Online Classes
case pendency crisis IN THE Supreme Court OF INDIA
MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM
Record high pendency: 88,417 cases pending in September 2025, the highest ever.
Nature of cases: Around 69,553 are civil cases and 18,864 are criminal cases.
Disposal vs. filing gap: In August 2025, 7,080 cases were filed while only 5,667 were disposed, despite an 80% disposal rate.
Annual data: In 2025 so far, 52,630 cases have been filed, while 46,309 have been disposed (nearly 88%).
IMPLICATIONS
Justice delayed: Citizens suffer prolonged litigation, reducing faith in the justice system.
economic impact: Commercial disputes stuck in court slow down business confidence and investments.
Human rights concerns: In criminal matters, undertrials may remain in jail for years.
Erosion of efficiency: Even with a full sanctioned strength of 34 judges, backlog continues to mount, highlighting systemic weaknesses.
CAUSES
High inflow of cases: Continuous rise in litigation outpaces disposal.
Limited judge strength: With only 34 judges, India has among the lowest judge-population ratios.
Inadequate infrastructure: Lack of advanced case management systems and digital tools.
Delays in judicial appointments: Although vacancies are being filled faster now, earlier lags worsened the backlog.
Proliferation of appeals: Overuse of Article 136 (Special Leave Petitions) has burdened the apex court.
Procedural complexity: Repeated adjournments and lengthy hearings slow the pace.
POLICY RESPONSE SO FAR
Working during summer recess: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai introduced “partial working days” with 21 Benches functioning in batches.
Faster appointments: Collegium recommendations cleared by the government within 48 hours recently.
Regular monitoring: Disposal rates are kept high (80–88%) despite rising filings.
Digitisation push: Expansion of the National Judicial Data Grid for better tracking.
WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE
Expand judicial strength: Increase sanctioned number of SC judges beyond 34.
Strengthen lower courts: Reduce inflow to SC by improving quality of judgments in High Courts.
Filter cases: Strictly limit admission of Special Leave Petitions and focus on constitutional questions.
Institutional reforms: Create a National Court of Appeal to handle routine appeals, leaving SC free for constitutional matters.
Technology adoption:
• AI-assisted case management for listing and categorisation.
• Wider use of e-filing and video hearings.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Promote arbitration, mediation, and Lok Adalats.
Case time limits: Enforce strict timelines for different categories of cases.
Performance-linked incentives: Encourage quicker disposal at all levels of the judiciary.
SYNOPSIS
The Supreme Court’s pendency crisis has touched an unprecedented 88,417 cases, despite functioning with full strength and adopting summer benches. The gap between filing and disposal reflects structural weaknesses—low judge strength, inflow of appeals, and procedural delays. Policy responses such as faster appointments and partial working days have helped, but systemic solutions like expanding judicial capacity, creating a Court of Appeal, stricter filtering of cases, and tech-driven reforms are essential to restore timely justice delivery.