Abstract

The concept of Black Coat Syndrome in India highlights the growing frustration and mistrust that ordinary people experience when interacting with the judicial system. This term, coined by President Droupadi Murmu on September1,2025, draws a parallel with “white coat hypertension,” where patients feel anxious in medical settings. In this context, the “black coat” represents judges and lawyers, whose presence often evokes feelings of stress, uncertainty, and frustration due to chronic delays and inefficiencies in the justice delivery process. Limited infrastructure, procedural complexities, rising litigation costs, and the culture of repeated adjournments have all contributed to this massive backlog. While initiatives like fast-track courts and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms have been introduced, the pace of reform has been slow.

As a result, marginalized communities are disproportionately affected, further eroding trust in the system. Black Coat Syndrome is more than just a phrase it’s a reflection of the public’s anxiety, disillusionment, and loss of confidence in the legal system. It underscores the urgent need for structural reforms to make justice more timely, affordable, and accessible to all.

The courts are meant to be spaces where citizens seek justice, protection, and relief. This sense of unease, often described as court anxiety, is not merely an emotional reaction but a reflection of deep- rooted challenges within the justice delivery system. Long delays, complex legal procedures, and repeated adjournments create a sense of hopelessness among litigants.

Introduction

Courtrooms are designed to uphold justice, but for many individuals, they also trigger deep psychological distress. The structured rituals, strict protocols, and high stakes of legal proceedings create an environment that can feel intimidating and overwhelming. Fear of courts is not only about legal complexities it is also shaped by powerful psychological factors that influence how litigants, witnesses, jurors, and even attorneys experience the justice system.

Stress, anxiety, and fear of authority are some of the most common responses when people step into a courtroom. The unfamiliar setting, coupled with the pressure of being evaluated or judged, often produces physical symptoms such as increased heart rate, trembling, or difficulty focusing. For individuals with prior trauma or ongoing mental health challenges, the adversarial nature of legal proceedings can be especially triggering, intensifying feelings of helplessness and fear. At the sametime, emotions like anger, frustration, or sadness can cloud judgment and affect the way people communicate or interpret evidence. These psychological responses do not occur in isolation. They shape courtroom behavior, influence testimony, and even affect legal outcomes. Understanding the psychological drivers of courtroom fearis therefore essential not only for improving litigants’ and witnesses’ experiences but also for ensuring that justice is delivered in a fair, humane, and effective manner.

Psychological Factors Behind Courtroom Fear

Courtroom fear goes beyond legal complexity it is rooted in psychological responses that affect how litigants, witnesses, jurors, and even legal professionals experience the justice system.

1. Stress and Unfamiliarity

• For most people, entering a courtroom is a rare and intimidating event. The formal setting, legal jargon, and seriousness of the proceedings activate the body’s stress response manifesting as rapid heartbeat, sweating, nervousness, or difficulty concentrating.
• This stress is heightened by the stakes of the outcome, as litigants fear losing property, liberty, or reputation.

2. Anxiety and Evaluation Apprehension

• Courtrooms naturally involve being watched, judged, and questioned, which leads to evaluation apprehension anxiety caused by the fear of being evaluated negatively.
• Witnesses and litigants often worry about saying the “wrong thing,” being misunderstood, or failing to appear credible, which makes them more prone to mistakes and memory lapses.

3. Fear of Authority and Power Imbalance

• The courtroom embodies authority through judges, lawyers, and strict protocols. Many participants feel powerless in this hierarchy, which can intensify their fear.
• Defendants and vulnerable witnesses often fear being dominated or exploited by skilled lawyers or influential opposing parties.

4. Impact of Prior Trauma and Mental Health

• Individuals with past trauma such as survivors of violence, harassment, or abuse often find courtroom questioning retraumatizing.
• Mental health conditions like anxiety disorders or PTSD amplify stress reactions, leading to emotional breakdowns or avoidance behaviors in court.

5. Strong Emotions: Anger, Frustration, and Sadness

• Court cases often involve conflict, injustice, or personal loss. This can generate anger and frustration towards the opposing party or the system itself.
• Emotional intensity sometimes affects rational communication, making testimony less reliable. Jurors, too, may unconsciously let emotions like sadness or disgust shape their decisions.

6. Survival and Defensive Instincts

• Fear activates the body’s survival mechanism, pushing individuals into fight, flight, or freeze responses.
• This can cause avoidance (skipping hearings), emotional outbursts, or difficulty presenting facts clearly all of which directly affect trial outcomes.

Fear’s Effect on Juror Decision-Making

Jurors are expected to act as impartial evaluators of fact, but emotions particularly fear often play a decisive role in shaping their judgments. Fear alters how jurors process information, influences their interpretation of evidence, and shifts their sentencing decisions, sometimes leading to harsher or biased outcomes.

Impact on Evidence Evaluation

• When jurors experience fear or anxiety, their attention narrows to issues of safety and threat. This makes them more receptive to prosecution arguments or emotionally charged victim impact statements.
• Such fear driven focus can create a defensive mindset, where jurors prioritize community protection over objective evidence, often resulting in decisions tilted toward conviction.

