Basics
- Event/Issue: Supreme Court pendency of cases has reached record levels, prompting judicial and administrative focus on workload management, bench strength, and case disposal efficiency.
- Background/Context: India’s apex court has historically faced rising backlog, exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic and continuing thereafter. Increased filings, complex litigation, and limited judge strength contribute to delays.
- Fact/Data: As of 2025, the Supreme Court’s pending cases reached 88,417, including 69,553 civil and 18,864 criminal matters. Disposal rate in August 2025 was 5,667 cases, below fresh filings of 7,080.
Relevance : GS-II (Judiciary, Access to Justice, Legal Reforms), GS-II/III (Social Issues: child marriage, gender rights).
Why in News
- Recent data highlights sustained rise in pendency despite full judge strength (34 sanctioned judges).
- Collegium and government are actively working to fill Supreme Court vacancies quickly to maintain functioning at full strength.
Overview
- Polity/Legal:
- Chief Justice and collegium have emphasized full bench strength to avoid even one vacancy.
- Successive Chief Justices have initiated reforms for increased benches and summer working schedules.
- Judicial recommendations stress timely appointments and efficient adjudication.
- Governance/Administrative:
- 21 benches worked during partial summer recess to manage backlog.
- Disposal rates still lag behind fresh filings, highlighting systemic inefficiencies.
- Economy: Minimal direct economic impact, but delayed dispute resolution affects investment, corporate litigation, and enforcement of contracts.
- Society:
- Backlog hinders redress in civil and criminal matters, affecting women and marginalized groups disproportionately.
- International: Judicial efficiency indices globally consider backlog; India’s Supreme Court pendency contrasts with courts in comparable democracies, impacting global rule-of-law perception.
Challenges
- Persistent increase in filings surpassing disposal rate.
- Regional disparities in social and legal cases complicate prioritisation.
- Limited judge strength relative to workload.
- Administrative inefficiencies in case allocation and tracking.
- Ensuring timely appointments without political or procedural delays.
Way Forward
- Maintain full sanctioned bench strength at all times; quick government action on collegium recommendations.
- Expand working benches and continue partial recess sittings when needed.
- Implement digital case management, AI-assisted prioritisation, and e-filing systems to streamline processes.
- Encourage alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to reduce civil case load.
- Monitor social issue cases (child marriage, gender rights) for fast-track adjudication.
- Consider National Judicial Data Grid and real-time reporting for transparency and policymaking.
Conclusion
- Supreme Court pendency reflects structural and administrative challenges that require coordinated action by the judiciary, executive, and technology interventions.
- Maintaining full bench strength, leveraging digital solutions, and prioritising social justice cases are key to improving access to justice.
