In South Asia, the courts are often the last and only place to turn to for justice. But what happens when the institutions entrusted with upholding rights become complicit in violating them, not through overt suppression, but through silence, backlog, and delay? Across the region, structural failures in judicial systems have created a paradox where the promise of justice is routinely broken by its processes, leaving fundamental rights hollow and enforceability elusive.

This is more evident than in Bangladesh, where the judiciary formally gained independence from the executive in 2007 following the landmark decision in Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Masdar Hossain, 52 DLR (AD) 82. In that case, a group of lower court judges challenged the constitutional validity of executive control over the subordinate judiciary, particularly regarding appointments, postings, promotions, and disciplinary procedures. The petition argued that such control violated the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. The Appellate Division ruled in favour of the petitioners, directing the establishment of a separate Judicial Service Commission and Administrative Tribunal.

This constitutional victory was supposed to usher in an era of impartial and efficient adjudication. Yet, decades later, litigants still face a judiciary crippled by staggering case backlogs, inadequate funding, and politicised appointments. According to the Supreme Court of Bangladesh’s latest report, over 3.7 million cases remain pending across all courts, a number that continues to rise each year.

India presents a similarly grim picture. With over 50 million pending cases across its judicial system, a litigant in a civil matter can expect to wait a decade or more for resolution. A 2022 report by DAKSH, a Bangalore-based think tank, revealed that 71% of under-trial prisoners had been awaiting trial for more than a year, many for minor or bailable offences. These delays disproportionately impact marginalised communities—Dalits, Muslims, and Adivasis—who often lack the resources or political access to expedite proceedings.

Nepal faces comparable structural bottlenecks. Judicial independence is constitutionally guaranteed but routinely undermined by executive interference, budgetary constraints, and inadequate infrastructure. In Nepal, the National Judicial Academy — responsible for judicial training, research, and capacity-building for judges and court staff — has noted that political patronage continues to influence judicial promotions and transfers, eroding public trust. Even constitutionally guaranteed rights become abstract principles without tangible enforcement in such contexts.

Judicial delay is not merely a flaw but the quiet undoing of justice. Justice becomes a broken promise when rights exist only on paper and remedies are lost in time. It is time for South Asia to reclaim not just the language of rights but also the power to enforce them. Beyond the backlog problem lies the deeper issue of systemic inequality within the legal process. Legal aid schemes in South Asia are notoriously underfunded. In Bangladesh, the National Legal Aid Services Organisation (NLASO) lacks the resources to provide adequate legal support to most indigent clients. Women, particularly victims of domestic violence or sexual harassment, face additional layers of delay and institutional indifference: a 2023 study by the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust found that fewer than 2% of reported sexual harassment cases in the workplace resulted in prosecution due to procedural delay, poor investigation, and fear of reprisal.

So what can be done? Institutional reform must begin with judicial appointments and training. Transparency in appointments, especially to the higher judiciary, prevents political capture and ensures merit-based selection. Investment in court infrastructure, digitising case records, and expanding alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can help reduce the backlog. But reform must also be rights-driven. Courts must prioritise cases involving fundamental rights, detention, and vulnerable groups. Regional collaboration through forums such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) could also help establish standards and share best practices in judicial reform.

The experience of South Asia is a stark reminder that constitutional guarantees mean little without the institutional capacity to uphold them. As legal scholars and practitioners, we must move beyond abstract legal principles and confront the procedural realities that shape people’s access to justice. When the judicial process becomes a site of rights violations—when delay denies liberty and inaction protects impunity—justice is no longer merely postponed; it is quietly undone. Rights that exist only on paper and remedies lost in time reduce justice to a broken promise. It is time for South Asia to reclaim the language of rights and the power to enforce them. Without timely adjudication, justice is not delayed—it is denied.