NEWS: On May 17, the President promulgated an ordinance increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court (SC) from 34 judges to 38 judges.

BACKGROUND

• The decision followed the Union Cabinet's approval of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026.
• The government argued that four additional judges would help the Supreme Court deliver "speedy justice."
• According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), the Supreme Court had around 93,966 pending cases, raising concerns about judicial backlog.
• The article discusses whether increasing the number of judges alone can solve the pendency crisis

Why Was the Ordinance Route Criticised?

• The ordinance route was considered unnecessary because Parliament was scheduled to convene within weeks.
• The proposal could have been introduced through the normal legislative process.
• Previous laws increasing the number of Supreme Court judges were generally passed with little controversy through parliamentary debate.
• Using an ordinance for such a measure may increase institutional scepticism and create doubts regarding the government's intentions

Article 136

• Article 136 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant Special Leave to Appeal against judgments from any court or tribunal in India (except military courts).
• It is an extraordinary jurisdiction intended to be used sparingly in exceptional cases.

How Have SLPs Increased Pendency?

• The Constituent Assembly expected the Supreme Court to exercise restraint while using Article 136.
• Over time, a large portion of the Supreme Court's docket has become dominated by SLPs.
• The Court has not developed sufficiently clear guidelines regarding when SLPs should be admitted.
• As a result, thousands of appeals reach the Supreme Court, creating a huge backlog

Will Increasing the Number of Judges Reduce Pendency?

Prashant Reddy's View: Not Necessarily

• Increasing the sanctioned strength may actually create more problems.
• More judges mean more Division Benches hearing cases simultaneously.
• Different Benches may deliver different interpretations of law.
• This can increase doctrinal inconsistencies and conflicting judgments.
• More conflicts would require referral of cases to larger Benches, which may create additional delays.

Swapanil Tripathi's View: Increase Can Help If Properly Managed

• Judicial diversity of opinion is natural and often healthy.
• Different judges may approach facts differently.
• However, legal principles must remain consistent.
• Therefore, increasing judge strength can be useful only when accompanied by strong judicial discipline and coordination.

What Institutional Reforms Are Suggested?

Filter Frivolous Litigation

• The Supreme Court should develop a stronger mechanism to reject weak, repetitive, or frivolous cases at an early stage.
• This is especially important in Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

Follow Supreme Court Guidelines on PILs

• Courts should strictly apply guidelines laid down in State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010).
• PILs should be entertained only when they genuinely serve public interest.
• Courts should prevent PILs motivated by: Political interest, Personal interests, Publicity motives

Increase Reliance on Written Submissions

• Courts should depend more on written arguments.
• This would reduce excessive oral hearings and save judicial time.
• Faster disposal of cases could become possible

Key Constitutional Concepts 

Article 136 – Special Leave Petition (SLP)

• Gives the Supreme Court discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal.
• Applicable against judgments of courts and tribunals.
• Considered an extraordinary constitutional remedy.
• Intended for exceptional circumstances.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL)

• Allows individuals or groups to seek judicial intervention in matters affecting public interest.
• Expanded access to justice but has also increased the Court's workload.