1. A Court Paralyzed by Its Own Legacy
Just adding more judges is not working. When Parliament increased the sanctioned strength to 34 in 2019, pendency was near 60,000. Despite raising the strength to 38 in 2026, the backlog surged past 93,000.
- The Vanishing Constitution Bench: In the early 1960s, Constitution Benches decided about 134 cases a year. Over the last decade, that number has crashed to fewer than 10 annually.
- The SLP Avalanche (Article 136): Special Leave Petitions were designed as a rare “safety valve” for extreme injustice. Today, they make up nearly 85% of admitted cases, effectively turning the Supreme Court into a routine “court of fourth appeal” for rent disputes, bails, and property fights.
2. The Two-Tier Solution
To clear the gridlock, legal experts propose restructuring the court into two distinct layers, matching models used by successful democracies globally.
- The Blueprint: A lean, 11-judge Constitutional Court in Delhi would focus entirely on serious constitutional questions. Meanwhile, four or five regional Courts of Appeal (North, South, East, West) would handle the heavy daily load of ordinary appeals.
- Global Precedents:
• South Africa: Has a dedicated Constitutional Court in Johannesburg and a separate Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein.
• Germany: Operates a Federal Constitutional Court strictly for constitutional matters, leaving other cases to specialized federal courts.
• USA: The U.S. Supreme Court only admits about 1% of the 7,000 petitions it receives yearly, leaving the rest to 13 federal Courts of Appeals.
3. The Myth of an “Indivisible” Supreme Court
For years, successive Chief Justices have blocked this reform, fearing that splitting the Supreme Court would dilute its power and make it “less supreme.”
- The Fractured Reality: Advocates argue that the court’s “indivisibility” is already a fiction. Because of the massive caseload, the court sits in scattered two- or three-judge panels that frequently deliver contradictory rulings. A single, dedicated Constitution Bench would actually unify the law and provide clear, final answers.
- Justice at the Doorstep: Regional benches would save poor litigants the massive expense of traveling to New Delhi just to file a final appeal.
A constitutional court should protect the nation’s democratic framework, not act as a high-priced sorting office for routine appeals. If the Supreme Court does not decentralize its workload, it risks collapsing under the weight of its own docket.
Mains Practice Question
“Given that the Supreme Court has self-admittedly morphed into a ‘court of fourth appeal,’ critically evaluate whether invoking Article 130 to establish regional Cassation Benches can sustainably reduce pendency without simultaneously amending Article 136 to curtail the admission of Special Leave Petitions.” (15 marks · 250 words)
Introduction: State the scale of the crisis (over 93,000 cases pending in 2026). Mention that SLPs under Article 136 now constitute roughly 85% of the docket, crowding out core constitutional duties.
Body Part 1 (The Fix: Article 130 & Regional Benches): Explain the proposal of the 229th Law Commission to set up a dedicated Constitutional Court and regional Courts of Appeal. Discuss benefits: easing geographic access to justice, reducing costs for litigants, and allowing the Delhi bench to focus purely on constitutional law.
Body Part 2 (The Missing Filter: Article 136): Argue that merely setting up regional benches treats the symptom, not the disease. Without a strict filter (like Brazil’s “general repercussion” test), new regional benches will quickly clog up with frivolous appeals.
Conclusion: Conclude that structural expansion under Article 130 must be paired with strict jurisdictional discipline under Article 136 to restore the Supreme Court to its true role as a guardian of the Constitution.
Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success
Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.