A courtroom may look calm from the visitors’ gallery, but behind the proceedings is a demanding routine involving lengthy files, repeated hearings, witness statements and careful examination of evidence. The work does not end when a judge leaves the courtroom either. There are orders to prepare, records to review and cases to be readied for the next day.Retired Delhi High Court judge Justice Poonam A Bamba has offered a glimpse into this lesser-seen side of the justice system in a conversation with The Better India. Drawing on more than two decades in the judiciary, she explains why judging involves far more than listening to arguments and delivering decisions. One detail from her experience stands out: magistrates in her district could handle between 125 and 150 cases in a day. Some trials, meanwhile, involved thousands of documents and hours of continuous evidence recording. Her account also highlights the people who keep courts functioning, the emotional pressure faced by judges and the steps citizens can take when they need help navigating the legal system.
A judge’s day can involve far more than hearing cases
The number of matters listed before a court can make a judge’s daily schedule demanding. According to Bamba, magistrates in her district handled around 125 to 150 cases each day. The district also had a pendency of approximately 36,000 cases, which she linked largely to cheque-bouncing disputes. However, she points out that the workload is not the same across every court. An additional sessions judge may hear fewer matters, but a serious criminal trial can require hours of recording witness evidence. In some cases handled by her court, including matters investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation and terror-funding cases, evidence recording continued from 10 am to 4 pm.The volume of paperwork can be equally demanding. Bamba recalled cases involving 10,000 to 20,000 documents. Examining such material carefully takes time, even if the day’s work does not result in a case being disposed of. This is an important distinction when people look at the number of cases decided by a court. A day spent recording evidence or examining a large collection of documents may be essential to a trial, even if no final decision is delivered that day.
Stenographers and police officers are part of the courtroom’s unseen workforce
A court does not function through a judge’s work alone. Stenographers, court attendants, police personnel and other staff members contribute to keeping proceedings on track. Bamba drew attention to the demanding schedules of stenographers, who often have to remain at their desks for long periods to record and type proceedings. Even taking a short break can require arrangements so that another colleague can take over.She also spoke about police officers who may work shifts lasting as long as 36 hours and then be required to appear as witnesses. Their contribution, she believes, deserves greater recognition. Her observations underline that delays and workload pressures cannot be understood by looking only at the judge’s schedule. Court administration depends on several people, and shortages of staff or support can affect how smoothly proceedings move.
Judges are human too, and the pressure is not always visible
Bamba’s conversation also challenges the idea that judges are unaffected by what happens inside a courtroom. She recalled unsettling incidents from her judicial career, including finding a red thread smeared with sindoor beneath her courtroom table. On another occasion, a colleague reportedly found cut hair inside a case file. Such incidents, she explained, are part of the pressures that may never appear in a written judgment. Judges are expected to remain composed while hearing emotionally charged disputes and arguments, but they experience stress like anyone else.Her earlier interview with Bar and Bench also addressed the emotional demands of judicial work, the pressure of public scrutiny and the importance of maintaining a healthy work-life balance. She said that family disputes, in particular, can be difficult because children are often deeply affected by conflict between their parents. Bamba’s point is not that judges should be beyond scrutiny. Rather, she urges people to understand the human and professional demands of the role before drawing conclusions from a brief courtroom clip or an isolated remark. A short video may not show what happened before or after the moment. Reading the full context and relevant court order can help people understand the proceedings more fairly.
What can citizens do if they face a problem in court?
The conversation also offers practical reminders for people who are unfamiliar with court procedures. If someone does not understand what is happening in their case, they should ask their lawyer to explain the next step, the reason for an adjournment and the likely timeline. Seeking clarification can help litigants understand what to expect rather than remaining confused about the process. If a person believes a judge has acted improperly, a complaint can be raised through the appropriate supervisory authority. Allegations involving corruption may need to be reported through the relevant High Court vigilance mechanism. The correct channel depends on the nature of the complaint, and people should avoid treating every unfavourable order or disagreement as evidence of misconduct.Legal assistance is also available to people who cannot afford a lawyer. Under India’s legal services framework, eligible individuals can seek free legal aid through the National Legal Services Authority and the relevant state or district legal services institutions. The carousel lists the NALSA helpline as 15100. Bamba’s account offers a reminder that the justice system is made up of people working under considerable pressure, from judges and lawyers to stenographers and police officers. Understanding how courts function, asking questions about one’s own case and knowing where to seek legal assistance can make the process less intimidating. It also encourages a more informed view of what happens inside a courtroom, beyond the few moments that become visible to the public.
