{"id":375691,"date":"2026-11-14T19:21:13","date_gmt":"2026-11-14T13:51:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?p=375691"},"modified":"2026-11-14T19:21:13","modified_gmt":"2026-11-14T13:51:13","slug":"to-strengthen-the-supreme-court-divide-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/to-strengthen-the-supreme-court-divide-it\/","title":{"rendered":"To Strengthen the Supreme Court, Divide It"},"content":{"rendered":"

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- <\/strong>Constitution of India<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Present Situation of the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Record Pendency of Cases: <\/strong>The Supreme Court had 92,318 pending cases<\/strong> at the end of 2025, nearly 10,000 more<\/strong> than the previous year, marking its highest backlog<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
  2. Declining Constitutional Cases: <\/strong>Constitution Benches decided an average of 134 cases annually<\/strong> in the first half of the 1960s, but this fell to fewer than 10 annually<\/strong> over the last decade.<\/li>\n
  3. Growing Dependence on Ordinary Appeals: Special Leave Petitions (SLPs)<\/strong> under Article 136<\/strong> accounted for 84.6%<\/strong> of the Supreme Court’s admission docket in 2011, despite being intended as a rare safety mechanism<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
  4. Growing Annual Caseload: <\/strong>In 2025, the Supreme Court disposed of 65,615 cases<\/strong> but received 75,410 fresh matters<\/strong>, adding to its existing backlog.<\/li>\n
  5. Unresolved Constitutional Reference: <\/strong>In 2016<\/strong>, three Supreme Court judges referred 11 questions<\/strong> concerning the court’s role and functioning to a larger Bench, but the reference remained unheard even after a decade<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Reasons Behind the Need for Supreme Court Reforms<\/strong><\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. Disproportionate Burden of Ordinary Appeals: <\/strong>The increasing number of ordinary appeals and SLPs consumes judicial time<\/strong> that should be available for important constitutional matters.<\/li>\n
    2. Mismatch Between Institutional Role and Actual Workload: <\/strong>The Supreme Court was designed to decide constitutional questions and substantial questions of law<\/strong>, but it increasingly functions as a general court of fourth appeal<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    3. Limits of Increasing Judicial Strength: <\/strong>Despite expanding the Bench to 34 judges in 2019<\/strong>, when pendency was around 60,000 cases<\/strong>, the backlog reached 92,318<\/strong> by the end of 2025. Parliament further increased the sanctioned strength to 38 judges in 2026<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    4. Need for Judicial Specialisation: <\/strong>Constitutional questions and ordinary appeals require different judicial attention<\/strong>, making separate courts<\/strong> necessary for efficient functioning.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Proposed Two-Tier Supreme Court Structure<\/strong><\/h2>\n
        \n
      1. Constitutional Court in Delhi: <\/strong>Establish a dedicated Constitutional Court with approximately 11 judges<\/strong> to hear constitutional cases and substantial questions of law<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
      2. Regional Courts of Appeal: <\/strong>Establish four or five regional Courts of Appeal<\/strong> to handle ordinary appeals currently reaching the Supreme Court.<\/li>\n
      3. Division of Judicial Responsibilities: <\/strong>The Constitutional Court<\/strong> would focus on questions affecting the Constitution and the legal system, while regional courts would handle individual appellate disputes<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
      4. Specialised Constitutional Benches: <\/strong>The Constitutional Court could sit in full Benches<\/strong> and deliver consistent, predictable judgments<\/strong> on important constitutional questions.<\/li>\n
      5. Regional Access to Justice: <\/strong>Regional Courts of Appeal would bring the final stage of ordinary appellate justice closer to citizens<\/strong> and reduce their dependence on the Delhi-based Supreme Court.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Benefits, Global Practices and Previous Recommendations<\/strong><\/h2>\n
          \n
        1. Judicial Specialisation: <\/strong>Separate courts would allow constitutional judges to focus on important legal questions<\/strong> while regional judges handle ordinary appeals more efficiently<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
        2. Consistent Constitutional Interpretation: <\/strong>A dedicated Constitutional Court could hear selected cases through full Benches<\/strong> and deliver consistent rulings<\/strong> that settle important legal questions.<\/li>\n
