More Judges, More Justice: Addressing The Needs Of Apex Court

On 24^th April, 2016 in the inauguration of the Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, Justice T.S. Thakur get emotional and said.

“Therefore not only in the name of the litigant… the poor litigant (he pauses as his voice trembles with emotion) languishing in jail but also in the name of the country and progress, I beseech you to realise that it is not enough to criticise the judiciary… you cannot shift the entire burden to the judiciary,”

The words of Hon'ble Chief Justice of India were few, but that say a lot. This reflects the challenges faced by judges as well as the suffering of poor litigants. It also focus on the judicial vacancies in the court which is main issue of that and current time.

If we look the current data in this regards, recently The Union Cabinet has officially approved an increase in the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India. This move will raise the number of judges from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI). If including the CJI, the total sanctioned strength will rise to 38. The expansion is being implemented through an amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026. This bill amends the original Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, which is the primary legal instrument Parliament uses to modify the court's size under Article 124(1) of the Constitution. This was done deliberately so that the number could be changed whenever required. Over the years, Parliament has used this power through amendments to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. When the Court started in 1950, it had only eight judges including the Chief Justice. Since then, the number has been increased from time to time as cases have grown.

This gradual increase can be understood clearly from the following-

The main reason behind the present increase is the large number of pending cases. The Supreme Court is dealing with thousands of cases at any given time. This naturally leads to delay, and delay in justice is a serious issue. The Court itself has said in cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1819, that speedy trial is part of the right to life under Article 21. Similarly, in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531, the Hon'ble Court drew attention over the delay in case and situation of poor litigant.

Similarly, the heavy workload is Article 136 of the Constitution. This provision allows the Supreme Court to hear appeals from almost any decision given by any court or tribunal. Although it was meant to be used only in special situations, in practice, a large number of cases reach the Supreme Court through this route. The Court had earlier shown this concern in Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169 that the power of Article 136 must be used carefully, but over time, it has become a common practice.

Just not this, the Apex Court also has important responsibilities under Article 32, which allows people to approach it directly in case of violation of fundamental rights. The Chief Architect of the Indian Constitution Dr. Ambedkar said for this “If I was asked to name any particular article... as the most important—an article without which this Constitution would be a nullity—I could not refer to any other article except this one. It is the very soul of the Constitution and the very heart of it” that shows the importance of this Article. Apart from this, the Court also deals with disputes between the Centre and States under Article 131 and gives advisory opinions (Article 143) when required. All this adds to its workload. Because of this situation, increasing the number of judges seems like a practical step. More judges mean more benches, and that can help in hearing more cases and reducing delay. But at the same time, it is also clear that increasing numbers alone cannot solve the problem completely. There are deeper issues, like too many appeals being filed and the Supreme Court being used as a regular appellate court instead of focusing mainly on constitutional matters.

There have been suggestions in the past that the Supreme Court should limit itself to important constitutional cases, and that other appeals should be handled by separate courts. Even the 254^th Law Commission Report has suggested creating additional structures to reduce the burden on the Supreme Court. The Court itself has also, in some cases, expressed concern about the growing number of routine matters coming before it. Another important point is the appointment of judges. Increasing the number of posts will only help if those posts are actually filled. Delays in appointments can reduce the benefit of this decision.

There is also the issue of consistency. When many benches are working at the same time, there is always a chance that different benches may take different views on similar issues. The Court has tried to deal with this by referring such matters to larger benches, as seen in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, 1989 SCC (2) 754, where the importance of consistency in law was discussed and used the term "paramount importance".

Looking at the bigger idea, the increase in the number of judges is connected with the idea of access to justice. The Constitution promises equality and fairness, but these promises lose their meaning if cases take too long to be decided. In that sense, this decision is a step in the right direction. At the same time, it should be understood that this is not a complete solution. Along with increasing the number of judges, there is also a need to improve how cases are managed, reduce unnecessary appeals, and make better use of technology. Only then can the system work more effectively.

At the end, the decision to increase the strength of the Supreme Court is a necessary response to a real problem. It follows the pattern seen in the past and is supported by the need to reduce delay and improve efficiency. However, for it to make a real difference, it must be supported by other reforms. Otherwise, the problem may continue despite the increase in numbers. There is still a long way to go, and the issue must be addressed accordingly.