To Strengthen the Supreme Court, Divide It

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- Constitution of India

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India is currently facing record pendency and a sharp decline in constitutional cases. Its docket is increasingly occupied by ordinary appeals, limiting time for questions that shape the Constitution. A proposed two-tier structure would create a dedicated Constitutional Court in Delhi and regional Courts of Appeal, separating constitutional work from ordinary appellate work.

Present Situation of the Supreme Court

1. Record Pendency of Cases: The Supreme Court had 92,318 pending cases at the end of 2025, nearly 10,000 more than the previous year, marking its highest backlog.
2. Declining Constitutional Cases: Constitution Benches decided an average of 134 cases annually in the first half of the 1960s, but this fell to fewer than 10 annually over the last decade.
3. Growing Dependence on Ordinary Appeals: Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) under Article 136 accounted for 84.6% of the Supreme Court’s admission docket in 2011, despite being intended as a rare safety mechanism.
4. Growing Annual Caseload: In 2025, the Supreme Court disposed of 65,615 cases but received 75,410 fresh matters, adding to its existing backlog.
5. Unresolved Constitutional Reference: In 2016, three Supreme Court judges referred 11 questions concerning the court’s role and functioning to a larger Bench, but the reference remained unheard even after a decade.

Reasons Behind the Need for Supreme Court Reforms

1. Disproportionate Burden of Ordinary Appeals: The increasing number of ordinary appeals and SLPs consumes judicial time that should be available for important constitutional matters.
2. Mismatch Between Institutional Role and Actual Workload: The Supreme Court was designed to decide constitutional questions and substantial questions of law, but it increasingly functions as a general court of fourth appeal.
3. Limits of Increasing Judicial Strength: Despite expanding the Bench to 34 judges in 2019, when pendency was around 60,000 cases, the backlog reached 92,318 by the end of 2025. Parliament further increased the sanctioned strength to 38 judges in 2026.
4. Need for Judicial Specialisation: Constitutional questions and ordinary appeals require different judicial attention, making separate courts necessary for efficient functioning.

Proposed Two-Tier Supreme Court Structure

1. Constitutional Court in Delhi: Establish a dedicated Constitutional Court with approximately 11 judges to hear constitutional cases and substantial questions of law.
2. Regional Courts of Appeal: Establish four or five regional Courts of Appeal to handle ordinary appeals currently reaching the Supreme Court.
3. Division of Judicial Responsibilities: The Constitutional Court would focus on questions affecting the Constitution and the legal system, while regional courts would handle individual appellate disputes.
4. Specialised Constitutional Benches: The Constitutional Court could sit in full Benches and deliver consistent, predictable judgments on important constitutional questions.
5. Regional Access to Justice: Regional Courts of Appeal would bring the final stage of ordinary appellate justice closer to citizens and reduce their dependence on the Delhi-based Supreme Court.

Benefits, Global Practices and Previous Recommendations

1. Judicial Specialisation: Separate courts would allow constitutional judges to focus on important legal questions while regional judges handle ordinary appeals more efficiently.
2. Consistent Constitutional Interpretation: A dedicated Constitutional Court could hear selected cases through full Benches and deliver consistent rulings that settle important legal questions.
3. Faster Disposal of Ordinary Appeals: Regional Courts of Appeal could focus on ordinary cases and clear the appellate backlog faster than the present Supreme Court.
4. International Practice – United States: The U.S. Supreme Court functions above 13 federal Courts of Appeals and decides only a small proportion of cases reaching it.
5. International Practice – South Africa and Germany: South Africa has separate Constitutional and Supreme Courts of Appeal, while Germany has a Federal Constitutional Court and specialised federal courts.
6. International Practice – Brazil: Brazil’s 1988 Constitution created a separate Superior Tribunal of Justice to handle ordinary federal appeals previously handled by its Supreme Federal Tribunal.
7. Previous Reform Recommendations: The 229th Law Commission Report (2009) proposed a Constitutional Bench in Delhi and four regional Cassation Benches. A Parliamentary Standing Committee recommended regional Benches in 2023, which the Union Law Ministry accepted.

Challenges in Dividing the Supreme Court

1. Risk to Institutional Unity: Successive Chief Justices have expressed concern that separating constitutional and appellate work could weaken the Supreme Court’s authority as one unified institution.
2. Unequal Status of Regional Courts: Regional Courts of Appeal may be viewed as inferior forums, encouraging litigants to approach the Constitutional Court in Delhi for final decisions.
3. Possibility of Continued Congestion: Dividing the court without filtering unnecessary cases could transfer the existing backlog to the new Constitutional Court instead of solving it.
4. Conflicting Decisions of Smaller Benches: The Supreme Court already functions through several small Benches that sometimes deliver conflicting judgments, making it difficult to maintain consistency in legal interpretation.

Way Forward

1. Introduce a Case-Filtering Mechanism: The Constitutional Court should admit only cases involving important constitutional questions or issues with wider legal implications, rather than hearing every appeal.
2. Adopt the U.S. Screening Model: The U.S. Supreme Court selects roughly 1% of the 7,000 petitions it receives annually for review, demonstrating how selective admission can reduce the burden on an apex court.
3. Apply the General Repercussion Test: Brazil’s 2004 reform allowed its apex court to hear constitutional appeals only when questions had wider implications beyond the parties involved.
4. Implement Regional Benches Under Article 130: The 229th Law Commission Report suggested that Article 130 may permit regional Benches without a constitutional amendment, allowing initial steps without waiting for Parliamentary approval.

Conclusion

Separating constitutional work from ordinary appeals would let the Supreme Court focus on major legal questions while regional Courts of Appeal handle routine cases. Selective case admission and a workable regional structure could reduce pressure, improve consistency and bring appellate justice closer to citizens.

Question for practice:

Discuss the need for restructuring the Supreme Court of India into a two-tier judicial system, highlighting its proposed structure, benefits, challenges and the way forward.

Source: The Hindu