Democracy requires that every branch of the government work independently, efficiently, effectively, and cooperatively to make sure people receive service and justice. This requires that the executive branch is efficient and effective in providing timely service to the people; the legislature updates the laws to meet the changing conditions and protect the people; and the judiciary takes care of cases in a timely manner and effectively to restore the rights of the people and prevent the unfair treatment of the disabled, unfortunate, and weak. Whether any of these branches is meeting these goals is impossible to judge, as no data are available on the performance of the legislature and executive branches. However, a lot of information is available on the judiciary in India and other countries. The performance of the judiciary is critical to protect the human and property rights of the people. However, it seems that the judiciary has serious problems. Arvind Yadav (2018) reported that “There are approximately 30 million pending cases, 60,260 in SC and 38.68 Lakh cases in different high courts of India.” India and other previous colonies of the British Empire have inherited the current judicial system, which treated the locals as inferior and underclass servants. The antiquated British system even now treats the locals as inferior because they are mostly illiterate and ignorant As the Hindustan Times (November 13, 2019) has reported, “Today, it can take nearly 20 years if a case goes all the way from the subordinate court to the high court and then the Supreme Court. Twenty years means multiple generations of litigants, enormous cost, and frustration – a case taking this long to be resolved is symptomatic of an inefficient and ineffective judicial system; any ‘justice’ delivered after a span of 20 years would be bereft of its true meaning. Justice is one of civilisation’s foundational goals.” Supriya Dash (March 2020) recently wrote that, “The Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, said that over 1000 cases are pending in the court for 50 years and more than 2 lakh cases for 25 years. It was also mentioned that there is 90 lakh pending civil cases, amongst which 20 lakh are such where even summon has not been served yet.” DAWN (April 24, 2018) reported the views of the former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, stating that 1.8 million cases had been pending with the judiciary for decades. He emphasized a specific example of an aggrieved person who has been waiting for a just verdict for the past three decades, and no one is concerned about its disposal. These are examples of justice delayed, justice denied. Thus, to seek justice under these conditions, it cost the litigant money in lawyer fees, filing fees, and other miscellaneous expenses. Due to the hierarchy of courts, procedural requirements, and numerous dates, cases take years to resolve. Some may say that even if cases take 20 to 30 years to resolve, it is still justice. But can we call this justice? Further, years of litigation take a mental and financial toll on the victim. Also, fearing that continuing the legal battle will exhaust their savings and still may not even get justice, even if they may win, the judgment may not be enforced, or they may be dead by then, so they compromise or give up. Taking so long creates a problem for many judges who are not only dealing with new cases but also cases from decades ago. Further, the prolonged legal battle encourages illegal action by parties due to their frustration and lack of trust in the judicial system, which may create anarchy in the country. This judicial performance slows economic growth, leads to more litigation, and increases frustration in society. The delays and backlog are well documented and do not need repetition. However, its cost to society can only be estimated but not empirically proven. Still, it is has led to billions in economic losses, wasted time, and caused social unrest. Therefore, every country must take appropriate action to eliminate or reduce delays. According to definitions.net, “‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is a legal maxim meaning that if legal redress is available for a party that has suffered some injury, but is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no redress at all. This principle is the basis for the right to a speedy trial and similar rights, which are meant to expedite the legal system because it is unfair for the injured party to have to sustain the injury with little hope for resolution. The phrase has become a rallying cry for legal reformers who view courts or governments as acting too slowly in resolving legal issues either because the existing system is too complex or overburdened, or because the issue or party in question lacks political favor.” Unfortunately, the reality of the judiciary in many countries is such that justice is denied. The process takes a form where, even if judges decide in favor of one party, the losing party either continually appeals the verdict, and, if not appealed, the decision is never enforced, as there is no enforcement authority. Therefore, justice is a failure; it is delayed and denied. What good is a judicial system that does not serve any purpose? Why should anyone continue to rely on such a system? In addition, it is a burden on society because people are relying on a system that wastes time and money and results in no justice. The system wastes a tremendous amount of national resources and people’s time, both of which can easily be used to help in the development of the country. Therefore, Justiceinpakistan.com suggests, “we should slowly and carefully replace the entire judicial system with a fair and inexpensive judiciary that is responsible to the people.” India and other previous colonies of the British Empire have inherited the current judicial system, which treated the locals as inferior and underclass servants. The antiquated British system even now treats the locals as inferior because they are mostly illiterate and ignorant. As a result, they do not know the system, which allows others to exploit, abuse, and violate these litigants. The bogus-case filers and their representatives’ drag on cases through continual adjournment or other unethical means resulting in delaying the cases for many years until either litigant gives up or dies, resulting in the filer winning a bogus case.( to be continued…) The writer is Ph.D. (USA), Professor Emeritus (USA)