By Pawan Kumar
The government of India’s recent approval of the appointments of Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice Arun Palli, and Senior Advocate VS Mohana to the Supreme Court marks a significant moment in the evolution of India’s judicial system. Acting on the recommendations of the Collegium headed by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, these appointments have taken the Supreme Court to its full sanctioned strength of 38 judges—the highest in its history.
The development is notable not merely because of the numbers involved. India, the world’s most populous nation, is governed by one of the most extensive written constitutions in existence. With a sanctioned strength of one chief Justice and 37 puisne judges, the Supreme Court now has a larger judicial composition than any constitutional court in the world.
For comparison, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom functions with 12 judges, while the Supreme Court of the United States has nine. Constitutional courts across Europe generally range between 11 and 20 judges. Outside the constitutional court framework, China’s Supreme People’s Court remains an exception, employing hundreds of judges in a vastly different judicial structure.
Yet, even as the apex court reaches its largest-ever strength, a pressing question remains: will more judges translate into faster justice?
For anyone tracking India’s constitutional evolution and judicial administration, the scale of pending litigation is deeply concerning. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, more than 92,000 cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court alone. Across High Courts and subordinate courts, total pendency has climbed to nearly five crore cases.
These figures represent far more than statistical entries. Behind every pending matter lies a property dispute awaiting resolution, a criminal trial yet to conclude, a business conflict affecting livelihoods, or a citizen seeking constitutional relief. The old maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied” remains painfully relevant in contemporary India.
Interestingly, the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to speedy justice. That protection emerged through judicial interpretation. In the landmark Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court read the right to a speedy trial into Article 21, holding that a reasonably expeditious trial forms an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty. The case itself led to the release of nearly 40,000 undertrial prisoners, setting a powerful constitutional benchmark.
The roots of India’s pendency crisis are complex, but one factor stands out prominently: the shortage of judges relative to population. Data from the Ministry of Law and Justice indicates that India currently has roughly 22 judges per million people. By international standards, that figure is strikingly low. The United States has well over 100 judges per million people, while several European jurisdictions exceed 200 per million.
The disparity becomes even more apparent when viewed against the recommendations of the Law Commission of India, which in its 120th Report had suggested a target of 50 judges per million population. Nearly four decades later, that benchmark remains distant.
However, the problem extends beyond simple arithmetic. Judicial vacancies, procedural inefficiencies, infrastructure deficits and litigation culture collectively contribute to delay. The Supreme Court’s expansive public interest litigation jurisdiction, while transformative for access to justice, has also added substantially to the judicial workload over the past four decades.
The scale of the challenge becomes evident when examining court-level pendency. The Supreme Court continues to grapple with tens of thousands of pending matters, while High Courts face over 60 lakh pending cases, often with vacancy rates ranging between 30 and 40 percent. The Allahabad High Court alone carries a backlog exceeding 11 lakh cases. At the district level, where the vast majority of litigation originates, pending cases exceed four crore.
A major contributor to delay is what lawyers and litigants commonly describe as the “adjournment culture”. While Order XVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code restricts adjournments, repeated postponements remain routine in many courts. The Supreme Court itself highlighted the issue in Salem Advocate Bar Association vs Union of India, yet procedural delays continue to consume valuable judicial time. Court dates often become an end in themselves rather than milestones towards resolution.
The shortage of judges compounds the problem. Although increasing judicial strength is necessary, it is not a complete solution. Additional judges can improve disposal rates, but without procedural reforms, digitisation and better case management systems, fresh appointments alone cannot eliminate systemic backlog.
Infrastructure presents another challenge. India’s e-Courts initiative has delivered substantial progress, particularly since the pandemic accelerated virtual hearings and digital filings. Yet, gaps remain. Connectivity issues in smaller towns, uneven technological adoption and the absence of standardised digital evidence frameworks continue to hinder efficiency.
The judiciary has also attempted to address pendency through landmark jurisprudence. In Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court sought to reduce unnecessary arrests and prevent avoidable criminal prosecutions. In P Ramachandra Rao vs State of Karnataka (2002), a seven-judge bench reaffirmed the importance of speedy trials while cautioning that courts could not prescribe rigid timelines that properly belonged within the legislative domain. More recently, Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India (2023) strengthened procedural safeguards by requiring that grounds of arrest be communicated in writing, reinforcing due process protections.
Perhaps the most troubling manifestation of judicial delay is India’s undertrial population. Nearly three-fourths of prisoners in Indian jails are undertrials awaiting the conclusion of proceedings. In many cases, individuals spend years in custody before their guilt or innocence is determined. Such delays challenge the foundational criminal law principle of the presumption of innocence.
Recognising this concern, the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, issuing comprehensive guidelines intended to reduce unnecessary incarceration and encourage lower courts to safeguard personal liberty more effectively.
Technology may ultimately prove to be the most significant force multiplier available to the justice system. The next phase of judicial reform is moving beyond mere digitisation towards digital transformation. Tools such as the Supreme Court’s SUVAS translation software are already making judgments accessible in regional languages, expanding legal accessibility across the country.
The future may lie in AI-assisted judicial administration. Automated case scheduling, digital scrutiny of filings, intelligent management of summons, language translation tools and predictive workflow systems could dramatically improve efficiency without compromising judicial independence. Properly implemented, technology can help judges devote more time to adjudication while reducing administrative burdens.
The Supreme Court’s attainment of its highest-ever strength is undoubtedly a positive development. It signals institutional recognition that judicial capacity must grow alongside India’s expanding legal demands. Yet, the pendency crisis remains a structural challenge requiring far more than additional appointments. Vacancies will continue to arise through retirements, and unless reforms address procedure, infrastructure, technology and litigation culture simultaneously, backlog may persist despite larger benches.
A stronger Supreme Court is an important beginning. Whether it becomes a turning point in India’s quest for timely justice will depend on the broader transformation of the judicial ecosystem that lies ahead.
—The writer teaches at Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida
The post At Full Strength, Yet Under Strain appeared first on India Legal.