Pendency of Cases at Howrah Judiciary as of 14th Feb 2026

Based on internal data and research of cases at the Howrah Judiciary as of February 14, 2026, here is a comprehensive analysis and breakdown of the pendency situation.

Executive Summary

As of February 14, 2026, the Howrah Judiciary is grappling with a significant backlog of 1,21,971 pending cases. The caseload is heavily skewed towards criminal matters, which constitute over 68% of the total pendency. A critical concern is the age of pending cases, with nearly half (49%) of all cases being older than 5 years. The primary bottleneck appears to be the slow disposal of contested cases, compounded by frequent delays caused by the non-availability of counsel.

1. Overall Pendency Snapshot

Total Pending Cases: 1,21,971
Civil Cases: 38,528 (31.6%)
Criminal Cases: 83,443 (68.4%)

Analysis: The criminal justice system in Howrah is under nearly twice the pressure of the civil system.

2. Age-Wise Pendency Analysis

The age of pending cases reveals a severe backlog of older cases.

Case Age	Civil	Criminal	Total	Percentage
Less than 1 year	8,762	11,988	20,750	17%
1 to 3 Years	9,731	14,774	24,505	20%
3 to 5 Years	5,801	11,073	16,874	14%
5 to 10 Years	7,867	23,381	31,248	26%
Above 10 Years	6,367	22,227	28,594	23%
Total	38,528	83,443	1,21,971	100%

Key Findings:

Aging Crisis: A combined total of 59,842 cases (49%) have been pending for over 5 years. This is a critical indicator of judicial delay.
Criminal Backlog: The “Above 10 Years” category is particularly alarming, with 22,227 criminal cases stuck for over a decade. This raises serious concerns about access to justice and the principle of a speedy trial.

3. Institution vs. Disposal Rate (Last Month)

This measures the current efficiency of the courts.

Instituted (Last Month): 4,730
Disposed (Last Month): 4,464
Net Addition to Pendency: +266 cases

Analysis: The disposal rate (4,464) is slightly lower than the institution rate (4,730). The courts are currently adding to the backlog rather than reducing it.

4. Disposal Quality: Contested vs. Uncontested

Contested Disposals: 638 (14% of total disposals)
Uncontested Disposals: 3,826 (86% of total disposals)

Analysis: Only 14% of cases disposed of were actually contested in court. The vast majority were resolved because parties did not appear or settled without a full trial under utter frustration, judges granted frequent adjournment without cost, or non-sitting of the bench, request granted by the District Judge for non-functioning of the court. In 2025, the Howrah court did not functioned at least 20 days. This suggests that the courts’ time is largely occupied by administrative or unopposed matters, leaving little room to tackle the heavy backlog of contested cases requiring full hearings.

5. Case Scheduling Status

Cases Listed Today: 1,342 (1% of total)
Undated Cases: 2,786 (2% of total)
Excessive Dated Cases: 44,250 (36% of total)

Key Finding: Over a third of all pending cases (36%) have excessive dates, meaning the next hearing is scheduled far in the future. This is a primary driver of delay and indicates severe court congestion or scheduling inefficiencies.

6. Demographic Data of Litigants

Cases Filed by Women: 16,999 (14% of total). Interestingly, this is split almost evenly between Civil (8,573) and Criminal (8,426).
Cases Filed by Senior Citizens: 6,466 (5% of total). These are predominantly Civil matters (5,324), likely involving property or family disputes.

7. Detailed Case Type Breakdown (Civil)

The Civil pendency of 38,528 is composed of:

Civil Suits: 24,668 (The largest chunk of civil litigation).
Misc. Civil Cases: 3,179
Marriage Petitions: 3,301
Execution Petitions: 2,002 (Pending enforcement of decrees).
MACP (Motor Accident Claims): 1,654
Others: Appeals, Revisions, and Land Reference cases make up the remainder.

8. Primary Reasons for Delay

The data identifies the top causes for cases not moving forward, apart from judges being absent from the court without notice. Judges are not sitting after 2.00 PM:

Counsel Not Available: 48,226 instances (The single biggest cause of delay). This points to frequent adjournments sought by lawyers.
Accused Absconding: 7,643 (Arrest/warrants are a major hurdle in criminal trials).
Witness Issues: 5,538 (Witnesses not appearing or being examined).
Parties Not Interested: 3,888
Awaiting Documents: 3,245

Conclusion & Recommendations

The Howrah Judiciary is facing a critical case overload and indiscipline, lack of inspection by the High Court, and frequent non-functioning of the Court, characterized by an aging docket (49% > 5 years old) and a slow disposal rate that fails to keep up with new filings.

Key Challenges:

High Volume of Aged Criminal Cases: 45,608 criminal cases are over 5 years old.
Adjournment Culture: The primary delay reason is “Counsel not available” (48,226), indicating a need for stricter adherence to adjournment norms.
Scheduling Inefficiency: 36% of cases are excessively dated.
Low Contested Disposal: Only 14% of disposed cases involve actual contest, suggesting the courts are firefighting rather than deep-diving into trials.
Transfer of cases at the evidence stage by CJM without a cogent reason.

Strategic Recommendations:

Special Drives for Old Cases: Initiate special Lok Adalats or continuous trial weeks specifically for cases older than 5 and 10 years, particularly in criminal courts.
Strict Adjournment Policy: Implement stricter cost imposition for adjournments sought due to counsel’s non-availability to address the primary cause of delay.
Case Flow Management: Prioritize the reduction of “Excessively Dated” cases (44,250) by reviewing and shortening hearing schedules.
Focus on Contested Matters: Dedicate specific court time to contested cases to increase the quality of justice delivery, rather than just clearing uncontested matters.
Frequent Inspection by the High Court: The Judge in charge must take responsibility to inspect the functioning of the Court, absence of Judges without intimation to the Bar.