Q. Will increasing the number of judges alone reduce judicial pendency? Comment in the context of the recently passed Bill to increase the...

Q. Will increasing the number of judges alone reduce judicial pendency? Comment in the context of the recently passed Bill to increase the strength of the Supreme Court. (10 marks 150 Words)

Question

Q. Will increasing the number of judges alone reduce judicial pendency? Comment in the context of the recently passed Bill to increase the strength of the Supreme Court. (10 marks 150 Words)

Model Answer

Q. Will increasing the number of judges alone reduce judicial pendency? Comment in the context of the recently passed Bill to increase the strength of the Supreme Court. (10 marks 150 Words)

Paper

GS II

Subject

Indian Polity

Syllabus as Per Notification

Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.

Topic

Judicial Pendency, Judicial Reforms and the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026.

Approach:

Introduction

Introduce with the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026, which increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges.

Body

Briefly write on the strength of Supreme Court Judges

Provide detailed arguments on whether increasing the number of judges alone reduce judicial pendency.

Yes, increasing judicial strength is a necessary reform

Expands judicial capacity to tackle pendency, Improves the judge-population ratio, reduces judicial vacancies and excessive workload, Strengthens the constitutional right to speedy justice.

However, increasing the number of judges alone cannot substantially reduce judicial pendency

Judicial pendency is a systemic challenge, Timely filling of Judicial vacancies, Procedural and Institutional reforms, Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and responsible litigation.

Way Forward

Ensuring adequate judicial capacity, modernising judicial administration, Promoting ADR and Grassroots Justice.

Conclusion

Conclude by stating that true meaning of judicial reform lies in strengthening the judiciary capacity rather than increasing the number of Judges.

Context

Supreme Court sanctioned strength was increased from 34 to 38 with the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026,

Introduction

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026, which increases the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, reflects the Government effort to address mounting judicial backlog. While increasing judicial capacity is a necessary step towards ensuring speedy justice under Article 21, judicial pendency is a systemic challenge that extends beyond the Supreme Court, requiring comprehensive institutional and procedural reforms across the entire judiciary.

Body

Strength of Supreme Court Judges

Original Constitution (1950): Supreme Court was established with 1 CJI and 7 other judges under Article 124 and Parliament was empowered to increase the number of judges through legislation.

Current Position (2026): Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026 increased the sanctioned strength to 38 (1 CJI + 37 judges) from earlier strength of 34 (1 CJI + 33 judges), which had been fixed in 2019.

Yes, increasing judicial strength is a necessary reform

Expands judicial capacity to tackle pendency

Increasing the number of judges enhances disposal capacity by enabling more Benches to function simultaneously, reducing waiting time and improving access to justice.

Example: As per National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), India has over 5.64 crore pending cases, indicating the urgent need for greater judicial capacity across all levels.

Improves the judge-population ratio

India's judge-population ratio remains significantly below the level required for timely justice. Increasing judicial strength is essential to cope with rising litigation.

Example:120th Law Commission Report recommended 50 judges per million population, whereas India currently has only 21–22 judges per million.

Reduces judicial vacancies and excessive workload

Additional sanctioned posts, coupled with timely appointments, reduce the burden on judges, enabling faster disposal and improving the quality of adjudication.

Example: As of 2026, High Courts face nearly 33% vacancies, while the subordinate judiciary has around 21% vacancies, contributing significantly to judicial delays.

Strengthens the constitutional right to speedy justice

Adequate judicial strength is indispensable for realising the Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21, thereby enhancing access to justice and improving the rule of law.

Example: Supreme Court through cases like Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar case recognised speedy trial as a Fundamental Right.

However, increasing the number of judges alone cannot substantially reduce judicial pendency

Judicial pendency is a systemic challenge

Increasing judicial strength alone cannot resolve delays, as pendency is concentrated across District Courts, High Courts and Supreme Court, each facing distinct institutional constraints.

Example: Allahabad High Court alone has over 12.28 lakh pending cases, showing that pendency is rooted in systemic capacity constraints rather than judicial strength alone.

Timely filling of Judicial vacancies

Creating additional judicial posts has limited impact unless vacancies across the judiciary are filled expeditiously through transparent and time-bound appointments.

Example:Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy report noted that delays in collegium recommendations and government clearances are the biggest bottlenecks, not lack of sanctioned posts.

Procedural and Institutional reforms

Frequent adjournments, ineffective case-flow management, inadequate infrastructure and limited digital capacity continue to delay justice despite increasing judicial strength.

Example:India Justice Report 2025 highlights persistent shortages of court infrastructure, while over 11.73 lakh cases have remained pending for more than 20 years.

Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and responsible litigation

Judicial pendency depends not only on disposal capacity but also on controlling the inflow of cases through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and responsible government litigation.

Example:Mediation Act, 2023 institutionalises mediation as a formal dispute resolution mechanism, enabling parties to settle civil and commercial disputes outside courts.

Way Forward

Ensuring adequate judicial capacity

Ensuring time-bound appointments to fill judicial vacancies and considering All India Judicial Service (AIJS) under Article 312 for a merit-based and adequately staffed subordinate judiciary.

Modernising judicial administration

Enhancing court infrastructure through Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) and e-Courts Phase III, drawing lessons from Estonia e-Justice system for paperless and data-driven justice.

Strengthening case management through National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC) and AI-based tools such as Legal Research Analysis Assistant (LegRAA)

Promoting ADR and Grassroots Justice

Operationalising the Mediation Act, 2023, strengthening Lok Adalats and revitalising Gram Nyayalayas to provide speedy, affordable justice, drawing lessons from Singapore's institutional mediation model to reduce court litigation.

Conclusion

Increase in the Supreme Court judicial strength is a welcome step towards improving access to justice. However, the true measure of judicial reform lies in strengthening the judiciary capacity to deliver timely, accessible and quality justice. As, "Justice delayed is justice denied," reminds us, Justice delivery system must evolve through coordinated institutional, technological and governance reforms to uphold the rule of law and strengthen public confidence in the judiciary.