Parliament’s approval of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the sanctioned strength of the apex court from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India, is an important step towards addressing mounting pendency. The legislation increases the number of puisne judges from 33 to 37 and replaces the ordinance that brought the increase into effect from May 16, 2026. The Supreme Court had 92,101 pending cases as of January 1, 2026. During 2025, it received 75,410 fresh filings and disposed of 65,615 cases, according to the figures cited in the bill’s legislative materials.
Dr. Ashok Mittal, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) welcomed the legislation but said the measure should be viewed as part of a wider programme of judicial reform, particularly because the overwhelming majority of pending cases are before the high courts and district judiciary.
Manashvi Tripathi: The Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength has now been increased from 34 to 38 judges. Does the Bill go far enough, or is it only a small fix for a much larger problem?
Dr. Ashok Mittal: The passage of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill is certainly a welcome step, and every sincere effort to improve the justice delivery system deserves appreciation. However, I would view it as one part of a much larger reform journey rather than a complete solution.
India’s judicial ecosystem is complex, and addressing pendency or improving access to justice requires a comprehensive, institution-wide approach. For most citizens, the experience of justice begins in the district courts and, in many cases, progresses through the High Courts. This is where the greatest pressures lie in terms of case volume, infrastructure constraints, judicial vacancies and procedural delays.
Legislative reforms are important, but they must be complemented by sustained investment in court infrastructure, timely appointments to judicial positions, robust digital systems, better case-management practices and continuous capacity-building for judges and court staff.
The scale of the challenge also underscores why broader reforms are necessary. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, Indian courts collectively have more than five crore pending cases, with nearly 89% pending in district and subordinate courts. The NJDG is the Supreme Court’s e-Courts data platform for tracking pendency and other judicial statistics.
This clearly demonstrates that while legislative reforms are important, the larger bottlenecks lie in strengthening the institutions where most citizens actually seek justice.
The implications extend well beyond the justice system. The Government of India’s Economic Survey has observed that delays in contract enforcement and dispute resolution are arguably the single biggest hurdle to improving ease of doing business and sustaining higher economic growth.
Judicial reform, therefore, is not merely a legal imperative. It is also an economic one: strengthening investor confidence, reducing the cost of doing business and supporting India’s long-term development.
Judicial reform should be viewed as a continuous institutional process rather than a single legislative milestone. Filling judicial vacancies on time, improving courtroom infrastructure and leveraging technology will have a far greater long-term impact than any one legislative intervention.
Manashvi Tripathi: As someone representing Punjab, do you often hear from constituents or lawyers about delays in the district courts or the Punjab and Haryana High Court?
Dr. Ashok Mittal: As a Member of Parliament, I regularly interact with citizens, legal professionals, entrepreneurs, educators and community representatives from Punjab. While individual cases naturally differ, one concern that emerges consistently is the time taken for disputes to reach resolution.
This is not unique to Punjab. It is a challenge experienced across many parts of the country and affects individuals, businesses and vulnerable communities alike. The NJDG also reflects this reality, showing that the overwhelming majority of pending cases are before district and subordinate courts, making this a systemic national challenge rather than one confined to a particular State.
For an ordinary citizen, a delayed property dispute, family matter or commercial case can have significant financial and emotional consequences. Businesses also value certainty, as efficient dispute resolution contributes to investor confidence and economic growth.
These conversations have reinforced my belief that strengthening district courts and High Courts should be central to any meaningful judicial reform agenda. These institutions handle the overwhelming majority of cases and represent the first point of contact for most litigants.
This requires a multidimensional strategy: timely filling of judicial vacancies, modern court infrastructure, wider adoption of digital platforms, simplified procedural practices and better case management.
As of March 2026, High Courts had 312 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 1,122 judges, according to the parliamentary data cited in the question. That represented nearly 28% of sanctioned positions. The Department of Justice’s vacancy statements also record substantial vacancies across the High Courts and the district and subordinate judiciary.
The challenge is further reflected in India’s judge-to-population ratio, which is around 22 judges per million people. This remains well below the Law Commission’s recommended benchmark of 50 judges per million.
Alongside vacancies in the subordinate judiciary, this inevitably affects the pace of case disposal. Equally important is investment in legal education and continuous professional development so that future legal practitioners are equipped for an evolving justice system.
The objective should not merely be to reduce pendency statistics. It should be to ensure that justice is delivered in a timely, transparent and citizen-centric manner. A stronger justice delivery system ultimately strengthens public trust in democratic institutions and supports India’s broader developmental aspirations.
Manashvi Tripathi: You have said that the larger backlog is in the High Courts and lower courts. Why do successive governments keep focusing on the Supreme Court first?
Dr. Ashok Mittal: The focus on the Supreme Court first is understandable for several reasons. It is the country’s highest constitutional court, its decisions have nationwide implications, and it is the institution most visible in matters involving constitutional rights, major public-interest questions and issues of national importance. As a result, strengthening its capacity naturally receives greater legislative and public attention.
There is also a practical institutional reason. The sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court can be increased directly by Parliament through an amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. The present amendment increases the sanctioned strength from 33 to 37 judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India. With the CJI included, the sanctioned strength rises from 34 to 38.
This makes increasing the Supreme Court’s capacity a relatively direct legislative intervention. In contrast, strengthening the district and subordinate judiciary involves the respective High Courts and State Governments, including issues of recruitment, infrastructure, court staff and financial resources.
The Supreme Court also has a highly visible and measurable caseload. Its pendency stood at 92,101 cases at the beginning of 2026, while fresh filings in 2025 exceeded disposals by nearly 10,000 cases.
However, the scale is very different at the levels below it. High Courts had more than 63 lakh pending cases in the official data cited in Parliament, while the district and subordinate judiciary accounts for the overwhelming majority of pending cases across the country.
So, the issue is not that successive governments should not strengthen the Supreme Court. They should. The concern is that the apex court can become the easiest and most visible point of intervention, while the much larger and more difficult task of strengthening the courts below it receives comparatively less attention.
If the objective is to improve the ordinary citizen’s experience of justice, reform has to move down the judicial pyramid, particularly to the High Courts and district courts, where most cases are filed, heard and delayed.
In my view, the Supreme Court should be strengthened, but it should not be where judicial reform begins and ends. The real test of reform is whether a citizen seeking justice in a district court can obtain a timely, efficient and affordable resolution.
That requires sustained attention to judicial vacancies, court infrastructure, technology, case management and procedural reform across the entire judicial system.
[The views and opinions expressed in this interview are solely those of the interviewee in their personal capacity and do not necessarily reflect the views of their organization, ETLegalWorld, or its affiliates.]