Decision Patterns and Sentencing

• Fear can push jurors to rush deliberations, as the stressful environment drives them to reduce discomfort quickly. This can lead to surface-level reasoning instead of careful evidence analysis.
• Research indicates that fear fosters a more negative view of human nature, increasing the likelihood of guilty verdicts and harsher sentences especially in cases involving violent crimes.
• In capital punishment trials, heightened emotions such as fear and anger can increase the probability of imposing the death penalty, demonstrating how emotion may overshadow rational legal standards.

Psychological Mechanisms at Play

• Jurors with prior trauma or preexisting mental health challenges may experience amplified fear responses, which further compromise impartial decision-making.
• Emotional displays in court, such as an attorney’s anger or an emotional closing argument, can “transfer” similar emotions to jurors. This emotional contagion not only raises the odds of a guilty verdict but can also make jurors more confident in their emotionally driven decision.

Judicial Delay Case Studies Worldwide

Judicial delay is not confined to any one country it is a global phenomenon that undermines timely justice, erodes public trust, and perpetuates inequality. Comparative studies across jurisdictions reveal that while causes vary depending on political, social, and institutional contexts, the consequences are strikingly similar.

Pakistan: Political Interference and Institutional Weaknesses

A statistical study conducted in Peshawar and Charsadda highlights systemic challenges such as political interference, frequent judge transfers, corruption, and inconsistent lawyer qualifications. Repeated appeals further prolong the litigation process, creating cycles of delay.

India: Chronic Backlog and Procedural Complexity

In India, judicial backlog remains one of the most pressing concerns. Data indicates that nearly 82% of cases in some district courts take over five years to reach disposal. The reasons include understaffing, procedural complexities, and socio-economic inequalities that slow down case progression.

Latin America and Europe: Comparative Inefficiencies

Across Latin America, countries such as Brazil and Argentina struggle with judicial delay rooted in corruption, lack of transparency, and institutional inefficiency. By contrast, European courts while generally less affected by corruption experience delays due to bureaucratic rigidity and procedural burdens.

Portugal: State Liability for Judicial Delay

Portugal provides an instructive example of legal accountability. Its courts, influenced by European human rights standards, recognize state liability for undue delays in judicial decision-making. Citizens may claim compensation for the harm caused by delayed justice, reflecting a rights-based approach to addressing systemic inefficiencies.

Global Perspectives: Common Challenges and Reform Pathways

International research confirms that judicial delay undermines access to justice, denies timely remedies, and perpetuates inequalities. While the drivers vary ranging from corruption and political interference to bureaucratic inertia the solutions often converge on a few core strategies:

• Strengthening case management systems
• Investing in judicial staffing and training
• Leveraging technology through e-courts and digital filings
• Expanding access through simplified procedures and legal aid

Solutions to Overcome Backlogs

1. Judicial Capacity Expansion

• Fill vacancies within a time-bound framework (e.g.90-day deadline for appointments).
• Increase sanctioned strength to 50 judges per 10 lakhs over the next decade.

2. Process Reforms

• Amend CPC/CrPC to limit adjournments strictly (as in the UK “three strikes” model).
• Introduce pre-trial case management hearings to narrow issues and save court time.

3. Curbing Government Litigation

• Establish “litigation cells” in ministries to screen cases before filing appeals.
• Adopt the UK-style “Government Litigation Policy” to reduce unnecessary cases.

4. Digitization & AI Integration

• Scale up e-Courts and NJDG (National Judicial Data Grid) with AI-based scheduling, cause-list automation, and predictive timelines.
• Virtual hearings for routine matters, especially bail and service disputes.

5. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

• Expand Lok Adalats, mediation centres, and arbitration for civil and commercial disputes.
• Mandatory pre-litigation mediation for specified categories (already piloted under the Mediation Act, 2023).

6. Specialized & Fast-Track Courts

• More fast-track courts for sexual offences, cheque bounce cases, and commercial disputes.
• Dedicated tribunals for tax, environment, and family law matters.

7. Legal Aid & Public Awareness

• Strengthen NALSA by increasing funds, training paralegals, and using law students as para-legal volunteers.
• Legal literacy drives in rural areas to reduce dependency on litigation.

8. Judicial Accountability & Performance Audits

• Introduce annual performance audits of courts (number of disposals, average time taken).
• Publish rankings of courts by efficiency (like India Justice Report does for states).

Conclusion

Judiciary today stands at a critical crossroads, weighed down by a staggering backlog of over five crore cases. The roots of this crisis lie in a mix of structural and procedural flaws too few judges, repeated adjournments, outdated infrastructure, and limited use of faster, alternative mechanisms of dispute resolution.

Overcoming this challenge requires more than piecemeal fixes. It calls for a coordinated reform strategy appointing judges in line with global standards, adopting technology like AI- powered e-courts, enforcing stricter adjournment rules, and making mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats central to dispute resolution.

If India can translate these reforms from paper to practice, it has the opportunity to turn the tide cutting down pendency, restoring faith in the rule of law, and ensuring that its judiciary becomes a true guardian of timely, fair, and dignified justice.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India