𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐡𝐮 𝐃𝐳𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐤𝐡𝐚𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓, 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐒𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲

… 𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕 2025 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒘𝒔 𝒄𝒊𝒗𝒊𝒍 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒑𝒖𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒅𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒔 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒄𝒌𝒍𝒐𝒈 𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒛𝒆𝒏𝒔 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒃𝒐𝒕𝒉 𝒆𝒇𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒅𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒚𝒔

By Yeshi Dolma

The Thimphu Dzongkhag Court carried the heaviest burden in the country’s judicial system last
year, handling 2,407 cases- far more than any other district court- according to newly released
performance figures from the Judiciary’s Annual Report 2025. Of those cases, 2,141 were
decided, giving the court a disposal rate of 88.9 percent, reflecting both its central role in legal
disputes and the intense pressure faced by benches in high-demand areas.

Across all court levels, a total of 9,090 cases were handled in one year. Civil disputes dominated
the docket, with 5,970 civil cases compared to 1,551 criminal cases, indicating that most people
turn to the courts over contractual disagreements, family matters, property issues, and
commercial conflicts rather than serious crimes.

The overall picture is one of a system working at high capacity, clearing the majority of cases
that come before it, while grappling with uneven workloads, staffing constraints, and a small but
persistent number of long-pending matters, especially in busy urban courts.

At the apex level, the Supreme Court dealt with 219 cases during the year, deciding 179 and
leaving 40 pending, for a disposal rate of 81.7 percent. It handled 585 miscellaneous matters and
registered 163 new appeals from the High Court, along with 54 cases carried forward from the
previous year.

The High Court recorded the strongest performance among all tiers. With 408 total cases, it
decided 377 and left 31 pending, achieving a 92.4 percent disposal rate. During the year, it
affirmed 189 district court judgments and partially reversed 126, showing a significant degree of
appellate scrutiny. Its Enforcement Section also executed 156 judgments out of 186 enforcement
cases.

At the grassroots level, Dzongkhag Courts handled 6,350 cases and decided 5,618, producing an
88.5 percent disposal rate, while Dungkhag Courts, the sub-district courts, managed 2,113 cases
and resolved 1,750, for an 82.9 percent clearance rate.

Taken together, these figures suggest a judiciary largely keeping pace with incoming demand,
even as certain benches accumulate heavier backlogs than others.

Among Dzongkhag Courts, Thimphu stood clearly at the top. Paro followed with 668 cases and
Wangdue with 405. On the lower end, Gasa recorded only 26 cases for the year, Zhemgang 62,
and Trongsa 90, each maintaining high disposal rates above 84 percent.

The same pattern of disparity appeared in Dungkhag Courts. Phuentsholing Dungkhag Court
shouldered the largest volume, with 869 cases, but its disposal rate of 71.8 percent was lower
than many peers. Gelephu handled 579 cases and cleared nearly nine out of ten. Samdrupcholing,
with 116 cases, posted an exceptional 98.3 percent disposal rate.

At the lowest end, Weringla registered just 19 cases and resolved 18, while Thrimshing and
Dorokha also recorded very light caseloads with strong performance.

Collectively, the fifteen Dungkhag Courts dealt with 6,770 miscellaneous matters and formally
registered 1,740 new cases. With an opening balance of 373, their total caseload reached 2,111,
of which 1,750 were decided. Only 88 of those decisions were appealed to Dzongkhag Courts,
producing a system-wide appeal rate of 5.02 percent. Gelephu, despite its heavy volume, kept
appeals to 6.96 percent, while Pangbang and Thrimshing recorded none.

Within Thimphu, the workload was spread across several specialised benches, each handling
hundreds of cases: Commercial Bench II (565), Commercial Bench I (471), Civil Bench (477),
Criminal Bench (463), and the Family and Child Bench (431). Other high-demand centres
included Mongar, Samtse, Punakha, Paro’s two benches, Trashigang, Tsirang, and Wangdue
Bench II.

Lower-volume courts such as Gasa, Trongsa, Trashiyangtse, and Zhemgang posted particularly
high clearance rates and minimal pending cases. Several mid-sized courts, including Chukha,
Pema Gatshel, Sarpang, and Samdrup Jongkhar, also exceeded 90 percent disposal, reflecting
efficient case management.

