Supreme Court’s backlog crisis needs sustained action. Too ambitious to think CJI’s tenure can solve it

In his recent interview to the Hindustan Times, Justice Surya Kant, who takes oath today as the 53rd Chief Justice of India, talked about an obvious but daunting priority for his nearly 15-month tenure. He identified reducing the Supreme Court’s huge pile-up of backlog cases as his top concern before he demits office on February 9, 2027. 

The crisis has been in plain sight for too long, and has been lamented enough to almost sound like a cliché. But that doesn’t reduce the burden it places on every level of the judicial system. 

Justice Surya Kant’s admission that the listing has often been inadequate, and that matters are multiplying faster than the court can process, should mark a sense of urgency – more in action than in words. Confronting the most visible strain on the justice-delivery system should also entail a clear assessment of its multiple causes, repercussions, and a roadmap to find a way out of the crisis.

Massive pile

The new CJI inherits a massive pile to clear, a task that precedes his tenure and will require work well beyond his stint in office. The Supreme Court’s National Judicial Data Grid shows more than 90,000 cases pending – a figure unsurpassed in its history. This must also be seen in the context of around five crore cases pending in different courts lower down the system across the country. Even if the Supreme Court’s share of this number seems modest, it is huge for the top court of the country and signals far-reaching repercussions. 

It implies multiple consequences: delay in clarifying questions of constitutional law, significant legal questions awaiting clarity, and litigants seeking final relief on matters of appellate jurisdiction frequently facing years of waiting. Pendency at the apex stems not only from administrative congestion but also mirrors a deeper structural imbalance in how the institution uses its time.

Over the last few years, different aspects of the pendency crisis have engaged scholarly attention. One such attempt at understanding was offered by Aparna Chandra, Sital Kalantry and William H J Hubbard in their work Court on Trial – a study of the Supreme Court’s functioning through data and qualitative analysis. In their dissection of the Supreme Court’s backlog, one of their key observations is that the top court hears far more appeals than a constitutional court ordinarily would. This, they argue, stems largely from how Article 136, which gives the Supreme Court discretion to hear special leave petitions (SLPs), has evolved in practice. 

Even though the provision was originally intended as a narrow mechanism in cases of clear injustice, Article 136 has been resorted to as a broad appellate doorway. This can be seen in the fact that the Court receives tens of thousands of SLPs every year. A large number of such petitions ask the top court to intervene in routine or fact-specific disputes rather than address substantive questions of law. In other words, many of these petitions aren’t worth an apex court’s time. Only a small number need the interventions of the Supreme Court’s original or appellate jurisdiction.

The inflow of such petitions adversely impacts the docket. If one looks at the Supreme Court’s mornings, it becomes evident how often they are dominated by SLP admission hearings. This isn’t to suggest that admission of SLPs isn’t important — in fact, it is a significant part of the Court’s constitutional mandate. But it should be used more judiciously, and limited time shouldn’t be frittered away on matters that do not necessarily need the top court’s attention. 

The time saved can be used for final hearings or for attending to complex constitutional issues. In the absence of such prudent filtering, over time, the line between the Supreme Court as a dedicated constitutional court and as a general appellate body gets blurred.

The excessive time consumed in hearing a few listed matters also means other matters remain untouched for months or years. Moreover, adjournments are commonly sought and often granted. One result is skewed time allocation, which in turn means questions of high public importance are kept on the backburner while the court is burdened with multiple hearings of time-consuming petitions that might not involve key questions of law.

Extended oral hearings

One more claimant to a significant part of judicial time in the Supreme Court, as Professor Aparna Chandra et al point out, is the court’s tradition of extended oral hearings. It is well known that the Indian Supreme Court allows advocates to argue at length in many matters, a practice rooted in a commitment to thorough advocacy. But when extended oral arguments become a usual affair, they put severe strain on the court’s time. 

Some keen observers of the judicial process have suggested measures for better use of time. Such suggested measures include clear time limits for oral argument, greater reliance on written submissions, and reserving prolonged hearings for genuinely complex constitutional questions. These suggestions emphasise that such steps can ensure efficient use of the court’s time without chipping away at procedural fairness.

In essence, the new CJI’s remarks touch upon some of the causes of the backlog. His insistence on identifying and disposing of the oldest pending matters is a recognition of the fact that the backlog cannot be solved by ad hoc disposals alone. Instead, it will need a roadmap with clear priorities for the work ahead. One way to do this is to improve listing practices and promote mediation. 

It is important that the CJI recognises the significance of mediation in the judicial process. This would be of particular value in disputes involving government agencies, which constitute a large share of litigants. At the same time, his view that litigants should rely more on High Courts rather than reflexively approaching the Supreme Court aligns with the need to curb the volume of SLPs that reach the apex court unnecessarily.

There is a need to open a practical window of reform. 

In this context, judicial acknowledgment of the problem must align with empirical analysis. The NJDG-SC platform gives a transparent sense of the scale of the delays. To begin with, the new Chief Justice’s recognition of the problem can usher in some urgency and administrative discipline in the top court’s proceedings and listings. That may involve stricter filtering at the point of admission. There is also a need for predictable calendars that value Constitution Bench time. In doing so, there must be limits on adjournments, and thoughtful consideration of written advocacy when it can serve the purpose. In fact, appropriate curtailing of oral hearings can help reclaim judicial time for cases that demand extended deliberation.

It would be too ambitious to think that the tall task of dealing with the crisis of pendency in the apex court can be accomplished in the tenure of any CJI. The backlog has accumulated over years, and managing it to a doable range should be the first signpost before envisioning its complete elimination. 

The fact that the new CJI, Justice Surya Kant, has publicly acknowledged it as a priority of his tenure should now pave the way for the top court’s realistic roadmap for managing its workload. In the process, the court would do well to respect its judicial time in honouring its constitutional mandate of original and appellate jurisdiction. That also means it has to cut down on proceedings that distract it from its primary purpose as the country’s top court. The recognition of the backlog crisis, which isn’t new, now awaits sustained action to address it.

If the government can hike print ad rates by 26 percent, we can drop our subscription prices by 26 percent. Grab the offer and power journalism that doesn’t depend on advertisers.