Talk:Pendency of court cases in India

Why I dispute the neutrality of this article
I argue that this article on the pendency of court cases in India appears to have a biased viewpoint. Here are a few reasons supporting this argument:

1. Lack of counterbalancing perspectives: The article lacks a balanced presentation by not discussing any significant effort being made to improve the situation.

2. Absence of alternative viewpoints: The article does not provide perspectives from a diverse group of sources who may have different opinions or insights on the causes and solutions to the pendency of court cases. This omission limits the reader's understanding of the complexities surrounding the issue.

3. Selective use of statistics: The article extensively cites statistics to emphasize the magnitude of pending cases and the shortcomings in the judiciary system. However, the absence of comparative data or context from other countries' judicial systems makes it difficult to assess whether India's situation is significantly worse or if it is a common challenge faced by many nations.

4. Lack of sources for certain claims: Some statements in the article, such as the alleged misuse of legal procedures or corruption within the system, are made without high quality specific sources or citations. This raises concerns about the accuracy and objectivity of the information presented.

5. Language tone: The overall tone of the article seems to lean towards portraying a negative image of the Indian judiciary system. The use of phrases like "biggest challenge" or "aiding and abetting abuse" without sufficient context or supporting evidence can contribute to a biased representation. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see the comments in bold
 * 1. Lack of counterbalancing perspectives: The article lacks a balanced presentation by not discussing any significant effort being made to improve the situation.
 * Examples have been provided in the article about recommendations from law commission and judges to improve the situation. This balances the counter perspective. The pendency has only got worse over the years so there is no strict example that has yielded results.
 * 2. Absence of alternative viewpoints: The article does not provide perspectives from a diverse group of sources who may have different opinions or insights on the causes and solutions to the pendency of court cases. This omission limits the reader's understanding of the complexities surrounding the issue.
 * The references are full of diverse group of sources, including news publishers, legal researchers and their reports, judges and law commission reports. So this gives alternative viewpoints of all. If there is any specific viewpoint missing, please quote it here or add it in the article.
 * 3. Selective use of statistics: The article extensively cites statistics to emphasize the magnitude of pending cases and the shortcomings in the judiciary system. However, the absence of comparative data or context from other countries' judicial systems makes it difficult to assess whether India's situation is significantly worse or if it is a common challenge faced by many nations.
 * The use of statistics is largely limited to states in India. Wherever relevant data is available for other countries, it has been compared to other countries like USA and UK. Any more data from other countries can be added. This doesn't mean the data has been selectively used.
 * 4. Lack of sources for certain claims: Some statements in the article, such as the alleged misuse of legal procedures or corruption within the system, are made without high quality specific sources or citations. This raises concerns about the accuracy and objectivity of the information presented.
 * Please read the citation. There are news reports of bribery, and judges themselves suggesting changes in procedures. The sources are from local news reports. What is "high quality" sources?
 * 5. Language tone: The overall tone of the article seems to lean towards portraying a negative image of the Indian judiciary system. The use of phrases like "biggest challenge" or "aiding and abetting abuse" without sufficient context or supporting evidence can contribute to a biased representation.
 * This is readers perspective. "Biggest challenge" are words used by the Prime Minister as is. Evidences are in the citations, please read all the citations for any doubt. No fact has been presented without any source. WeeKeeEditor (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support calls for better sources. I am less sympathetic about the other article criticism. There are not multiple perspectives to this issue: pendency of cases is entirely bad and all commentators call it a problem which has been urgent for decades. If there is any good news, then it is when a politician promises to make things better, but the consensus seems to be that the government should appoint a lot more judges and the evidence is not demonstrating that this is happening as a national trend.
 * I agree with WeeKeeEditor's responses. Being skeptical and wanting sources is good, but the sources we have from multiple commentators over decades confirm that this is a major problem in India which does not exist in countries with similar power and economies.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  14:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)