By Sanjay Raman Sinha
In a move widely seen as a positive signal for the higher judiciary, the Union cabinet has approved an increase in the number of judges in the Supreme Court by four. The proposed amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, seeks to raise the sanctioned strength of the apex court from 34 to 38 judges, including the chief justice of India.
The government has justified the decision on grounds of improving judicial efficiency, reducing pendency, and ensuring timely delivery of justice to litigants.
The urgency behind the move becomes evident when one examines the mounting backlog before the apex court. As of May 2026, nearly 92,926 cases remain pending in the Supreme Court. These include Constitution bench matters, criminal appeals, civil disputes, and a range of other petitions. Although disposal rates have improved in recent years, fresh filings continue to outpace case resolution. The expectation is that additional judges will help ease this burden.
The Supreme Court primarily functions through division benches of two judges and three-judge benches, while Constitution benches comprising five or more judges hear matters involving substantial constitutional interpretation. Constitution bench hearings consume entire court days, inevitably limiting the time available for routine matters.
With four additional judges, the chief justice of India could potentially constitute two more division benches. Given that the apex court functions for roughly 190-200 working days annually, the expanded strength could enable hundreds of additional cases to be heard every month, gradually helping reduce the backlog.
However, numbers alone may not resolve the deeper structural issues confronting the judiciary.
Only weeks ago, Justice Dipankar Datta stressed the need to appoint meritorious judges as a critical measure to tackle rising pendency. Better pay scales and improved service conditions, he argued, are equally necessary to attract talented legal minds to the bench.
Even sanctioned strength means little if vacancies remain unfilled. Delays in judicial appointments have become routine. Supreme Court vacancies often remain pending because of procedural bottlenecks, while High Court appointments can take five to seven months—sometimes longer—after collegium recommendations are made. Cooperation between the judiciary and the executive, along with adherence to clear timelines, is therefore as important as increasing the number of judges.
Yet, the Supreme Court’s pendency is only the visible tip of a much larger iceberg.
The real crisis lies in the lower judiciary, where access to justice is increasingly under strain. As of early 2025, High Courts across the country were functioning with nearly 33 per cent vacancies. Subordinate courts faced a vacancy level of around 21 per cent, alongside an enormous backlog of nearly 4.8 crore pending cases by late 2025.
This is where a serious policy push on judicial recruitment is urgently required.
The addition of four Supreme Court judges, important though it is, cannot by itself address the staggering scale of pendency in the country. As of December 31, 2025, more than 5.39 crore cases were pending across the Supreme Court, High Courts, and district courts combined.
What India needs is not merely incremental expansion, but a comprehensive judicial reform strategy.
From the grassroots upward, the system requires a rethinking of recruitment, promotions, infrastructure, salaries, and training. India must work towards improving judge-to-population ratios, ensuring competitive compensation for judges, creating transparent appointment mechanisms, strengthening district judiciary recruitment, and expanding alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
The government, too, must become a more responsible litigant, reducing avoidable litigation that clogs the courts.
Judicial reform cannot proceed through piecemeal measures or by shifting responsibility solely onto the judiciary. The scale of the crisis demands a coordinated and cooperative national effort.
The post Four More Judges, But A Much Larger Judicial Challenge appeared first on India Legal.