90 and waiting: 6,700 senior citizens’ cases pending in Chandigarh courts

Aggarwal, like many other litigants, has faith in the judiciary and the rule of law. The larger concern, however, goes beyond this individual dispute. It is whether justice will come in time to make a difference to those seeking it. For elderly litigants, prolonged uncertainty carries a particular cost, making timely adjudication an important consideration in the administration of justice.

The National Judicial Data Grid says 6,700 cases filed by senior citizens – including 4,736 civil and 1,964 criminal matters – are pending before the UT district courts. It accounts for 7 per cent of the total pending caseload. In all, 98,733 cases are pending before the UT courts, including 24,287 civil cases. Of these civil cases, 12,225, or approximately 50.34 per cent, have been pending for more than a year.

Age-based priority in listing must, however, be distinguished from preferential adjudication. A litigant’s age cannot determine the merits of a dispute, override the opposing party’s right to be heard or justify dispensing with procedural safeguards. The purpose of prioritisation is to recognise that delay does not affect every litigant equally, while preserving fairness to all parties.

The constitutional dimensions of the issue extend beyond scheduling. In “Anita Kushwaha versus Pushap Sudan”, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that access to justice is a facet of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It identified a speedy adjudicatory process as an essential element of meaningful access to justice, observing that a process that becomes excessively time-consuming can reduce the right to seek redress to a hollow promise. The court recognised that civil disputes, too, can have serious consequences for a person’s life and wellbeing.

The principle is particularly relevant to elderly litigants. A civil dispute may ultimately be decided in favour of one party and against another, but the time taken to reach that determination can affect the practical value of the remedy. For a person in advanced age, the years spent awaiting a decision cannot be recovered, whatever the eventual outcome.

The Supreme Court has also examined the constitutional responsibilities towards elderly persons. In “Dr Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India”, the court considered the rights and welfare of senior citizens in the context of Article 21. Article 41, a Directive Principle of State Policy, refers to public assistance in cases of old age, subject to the state’s economic capacity and development. Although the case concerned elderly persons’ welfare rather than the listing of civil suits, it provides a broader constitutional context for recognising the vulnerabilities associated with old age.

The larger question is whether access to justice remains meaningful if the time taken to secure a decision diminishes its practical value to the person seeking it. An early decision need not favour either party; its importance lies in bringing the dispute to a determination without avoidable delay.

For elderly litigants, timely adjudication is not merely a matter of convenience. It is an important part of ensuring that the right to seek justice retains its meaning.