Will increasing the strength of the SC solve the pendency problem?

Source: The post “Will increasing the strength of the SC solve the pendency problem?” has been created, based on “Will increasing the strength of the SC solve the pendency problem?” published in “The Hindu” on 29th May 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper 2 – Governance

Context: The Supreme Court of India is facing a serious pendency crisis due to the rising number of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and expanding judicial responsibilities. Recently, the government approved an increase in the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38. However, merely increasing the number of judges may not completely solve the problem of pendency.

How Increasing the Strength of the Supreme Court Can Help

1. It Can Reduce Judicial Workload

1. Increasing the number of judges can distribute the growing workload more evenly among benches.
2. More judges can help the Court hear and dispose of a larger number of cases.

2. It Can Improve Disposal of Cases

1. Additional judges may speed up hearings and reduce delays in pending matters.
2. Faster disposal can improve public confidence in the justice delivery system.

3. It Can Address Immediate Capacity Constraints

1. The Supreme Court is handling a large number of constitutional, civil and criminal appeals.
2. Increasing judicial strength can provide temporary relief from excessive pressure on existing benches.

4. It Can Strengthen Access to Justice

1. Faster hearings and reduced delays can improve citizens’ access to timely justice.
2. Litigants may not have to wait for several years for final decisions.

Why Increasing Strength Alone Will Not Solve Pendency

1. Excessive Filing of Special Leave Petitions

1. A major reason for pendency is the large number of SLPs filed under Article 136.
2. The Supreme Court was originally intended to handle matters of constitutional importance, but it is increasingly functioning as a regular appellate court.
3. Many routine matters reach the Supreme Court unnecessarily.

2. The Supreme Court is Overburdened

1. The Court performs multiple functions such as constitutional interpretation, appeals, protection of fundamental rights and public interest litigation.
2. This expanding jurisdiction has increased institutional pressure.

3. More Judges May Create Coordination Problems

1. Increasing the number of benches can sometimes lead to inconsistent judicial rulings.
2. Different benches may interpret laws differently, creating confusion and uncertainty.

4. Government Litigation Adds to Pendency

1. The government is one of the largest litigants in India.
2. Poor decision-making and unnecessary appeals by government departments increase the burden on courts.

5. Procedural Delays Continue

1. Cases often face delays due to adjournments, repeated hearings and inefficient court procedures.
2. Merely appointing more judges cannot solve structural inefficiencies in the judicial system.

6. Pendency in High Courts Also Affects the Supreme Court

1. Large numbers of cases remain pending in High Courts for many years.
2. Delays in High Courts eventually increase the burden on the Supreme Court through appeals.

Measures Needed Beyond Increasing Judicial Strength

1. The Supreme Court Must Filter Frivolous Litigation

1. The Court should develop stricter mechanisms to limit unnecessary SLPs.
2. Only cases involving substantial constitutional or legal questions should be admitted.

2. Government Litigation Must Be Reduced

1. Government departments should avoid filing routine and unnecessary appeals.
2. Better administrative decision-making can reduce avoidable litigation.

3. Judicial Reforms Should Be Introduced

1. Greater use of technology and case management systems can improve efficiency.
2. Timelines for hearings and judgments should be enforced more effectively.

4. High Courts Need Strengthening

1. Vacancies in High Courts should be filled quickly.
2. Strengthening lower courts and High Courts can reduce pressure on the Supreme Court.

5. Greater Diversity in Appointments is Needed

1. Judicial appointments should include more women and underrepresented groups.
2. A more representative judiciary can strengthen institutional legitimacy.

Conclusion: Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court can provide temporary relief and improve case disposal rates. However, pendency is primarily a structural and institutional problem caused by excessive appeals, procedural inefficiencies and rising government litigation. Therefore, comprehensive judicial reforms along with stricter case filtering and strengthening of lower courts are necessary for a long-term solution to judicial pendency.

Question: “Will increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court solve the pendency problem?” Critically examine.

Source: The Hindu