Paper: GS – II, Subject: Polity, Topic: Judiciary, Issue: Supreme Court Pendency and Judicial Capacity.
Context:
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, promulgated by the President, increases the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges. This step has been taken in the background of rising pendency before the Court. However, increasing judges alone cannot solve the pendency problem unless it is supported by deeper procedural and institutional reforms.
Key Takeaways:
Explanation:
Increasing Judge Strength: Limited Solution:
- More judges can help constitute more Benches and may increase the number of cases heard.
- However, pendency is not only due to shortage of judges but also due to excessive inflow of cases.
- If routine appeals continue to enter the Court in large numbers, additional judges will provide only temporary relief.
Ordinance Route Criticised:
- The use of the ordinance route for increasing the Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength has been criticised because such a matter could have been placed before Parliament through the ordinary legislative process.
- Since ordinance-making power is meant for urgent situations, using it for a structural judicial reform may raise concerns about bypassing parliamentary debate and scrutiny.
Need to Regulate Special Leave Petitions:
- Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 were meant to be used sparingly.
- Their frequent use has turned the Supreme Court into a regular appellate forum in many ordinary cases.
- The Court should admit SLPs mainly where there is grave injustice, conflicting High Court rulings, important legal questions or wider public importance.
Risk of Conflicting Judgments:
- More judges may lead to more Division Benches functioning simultaneously.
- If similar questions are decided differently by different Benches, legal uncertainty may increase.
- Proper coordination, grouping of similar cases and timely reference to larger Benches are necessary.
Government Litigation Burden:
- The government is one of the largest litigants in India.
- Unnecessary appeals by government departments add heavily to pendency.
- A clear National Litigation Policy is required to prevent repetitive, weak and avoidable government litigation.
Institutional Reforms Required:
- The Court needs stricter case filtering at the admission stage.
- Frivolous and repetitive cases should be discouraged.
- Written submissions should be used more effectively.
- Oral arguments in routine matters should be time-bound.
- Better listing, case management and Bench coordination are essential.
- Judicial appointments should also improve diversity, including representation of women on the Bench.
Conclusion:
Increasing the strength of the Supreme Court may reduce immediate pressure, but it is not a complete solution to pendency. The real answer lies in controlling the inflow of routine cases, reforming SLP admission, improving case management, reducing government litigation and preserving the Supreme Court’s role as a constitutional court.
Source: (The Hindu)
La Excellence IAS Academy, the best IAS coaching in Hyderabad, known for delivering quality content and conceptual clarity for UPSC 2026 preparation.
FOLLOW US ON:
â—‰ YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/@CivilsPrepTeam
â—‰ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LaExcellenceIAS
â—‰ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/laexcellenceiasacademy/
GET IN TOUCH:
Contact us at info@laex.in, https://laex.in/contact-us/
or Call us @ +91 9052 29 2929, +91 9052 99 2929, +91 9154 24 2140
OUR BRANCHES:
Head Office: H No: 1-10-225A, Beside AEVA Fertility Center, Ashok Nagar Extension, VV Giri Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, 500020
Madhapur: Flat no: 301, survey no 58-60, Guttala begumpet Madhapur metro pillar: 1524, Rangareddy Hyderabad, Telangana 500081
Bangalore: Plot No: 99, 2nd floor, 80 Feet Road, Beside Poorvika Mobiles, Chandra Layout, Attiguppe, Near Vijaya Nagara, Bengaluru, 560040