High Number of Pending Cases in Supreme Court of India

Context: The pendency of cases in the Supreme Court has reached an all-time high of 88,417, even when the court is currently functioning with its full sanctioned judicial strength of 34 judges.

Reasons Behind High Number of Pending Cases

• Frequent Adjournments: Approximately half of the 90 cases listed daily in district and subordinate courts get adjourned.
  • Reasons for adjournments include the need for:
    • Evidence gathering.
    • Legal research.
    • Filing motions or awaiting external events affecting the verdict.
• Complex Judicial Processes: Multiple stages of a case—charge sheet filing, charge framing, evidence presentation, arguments, and judgment—each introduce delays due to structural inefficiencies.
  • Examples of delays:
    • Prolonged evidence collection by investigation officers.
    • Inefficient summons processes by police and public prosecutors.
    • Misleading or outdated information in case records (roznama).
    • Misplacement of case files, especially in prolonged cases.
• Limited Use of Technology: Many district courts lack adequate video conferencing facilities, hindering modernisation.
• Inadequate Legal Aid: Undertrials from poor socioeconomic backgrounds lack awareness of free legal aid and face issues with the quality of legal assistance.

• High Case Inflow vs Disposal Capacity: Annual inflow remains higher than disposal capacity despite the full strength of judges.
  • Eg: Fresh filings (e.g., 7,080 in Aug 2025) consistently outnumber disposals (5,667).
• Structural Limitations: The Supreme Court handles not only constitutional cases but also routine appeals and bail matters.
  • It acts as a court of last resort even for small disputes, unlike apex courts in the US/UK.
• Post-Pandemic Pile-Up: COVID years created a backlog surge; pendency has continued to climb since 2023.
• Procedural Inefficiencies: Frequent adjournments, lengthy arguments, and lack of strict case management. Also Digital initiatives like e-filing are not fully mainstreamed.
• Vacancies in Lower Judiciary: Pendency in subordinate courts (over 4.5 crore cases) leads to spillover appeals into higher courts. The Supreme Court ends up shouldering the cumulative

Challenges in Proposed Solutions

• Performance Metrics for Judges: Encouraging judges to prioritise high-disposal cases may sideline sensitive or complex cases.
  • Hasty judgments can increase appeals, further burdening the judiciary.
• Engaging Retired Officials for Administrative Tasks: Retired officials may lack sensitivity and familiarity with judicial procedures, potentially creating inefficiencies and unfairness.
• Video Proceedings: Intimidation during virtual hearings as accused are surrounded by jail officers.
  • Inability to assess the physical condition or well-being of the accused.
  • Loss of crucial rights like meeting family and lawyers confidentially during court appearances.

Key Recommendations

• Structural Reforms in Judicial Processes: Identify and address delays at critical stages like evidence collection, summons issuance, and documentation accuracy.
  • Improve case records (roznama) to ensure accurate tracking of case stages.
• Improve Legal Aid Access: Allocate more resources to strengthen free legal aid systems.
  • Raise awareness about legal aid among underprivileged undertrials.
• Balanced Approach to Adjournments: Avoid rigid limits on adjournments; evaluate the justification based on case-specific needs.
• Responsible Use of Technology: Enhance video conferencing facilities while safeguarding the rights of undertrials.
  • Address issues of intimidation and ensure confidentiality during proceedings.
• Focus on Fair and Speedy Trials: Ensure the pursuit of faster case disposal does not compromise fairness.
  • Prioritize systemic solutions over quick fixes like performance metrics or external delegations.
• Resource Allocation: Increase investments in judicial infrastructure, technological modernisation, and human resources to address systemic bottlenecks effectively.

Impacts of Pendency in the Supreme Court

• Access to Justice Denied: Justice delayed amounts to justice denied, eroding public faith in the judiciary.
• Economic Costs: Investor confidence is weakened due to the slow resolution of commercial and arbitration cases.
  • World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business indicators have flagged judicial delays as a barrier.
• Increased Workload for Judges: Judges overburdened, leading to stress and reduced quality of judgments.
• Prison Overcrowding: Criminal cases pending for years keep undertrials in jail, worsening overcrowding and human rights issues.
• Federal Tensions: States suffer when major policy or legislative matters remain unresolved (e.g., Governor assent cases, Centre–State disputes).

Way Forward (Committee Recommendations)

• Increase Judge Strength
  • Law Commission (1987, 245th Report): Raise judge-population ratio from ~21 per million to at least 50.
  • Establish a Constitution Bench Division and Appellate Division (Law Commission, 229th Report).
• Specialised Benches and Courts: Create special courts for commercial, environmental, and tax disputes to reduce the Supreme Court’s burden.
• Process Reforms & Technology: Adopt case management systems, limit adjournments. Strengthen e-Courts Mission Mode Project and expand virtual hearings.
• Institutional Reforms: Filter entry of cases by limiting Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) to matters of constitutional importance.
  • Introduce National Court of Appeals (L. Chandrachud Committee) to handle routine appeals.
• Strengthen Lower Judiciary: Fill vacancies in district courts to reduce inflow of appeals.
  • All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) to ensure uniform quality and quicker recruitment.

Sharing is caring!