By contrast, some high-volume or structurally constrained courts struggled to keep pace. Dagana
decided 114 of 165 cases, leaving 51 pending, while Samtse cleared 271 of 341, with 70 still
unresolved. In Thimphu, both the Criminal and Civil Benches ended the year with around 80
pending cases each, highlighting how sustained inflows and complex litigation can strain
available judicial resources.

Only 36 cases across the entire system had been pending for more than 12 months, a relatively
small figure compared to the overall caseload. These were concentrated mainly in the Thimphu
Criminal Bench and Commercial Benches, with delays often linked to external factors such as
forensic reports or medical issues involving parties.

Beyond deciding cases, courts also processed 3,247 enforcement petitions during the year and
successfully executed 2,920 of them. Dzongkhag Courts accounted for the bulk, enforcing 2,304
judgments, followed by Dungkhag Courts with 460 and the High Court with 156.

Thimphu Dzongkhag Court’s Enforcement Unit led the system, carrying out 1,124 judgments.
The Judiciary said these figures demonstrate how rulings are translated into concrete outcomes,
recovering debts, compelling compliance, and safeguarding legal rights.

Financial data in the report show that the courts collected about Nu 47.3 million in fees and fines
during the year, more than double their regular operating budget of Nu 21.8 million. In addition,
Nu 40 million remained set aside in reserves, pointing to a judiciary that generated significant
revenue relative to its routine expenditures.

In the Annual Report, Chief Justice Norbu Tshering framed the statistics within a broader call for
institutional resilience and adaptability. “The Judiciary must remain forward-looking and
responsive as society undergoes rapid change driven by new technologies, digital platforms, and
evolving social norms,” he said, adding that such shifts were reshaping civic behaviour and
public expectations.

Emphasising trust as the system’s most fragile asset, he urged continued strengthening of
“institutional integrity, transparency, and compassion so that the courts remain a pillar of
confidence for present and future generations.”

For ordinary litigants, however, even a generally efficient system can feel slow and exhausting
when cases drag on. “My case started in 2022, and it is still not resolved because the other person
involved is outside the country,” said one resident who requested anonymity. “I even took the
matter to the Supreme Court, but all that came out of it was an arrest warrant, which has been
useless since the person is not here. Hearings keep getting postponed, and it has been mentally
and financially draining. I just want closure. We respect the courts, but waiting for years is very
hard for ordinary people like us.”

Another litigant, Pema Lhamo of Thimphu, described how procedural flexibility and technology
made a decisive difference in her case. “I was asked to go to Gelephu even though it was very
difficult for me,” she said. “When I requested to appear through video, the court initially denied
it, but when my husband made the same request, it was approved. After that, everything moved
very quickly and the case was resolved. That experience showed me how much difference
flexibility and technology can make for people.”

Longer-term data show gradual improvement in backlog management. In 2021, courts recorded
1,806 pending cases, including 100 older than a year. By 2022, total pendency slipped slightly to
1,779, with long-pending cases falling to 64. In 2023, overall pending cases dropped to 1,621,
though long-pending matters rose to 179. A major improvement came in 2024, when pendency
fell to 1,183 and long-pending cases to 161.

In 2025, total pending cases edged up again to 1,206, while long-pending cases declined to 102,
suggesting continued progress in preventing severe backlogs even as new filings remained high.

The Judiciary’s own assessment characterises the system as robust but uneven. High-volume
courts in Thimphu and selected regional centres are flagged for targeted support through
additional personnel, specialised case-management approaches, and faster access to expert
services such as forensic analysis. At the same time, the consistently high performance of smaller
courts is held up as a benchmark for best practices that could be replicated elsewhere.

For citizens navigating disputes over property, family matters, contracts, or criminal allegations,
the numbers behind the annual report translate into lived experiences, sometimes swift and
efficient, sometimes prolonged and frustrating. As the country’s courts continue to process
thousands of cases each year, the challenge ahead will be balancing speed, fairness, and
accessibility across every dzongkhag and dungkhag, so that justice is not only delivered, but felt,
by the people who rely on it most.