Supreme Court Sets Up Special Benches to Clear Long Pending Cases
Source:Indian Express ↗
Why It Matters
Judicial pendency and reforms are core topics in GS Paper II (Polity and Governance). This article highlights the structural challenges of the 'pendency paradox' (where ease of access increases backlog despite improved efficiency) and analyzes administrative innovations by successive CJIs, offering excellent case studies and data points for mains answers on judicial delays and reforms.
Summary
To tackle the mounting judicial backlog, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has established four special division benches to exclusively hear decades-old pending cases on non-miscellaneous days (Tuesdays to Thursdays). Despite record-high clearance rates in recent years, the Supreme Court faces a 'pendency paradox' where overall pending cases have risen to 96,045 because increased digital accessibility (e-filing, virtual courts) has driven an unprecedented surge in new filings. The move represents the latest in a series of administrative, structural, and technological strategies adopted by successive Chief Justices to address the persistent docket crisis in the higher judiciary.
Key Points
- Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has constituted four special division benches (two civil, two criminal) dedicated exclusively to clearing the Supreme Court's oldest pending cases.
- These division benches are headed by Justices P K Mishra and S V N Bhatti (for civil matters), and Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan (for criminal matters).
- To ensure focused judicial attention, these benches will hear cases on non-miscellaneous days (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday), exempting them from the clutter of fresh filings and admission-stage hearings.
- According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), the Supreme Court currently faces a backlog of 96,045 pending cases (74,244 civil; 21,801 criminal), with 26 cases languishing for over 30 years (the oldest civil case dating back to 1986).
- The phenomenon is characterized by a 'pendency paradox': despite the SC registering record disposal rates post-pandemic, overall pendency continues to rise because the inflow of new filings (bolstered by e-filing and virtual hearings, reaching 75,402 in 2025) outpaces the disposal rate.
- Different CJIs have pursued diverse administrative strategies to address backlogs: CJI Lalit used a strict daily listing mechanism; CJI Chandrachud deployed technology via the SC-JUDICARE project and Lok Adalats; CJI Khanna focused on admission-stage dockets and weeding out infructuous cases; CJI Kant has prioritized a unified national policy for case disposal.
Important Terms
SC-JUDICARE Project
An automated case management initiative launched by the Supreme Court of India in June 2023. It utilizes systematic data classification and case-tagging to group similar legal issues together, significantly improving judicial disposal and resource efficiency.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Judiciary & Judicial Reforms). Tests knowledge of technological interventions and administrative strategies to reduce the mounting judicial backlog in India.
National Judicial Data Grid
A comprehensive online monitoring tool and national repository created under the eCourts Project. It provides real-time tracking of case pendency, institution, and disposal across all tiers of the Indian judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (e-Governance & Judiciary). Evaluates the role of digital public infrastructure in promoting transparency, accountability, and administrative reform in the legal system.
Centre for Research and Planning
The dedicated in-house think tank and policy research center of the Supreme Court of India. Established in 2015, it assists the judiciary in legal research, judicial policy reform, data collection, and developing jurisprudence.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Judiciary). Tests understanding of institutional mechanisms and policy wings supporting the Chief Justice of India in administrative and legal planning.
Supreme Court of India
The apex judicial body of India established under Article 124 of the Constitution. It acts as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, the highest court of appeal, and protector of fundamental rights.
UPSC context
GS Paper II (Indian Polity). Core topic evaluating the structure, powers, jurisdiction, and landmark rulings of the highest court in India's integrated judicial system.
Prelims Trap
An amendment to the Constitution of India under Article 368 is required to increase the sanctioned judge strength of the Supreme Court.
Under Article 124(1), Parliament alters the number of judges through ordinary legislation or ordinances, not by a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
Static Concepts Connected
How is the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges modified?
- Constitutional provision: Article 124(1) empowers Parliament to increase the number of judges beyond the original seven by passing ordinary laws.
- Ordinary legislation: Strength is modified via amendments to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, not through Article 368 constitutional amendments.
- Ordinance route: The President can temporarily increase judge strength by promulgating an ordinance under Article 123 when Parliament is recessing.
What is the 'Master of the Roster' doctrine?
- Definition: Refers to the Chief Justice of India's exclusive administrative prerogative to constitute benches and allocate specific cases.
- Legal basis: Derived from Article 145 and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, rather than explicit constitutional text.
- Judicial validation: Reaffirmed in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) and Shanti Bhushan (2018) to prevent chaotic, decentralized bench formation.
Cross-Topic Patterns
E-Governance vs Judicial Capacity Paradox
Digital solutions like e-filings ease access to justice but spike case inflows. This shows how technological optimization backfires when physical judicial infrastructure remains constrained.
Separation of powers and structural capacity
While the judiciary maintains administrative independence, its structural expansion (judge count) depends on legislative statutes or executive ordinances, showcasing deep functional interdependence.
The constitutional mechanics of Article 124(1) paired with the CJI's administrative 'Master of the Roster' powers are prime 2026 MCQ targets.
Linked PYQs · 3
Linked PYQs · 3
- 2025MainsGS2
Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.
- 2020MainsGS2
The judicial systems in India and UK seem to be converging as well as diverging in recent times. Highlight the key points of convergence and divergence between the two nations in terms of their judicial practices.
- 2023PrelimsGS1
In essence, what does 'Due Process of Law' mean?
