Four more judges on the Supreme Court is a sensible administrative decision. It is not judicial reform, and it would be a mistake to let the second be mistaken for the first.
The case for expansion is real enough. The apex court is holding a docket of more than 80,000 matters roughly level, and every Constitution Bench it constitutes pulls judges away from the regular rosters that clear routine appeals. Two additional benches will ease that squeeze. The Chief Justice asked for the capacity; Parliament granted it in a fortnight. On its own terms, the process worked.
But the backlog is not at the top
India’s pendency problem is overwhelmingly a district court problem. Something on the order of four and a half crore cases sit in the subordinate judiciary, against roughly sixty lakh in the high courts. The Supreme Court’s share is a rounding error in that total. Adding judges at the narrowest point of the pyramid does very little for the litigant whose civil suit has been adjourned eleven times in a trial court in Nalgonda or Nellore.
Worse, the high courts have been running with something close to a third of their sanctioned posts vacant for years. Those vacancies do not require legislation. They require the collegium and the government to stop treating each other’s files as leverage. Sanctioned strength that goes unfilled is not capacity; it is a number in a statute.
What actually moves the needle
The measures that reduce pendency are unglamorous and largely unlegislated. Enforcing limits on adjournments. Fixing case-flow management so that listing is not left to registry discretion. Filling the enormous shortfall in court staff, not just judges. Curbing the government’s own litigation — the state remains the largest litigant in the country, and a substantial share of appeals it files are pursued defensively rather than on merit.
None of this produces a bill to pass or a headline to run. All of it would do more for the median litigant than four seats at the top.
There is also a quieter risk in capacity expansion at the apex court: it invites more filings. Every previous increase — from eight judges in 1950 to thirty-four in 2019 — was followed by rising intake rather than a shrinking docket. A court that hears more appeals becomes, in effect, a routine court of appeal, which is not what it was designed to be.
Expand the bench. Then do the harder work, where the cases actually are.
Leave a Reply