Introduction

Recently, with promulgation of Ordinance, the President has increased the number of Supreme Court Judges from 33 to 37 (excluding the Chief Justice). The ordinance is passed to ensure that the backlog of 93,000 cases which are currently pending in the Supreme Court is dealt expeditiously. In this article, we will try to find whether this strength is enough for the top Court or is there need for further increase in strength?

History of number of Judges in Supreme Court

When the Constitution of India came into force on 26 January 1950, originally, Article 124(1) of the Constitution provided for one Chief Justice and seven other Judges. Later, the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 was enacted to increase the number of Judges other than Chief Justice to 11. 

With further amendments, the number of Judges (other than Chief Justice) was increased to 14 (in 1960), 18 (1960), 26 (1986), 31 (2009) and 34 (2019) by amending the Act of 1956. Recently, through a Supreme Court (Number of judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 it has been increased to 37 (excluding Chief Justice).

The main reason behind the increase in the number of Judges every time is the high number of pendency of cases before the Court. But the main question that needs to be answered here is whether a mere increase in the number of Judges is sufficient to reduce the pendency of cases?

What Causes Pendency?

There are several reasons for the pendency of cases:

1. Vacancy in High Courts and Lower Courts- Vacancy of Judges in the Courts across all over India is one of the primary, but not the only reason for high pendency of cases. It has been disclosed by the Law Ministry that 308 vacancies are there out of total strength of 1122 Judges in the High Courts. However, this vacancy remains unaddressed. 

Further, approximately 4855 vacancies in the post of Judges in District Court across India exist. There are a total (both civil and criminal) 4,90,02,891 cases pending before the District Courts across India. Therefore, there is a need to address these vacancies at all the levels (including State and District level).

2. Long adjournments- Giving further dates has become a custom under the Indian Judicial system. This is one of the most important reasons for the pendency of cases in India. Giving adjournments means no disposal of the matter, thus adding on the pendency.
3.  Insufficient infrastructure- the infrastructure of Judicial institutions especially for lower Judiciary is inefficient such as less number of staff in the Courts, poorly managed record rooms, inadequate courtrooms, and so on.
4. Delayed appointments of Judges- Due to delay in the appointment of the Judges, the vacancy remains and so is the pendency of the cases.
5. Uneven investment in technology- Technology such as systems of e-filing and virtual courts  makes the work easier and more efficient. However, the investment in such technologies in the States is uneven.

How to get an efficient system

It must be remembered that if justice delayed is justice denied, then justice hurried is justice buried. Therefore, there is a need to create a balance between the two. Justice must not be delayed but also must not be provided in hurry merely to reduce the pendency. The system itself must be efficient so that a perfect balance may be created.

Merely increasing the sanctioned strength of the Judges will not resolve the issue of pendency of the cases. Judiciary consists of three levels: Supreme Court at the top, High Court at the State level and District and Magisterial Courts at district level. Therefore, the actions must also be taken to address vacancy at other two levels and not only the Supreme Court. Further, it is not merely the duty of Judges to make the system efficient. Both Bar and Bench must act together in this.

The Advocates must also try their best to get relief to their clients and work with integrity and honesty. They should also avoid asking Courts for dates on every date and assist the Court to reach a decision as soon as possible.

Further, the integration of technology in the Judicial system can also be a key to increase efficiency in the Judiciary.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that increasing the strength of Supreme Court Judges to 37 may be a step towards reducing the pendency; however, it is not enough. The increase in strength must also be supported by an increase in the Courts’ efficiency. India follows an integrated Judicial system, and thus focusing on one pillar of this Judiciary will not help. Vacancies at other levels must also be addressed to reduce pendency.

To read more content on similar topics click here.

This article is authored by Astha Priya.