        3. Faster Disposal of Ordinary Appeals: <\/strong>Regional Courts of Appeal could focus on ordinary cases and clear the appellate backlog faster<\/strong> than the present Supreme Court.<\/li>\n
        4. International Practice \u2013 United States: <\/strong>The U.S. Supreme Court functions above 13 federal Courts of Appeals<\/strong> and decides only a small proportion<\/strong> of cases reaching it.<\/li>\n
        5. International Practice \u2013 South Africa and Germany: <\/strong>South Africa has separate Constitutional and Supreme Courts of Appeal<\/strong>, while Germany has a Federal Constitutional Court<\/strong> and specialised federal courts.<\/li>\n
        6. International Practice \u2013 Brazil: <\/strong>Brazil’s 1988 Constitution<\/strong> created a separate Superior Tribunal of Justice<\/strong> to handle ordinary federal appeals previously handled by its Supreme Federal Tribunal.<\/li>\n
        7. Previous Reform Recommendations: <\/strong>The 229th Law Commission Report (2009)<\/strong> proposed a Constitutional Bench in Delhi and four regional Cassation Benches<\/strong>. A Parliamentary Standing Committee recommended regional Benches in 2023<\/strong>, which the Union Law Ministry accepted<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Challenges in Dividing the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n
            \n
          1. Risk to Institutional Unity: <\/strong>Successive Chief Justices have expressed concern that separating constitutional and appellate work could weaken the Supreme Court’s authority<\/strong> as one unified institution.<\/li>\n
          2. Unequal Status of Regional Courts: <\/strong>Regional Courts of Appeal may be viewed as inferior forums<\/strong>, encouraging litigants to approach the Constitutional Court in Delhi<\/strong> for final decisions.<\/li>\n
          3. Possibility of Continued Congestion: <\/strong>Dividing the court without filtering unnecessary cases<\/strong> could transfer the existing backlog<\/strong> to the new Constitutional Court instead of solving it.<\/li>\n
          4. Conflicting Decisions of Smaller Benches: <\/strong>The Supreme Court already functions through several small Benches that sometimes deliver conflicting judgments<\/strong>, making it difficult to maintain consistency<\/strong> in legal interpretation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            Way Forward<\/strong><\/h2>\n
              \n
            1. Introduce a Case-Filtering Mechanism: <\/strong>The Constitutional Court should admit only cases<\/strong> involving important constitutional questions or issues with wider legal implications<\/strong>, rather than hearing every appeal.<\/li>\n
            2. Adopt the U.S. Screening Model: <\/strong>The U.S. Supreme Court selects roughly 1%<\/strong> of the 7,000 petitions<\/strong> it receives annually for review, demonstrating how selective admission<\/strong> can reduce the burden on an apex court.<\/li>\n
            3. Apply the General Repercussion Test: <\/strong>Brazil’s 2004 reform<\/strong> allowed its apex court to hear constitutional appeals only when questions had wider implications beyond the parties involved<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
            4. Implement Regional Benches Under Article 130: <\/strong>The 229th Law Commission Report suggested that Article 130<\/strong> may permit regional Benches<\/strong> without a constitutional amendment<\/strong>, allowing initial steps without waiting for Parliamentary approval.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

              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.<\/p>\n

              Question for practice:<\/strong><\/p>\n

              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.<\/p>\n

              Source: <\/strong>The Hindu<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              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… Continue reading To Strengthen the Supreme Court, Divide It<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10320,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1230],"tags":[12193,212,10498],"class_list":["post-375691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-9-pm-daily-articles","tag-constitution-of-india","tag-gs-paper-2","tag-the-hindu","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","views":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375691","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10320"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=375691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/375691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=375691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=375691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=375691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}