The Rise of Shadow Dockets in the Indian Judiciary: Speed vs. Transparency

Introduction: A Silent Shift in Judicial Practice

The Indian judiciary has long been revered as the guardian of constitutional values, a forum where justice is dispensed not only with authority but also with fairness and openness. But over the past years a subtle change has been taking place in the symbol and substance of how urgent and sensitive issues are being dealt with most of the time free of the thunder of open courtrooms and judgments with meticulous detail. Known in comparative legal circles as “shadow dockets,” this trend involves the passing of judicial orders - frequently interim or urgent in nature without full hearings, transparent reasoning or even consistent disclosure. While this practice has gained attention in the United States, similar mechanisms are emerging within India’s highest court, raising essential questions about transparency, accountability and public trust.

Understanding this Concept in the Indian Context

Unlike in the U.S. Supreme Court, where “shadow docket” refers to unsigned, unexplained rulings issued outside the court’s regular procedures, India’s equivalent is more subtle but no less significant. These are cases where urgent orders often of great constitutional or public importance are passed without full public hearings and sometimes with sealed cover evidence or brief. Though not officially acknowledged as a separate procedural category, these rulings reflect a growing preference for judicial efficiency over deliberative justice.

Why are shadow dockets emerging?

There are various reasons that played a role in the increase in this trend in Indian judiciary:

Litigation Backlog: There are more than 80,000 cases waiting to be heard at the Supreme Court alone indicating huge demand in speed. There is a push on judges to dispose cases within a short time and especially when the case involves an election, personal freedom or national security.

Urgency: There are issues that have to be addressed as soon as possible. Whether it is internet shutdown or the bail pleas under strict laws, the courts are expected to perform in a time-efficient manner. And urgency cannot afford to do away with the idea of procedural fairness.

The Cost of Speed: Undermining Transparency

The problem with such decision making is not merely procedural it affects the very soul of constitutional justice. The power of the judges in a democratic system is not only posited on the basis of legal authority, but also populace faith. When important decisions are passed with minimal reasoning or secrecy, several consequences follow:

Accountability Erosion: There is no basis to follow the judicial reasoning considering that the opinions thereof are not written. This restricts judicial appeal, critical examination and public examination.

Inequality of Access: Only litigants have access to urgent hearings. Use of no standardized guidelines as to what constitutes as an urgent issue, leaves space to feel that there is a bias or inherent favours involved.

Stunted Legal Development: The great principles of the law are developed in full judgments. Shadow dockets, on the other hand, contribute very little in terms of doctrinal contribution to constitutional jurisprudence.

Finding the Balance: Transparency and Not Being Crippled

This is not to argue that courts should not act swiftly when needed. Speed is vital when liberty is at stake. However, urgency should not also be used as an excuse to secrecy. The point of balance is to come up with institutional safeguards to maintain transparency without shuttering efficiency:

·       Mandatory Reasoning on Interim Orders: The courts must briefly have the reasoning on their decision even in an urgent case.

·       Public Disclosure of Bench Composition: It makes the judges more accountable when you know who is listening to a case.

·       Time-Limits of Final Hearings: the temporary orders should not be permitted to become final judgments.

·       Sealed Cover Practice Reform: There are just rare occasions when classified documents are required but they are not supposed to be the rules of the game. Alternatives such as appointment of independent amicus curiae can also uphold secrecy and fairness.

Conclusion: Justice Must Be Seen to Be Done

India’s judiciary stands at a crossroads. The pressure of pendency, the demand for urgency and the complexity of modern governance all call for a more responsive judicial system. But responsiveness should not come at the cost of legitimacy. Shadow docket practices, if left unchecked, may tilt the balance away from deliberative justice and towards arbitrary authority. To protect the credibility of courts and the rights of citizens India must reaffirm that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.

This article is authored by Shreyansh Soni, who was among the Top 40 performers in the Civil Procedural Law Quiz Competition organized by Lets Learn Law. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.