More Judges, Same Backlog? Why Supreme Court Strength May Not Be Enough
More judges alone may not resolve mounting case pendency.
Parliament has cleared the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, increasing the sanctioned strength of the apex court from 34 to 38 judges. The increase, the first since 2019, comes as the Supreme Court faces a pendency of more than 92,000 cases. While the government has positioned the legislation as a measure to strengthen the court's disposal capacity, legal experts have cautioned that adding judges alone may not resolve the wider problem of judicial delays.
According to figures cited in the Bill, 92,101 cases were pending before the Supreme Court as of January 1, 2026. The court disposed of 65,615 cases in 2025 against 75,410 fresh cases instituted during the year, indicating that new filings continued to outpace disposals. Shri Venkatesh, founding partner at SKV Law Offices, said the increase represented a supply-side response to what was largely a demand-side problem, with case filings rising faster than judicial capacity.
Other legal experts also pointed to factors beyond the number of Supreme Court judges. Mathuvanthy Mathavan, partner at Poovayya & Co, said the additional judges could allow more benches to function but argued that pendency was a system-wide issue involving case inflows and litigation practices. Keyur Gandhi, managing partner at Gandhi Law Associates, described the increase as part of a broader judicial capacity-building exercise and said its effectiveness would depend on implementation and supporting reforms.
Also Read: Supreme Court Maintains Bail Restrictions On Ashish Mishra In Lakhimpur Case
The parliamentary debate also highlighted infrastructure requirements, including additional courtrooms, judges' chambers and administrative facilities. Experts have further raised concerns about the nature and volume of the Supreme Court's docket, particularly its extensive appellate jurisdiction under Article 136. Rishabh Gandhi, founder of Rishabh Gandhi and Advocates, suggested that national appellate courts or regional appellate benches could handle routine civil and criminal appeals, allowing the Supreme Court to focus more closely on constitutional questions and matters of national importance.
The additional sanctioned positions could nevertheless provide the court with greater flexibility in constituting benches and allocating judges between regular matters and Constitution Bench hearings. Larger Constitution Benches can require five, seven or nine judges, potentially reducing the judicial strength available for routine cases. Sameer Jain, managing partner at PSL Advocates & Solicitors, said the increase could allow Constitution Benches and regular benches to function simultaneously more frequently and potentially improve disposal rates.
However, experts said a sustained reduction in pendency would require reforms across the wider judicial system. Amit Kapur, senior partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, pointed to faster filling of vacancies, fewer layers of appeals, tighter scrutiny of government litigation, greater use of institutional arbitration and stronger controls on adjournments. Venkatesh also argued for a narrower exercise of Article 136 jurisdiction and reforms to the structure of appellate litigation, noting that increasing the number of judges should be viewed as one component of a broader effort rather than a standalone solution to the Supreme Court's pendency challenge.
Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks Petitioners’ Response To Centre’s Affidavit On NTA Reform Plea
