Justice Delayed Beyond Life: The Retirees’ Ordeal in the Supreme Court
I write here about an experience with the highest judicial system in our country — a system that ordinary citizens approach with immense faith, hope and reverence, believing it to be the final refuge for justice. Yet for many litigants, especially senior citizens, that journey can slowly become one of helplessness, uncertainty and exhaustion.
At the heart of this experience lies a reality few outside the system fully understand: the enormous and seemingly unquestionable power exercised through the Court Registry and the process of listing matters for hearing.
For the common litigant, justice does not begin with arguments before judges. It begins with the far more uncertain struggle of merely getting a matter listed and heard. Cases move through weekly Cause Lists, and litigants wait endlessly, hoping their turn will finally arrive. When it does not, there is virtually no meaningful recourse except a “mention” through counsel — itself uncertain and often ineffective.
Even educated and determined individuals gradually lose spirit against this opaque and exhausting process. One begins to wonder whether the very institution approached for justice has become inaccessible through its own procedures.
What is even more disheartening is that a listed matter offers no assurance of hearing. Numerous miscellaneous matters crowd the Board each day. Urgent mentions intervene. Priority shifts unpredictably. Senior Advocates remain present for the day, substantial fees are incurred, and yet the matter may never reach the Bench before the Court rises for the day.
For litigants, this is not merely procedural inconvenience. It is emotional and financial attrition.
I say this from lived experience.
During my tenure as General Secretary of the LIC Class I Officers’ Federation beginning in 2017, our Federation spent over ₹30 lakhs of hard-earned pensioners’ money pursuing a matter before the Supreme Court. For nearly four years, despite repeated listings and appearances, we did not receive the benefit of even one effective hearing.
I had to repeatedly return to retired members — elderly people living on pensions — seeking further contributions simply to keep the legal battle alive.
Meanwhile, time continued its cruel march. Within the long seven-year wait that followed, nearly 7,000 retired colleagues passed away, many without seeing even the possibility of closure in a case that directly affected them.
Then, finally, after years of silence, hearings began progressing during 2024–25. For the first time, there appeared genuine hope. By December 2025, nearly 80% of the matter had reportedly been heard. Pensioners across the country believed the end was finally near.
But in 2026 came another devastating setback.
Hearings abruptly stopped without explanation. Then came news of reconstitution of Benches and the impending retirement of one of the Hon’ble Judges hearing the matter. Eventually, the Bench itself was dismantled, and the matter now stands assigned to a new Bench — reportedly to be heard de novo.
For senior citizens who have already waited nearly a decade, this feels crushing.
What does this mean for pensioners now in the final phase of life? Fresh hearings? Fresh expenditure? Fresh years of waiting? What happens to the enormous costs already incurred? What about those who died waiting for justice?
These are not merely legal questions. They are profoundly human ones.
What makes the situation more painful is the sense that there exists almost no avenue through which ordinary litigants can question delays or administrative functioning. Even attempts to communicate concerns regarding prolonged pendency reportedly invite procedural objections rather than engagement with the substance of the grievance.
As citizens, we witness the grandeur of constitutional courts through judgments delivered in open court. What remains unseen is the silent suffering of litigants trapped in procedural uncertainty for years together.
This is not written in anger against the judiciary. On the contrary, it is written from continued faith in the institution. But faith cannot survive indefinitely without responsiveness.
Another perception deeply troubling to ordinary litigants is the apparent speed with which politically sensitive or high-profile matters are listed and heard. Cases involving influential personalities often appear to move with remarkable urgency, while matters affecting thousands of ordinary pensioners languish for years.
Perhaps there are reasons within the system for such prioritisation. But to the common citizen waiting endlessly for a hearing, the contrast becomes difficult to understand.
The ordinary litigant asks only this:
Should justice depend not merely on the merits of one’s cause, but also on one’s ability to endure endless delay, uncertainty and financial exhaustion?
For thousands of pensioners who spent their lives serving public institutions, the fear today is not merely losing a legal battle. It is the fear of not surviving long enough to even hear the final judgment.
That is the true tragedy of justice delayed.
And somewhere amidst the majesty of constitutional institutions, one hopes that this silent wail of ordinary citizens will still be heard.
D.Krishnan
(former General Secretary Retired Class I Federation)
