to misuse criminal law for quicker settlements. She highlights the unpopularity of civil courts, the systemic nature of the problem and argues that real change lies not in blaming individuals but in pursuing institutional reforms to strengthen our civil courts.

I. Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court criticised a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court for allowing the criminal prosecution of a civil dispute, on the ground that civil proceedings could not offer timely remedies.

While erroneous in law, the High Court’s order reflects a larger systemic problem of the initiation of criminal prosecutions to resolve civil disputes. Figures from the National Judicial Data Grid (as on 12th August 2025) reveal that 75% of all pending cases in district courts are criminal cases, while pending civil cases constitute merely 25%. This does not necessarily mean a higher-than-average crime rate. These are unusual statistics – several jurisdictions around the world report that civil cases contribute the most to their pendency.

II. Background

Civil cases like contractual disputes, commercial transactions, property and family disputes commonly find their way into the criminal justice system in India through the guise of criminal offences like cheating, extortion, breach of trust and intimidation. Various commentators, such as NHRC officials and past Supreme Court judges, find this to be a routine state of affairs. The phenomenon takes place on the back of an already overworked, criminal justice system (which is also inaccessible to victims through hostile and complex processes, right from the initiation of complaints).

What has driven civil litigants to this system, however, is not the hope of a timely and fair adjudicatory process in criminal law, but rather, its coercive impact. Instituting a criminal complaint can trigger arrests, and surveillance for investigations. The prospect of prolonged undertrial detention, especially for non-bailable offences such as extortion can pressurise an opposing party in these disputes to agree to quicker, out-of-court settlement of a dispute. In essence, the pre-trial processes of criminal law double up as an extra-legal means for civil case resolution.

Moreover, research suggests that the police acts as a one-stop forum for the resolution of multiple kinds of disputes and problems – whether criminal or otherwise, owing to a lack of clear institutional mandate for the police.

The Supreme Court has framed such cases as an individual abuse of process, directing its criticism at litigants, criminal justice officials and judges. Attempts at systemic reform have been aimed at constraining the initiation of criminal complaints, by offering limited guidance to criminal justice actors. For instance, it has directed Judicial Magistrates to ensure that reasons are provided in an order for police investigations into complaints.

The Court has expressed criticism over the prosecutions of civil disputes on several occasions. In April, the then Chief Justice characterised this state of affairs as a breakdown of the rule of law. However, the statistics show an imbalance between civil and criminal cases persists.

While the Court’s emphatic criticism and its characterisation of the problem is correct, it does not reckon with the question – why are people steering away from the civil courts to resolve disputes?

III. The unpopularity of civil courts

Despite constituting merely one-fourth of all pending cases in the country, civil courts in India are notorious for delays. Case institutions are higher than case disposal rates. Civil cases take up to 3 years on average for disposal, and it is not uncommon for several cases to continue upwards ten years.

While the protracted nature of these proceedings is commonly known, the reasons behind the same are less understood. Civil delays are the result of specific stages in proceedings that have turned into bottlenecks. A study on district courts in Bengaluru Rural in 2019 revealed that 37% original civil suits were stuck at issuing notice to the respondents – which meant that courts were unable to notify, and ensure the appearance of opposing parties in cases. Once cases go past these procedural stages, they get stuck again in stages such as witness depositions. Finally, litigants are required to file execution petitions to enforce the final judgment of a civil court – in courts in Bengaluru Rural, executions alone took around 4 years for disposal.

Data from the Bengaluru study reveals that proceedings such as execution petitions comprised 57% of pending civil cases. National aggregate figures on the NJDG also support this finding, where execution petitions constitute the second highest pending case type. Such prolonged execution proceedings add to the time civil litigants need to wait for an outcome.

Given the bleak context, litigants turn to criminal justice, partly to sidestep bottlenecks, delays and hassles of protracted court processes. Litigants might hope that in the fear of criminal law, respondents can be pressured to settle matters before it even reaches the courts. It is well known that people seek non-formal forums (legal or otherwise) where formal justice systems fail to meet their needs. By failing to meet the requirements of litigants, the civil justice system contributes to the overuse of criminal justice.

The large number of criminal cases is also a result of over-criminalisation. Lawmakers overly rely on criminal justice to address a variety of social issues, by over-criminalising a range of actions, irrespective of criminal intent and harm.

IV. Conclusion

Given the systemic nature of the problem, criticising individual litigants and judges does little to change the status quo. Instead, the focus must lie on improving India’s civil courts through reforms to its institutional and legal frameworks.

Specific reforms, which have taken place in India itself, can throw some light. For instance, the creation of specialised commercial courts for commercial disputes, with streamlined procedures, has been a first step in opening up more effective forums for dispute resolution. Further reforms like the implementation of case management and enforceable timelines for different stages of civil trials, the use of digital options like email for service of notices and focussing on means to fast-track execution proceedings have the potential to significantly reduce delays and restore public confidence in the civil justice system, thereby reducing the incentive to misuse criminal law for civil disputes.