| PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2024] Explain the reasons for the growth of Public Interest Litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciaryLinkage: The PYQ examines the expanding role and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which lies at the core of the present debate on pendency and judicial burden.The article discusses judicial reforms and institutional capacity of the Supreme Court. Efficient justice delivery is essential for preserving judicial independence and constitutional governance. |
Mentor’s Comment
The Union government has recently increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, reviving an old debate on judicial reforms: Can more judges solve India’s mounting judicial pendency? The issue has direct relevance for judicial reforms, separation of powers, access to justice, and constitutional governance in India.
What is the Constitutional Provision Governing the Number of Supreme Court Judges?
- Article 124(1): Establishes the Supreme Court and provides for a Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges.
- Parliamentary Power: The Constitution does not fix a permanent number of judges. It authorises Parliament to determine the number of judges by law.
- Flexible Institutional Design: Enables periodic expansion of judicial strength based on rising caseload, pendency, and administrative requirements.
How has the Number of Supreme Court Judges Increased?
- Ordinary Legislation: Increase in judicial strength requires amendment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
- No Constitutional Amendment Required: Since Article 124 empowers Parliament, increase occurs through ordinary parliamentary legislation, not a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
- Recent Change (2025): Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2025, increasing sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges.
- Ordinance Route: The President promulgated an ordinance under Article 123 before Parliament formally completed the process, despite Parliament expected to convene shortly.
How Has the Supreme Court’s Strength Increased Over Time?
| Year | Strength of SC Judges |
| 1950 | 8 (including CJI) |
| 1956 | 11 |
| 1960 | 14 |
| 1977 | 18 |
| 1986 | 26 |
| 2009 | 31 |
| 2019 | 34 |
| 2025 | 38 |
What Does This Trend Indicate?
- Rising Caseload: Expansion reflects increasing litigation and constitutional responsibilities.
- Persistent Pendency: Repeated increases have not prevented rising backlog, indicating structural inefficiencies beyond numerical shortage.
- Shift in Institutional Role: Expansion coincides with the Supreme Court increasingly functioning as a general appellate court, rather than primarily a constitutional court.
Can Increasing Judicial Strength Alone Reduce Pendency in the Supreme Court?
- Judicial Capacity: Increasing sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges enhances disposal capacity and may reduce waiting time for hearings.
- Limited Impact: Pendency of nearly 94,000 cases suggests backlog is structural rather than merely numerical.
- Historical Continuity: Successive governments have periodically increased judicial strength, yet pendency continues to rise.
- Institutional Limitation: More judges do not automatically improve efficiency unless accompanied by procedural reforms.
- Concerns Over Ordinance Route: The government introduced the increase through an ordinance, despite Parliament being expected to convene soon, raising concerns about legislative bypass.
Has the Supreme Court Drifted from Its Intended Constitutional Role?
- Constitutional Design: The Supreme Court was envisioned primarily as a constitutional court, dealing with substantial constitutional interpretation.
- Article 136 Expansion: The Court’s extraordinary power under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) has expanded its jurisdiction significantly.
- Routine Appeals: A substantial share of the Court’s docket is now occupied by SLPs, converting the Court into a de facto regular appellate court.
- Judicial Observation (2016): A Constitution Bench refused to restrict Article 136, observing that no effort should be made to reduce the Court’s powers.
- Consequences: Excessive appellate workload diverts attention from constitutional matters of national significance.
Do Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) Contribute to Judicial Backlog?
- Extraordinary Remedy: SLPs were designed as exceptional remedies under Article 136 for rare cases involving grave injustice.
- Judicial Overreach of Scope: SLPs now dominate a substantial portion of Supreme Court litigation.
- Absence of Guidelines: Lack of strict admission standards has encouraged indiscriminate filing.
- Case Example: Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware: A contractual employment dispute reached the Supreme Court despite involving issues more suited for lower courts.
- Constitutional Concern: Excessive admission of routine matters dilutes the Court’s constitutional focus.
Does Government Litigation Worsen Judicial Pendency?
- Largest Litigant: Governments remain among the largest litigants in Indian courts.
- National Litigation Policy Failure: The proposed National Litigation Policy (NLP) aimed to reduce avoidable government litigation but was never effectively implemented.
- Routine Appeals Culture: Government departments frequently pursue appeals even in settled legal matters.
- Administrative Inconsistency: Frequent changes in legal officers produce contradictory litigation strategies.
- Institutional Burden: Excessive state appeals consume judicial time and prolong case disposal.
- Illustration: Cases often remain pending for years before reaching the Supreme Court because High Courts do not conclusively settle disputes.
Will More Benches Improve Consistency or Create Conflicting Judgments?
- Expanded Bench Strength: More judges imply greater number of division benches.
- Potential Benefit: Greater benches may increase disposal rates and reduce waiting time.
- Risk of Fragmentation: Larger bench numbers may generate inconsistent judicial interpretations.
- Polyvocality Challenge: Different benches may reach different conclusions on similar legal principles.
- Need for Coordination: Greater reference to larger Constitution Benches becomes essential for doctrinal consistency.
Can Institutional Reforms Address Pendency More Effectively Than Numerical Expansion?
- Filtering Mechanism: Strengthens scrutiny of frivolous litigation, particularly under Article 136.
- Case Prioritisation: Ensures only cases involving substantial constitutional questions reach the Supreme Court.
- Written Submissions: Reduces prolonged oral arguments and judicial time consumption.
- Bench Management: Facilitates better coordination among benches to reduce conflicting rulings.
- High Court Empowerment: Encourages High Courts to decisively settle disputes rather than passing litigation upward.
- Case Illustration: State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): Supreme Court stressed that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) must serve genuine public causes and not personal interests.
Can Judicial Appointments Improve Gender Representation?
- New Opportunity: Four additional judicial positions create scope for increasing women’s representation.
- Gender Gap: High Courts continue to have relatively low numbers of senior women judges.
- Transparency Need: Judicial appointments require greater openness and diversity considerations.
- Convention Bias: Seniority norms have often disadvantaged women in elevation to higher courts.
Conclusion
Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges may improve disposal rates and reduce immediate workload pressures, but pendency is fundamentally a structural and institutional challenge rather than a purely numerical one. Sustainable reform requires restoring the Court’s constitutional role through stricter filtering of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), reducing excessive government litigation, strengthening High Courts, improving case management, and ensuring doctrinal consistency. Judicial expansion can facilitate faster justice only when accompanied by systemic reforms that enhance efficiency, coherence, and access to justice.
