Teamwork among Supreme Court judges is excellent: CJI Surya Kant Interview

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has initiated an experimental measure to tackle the pervasive issue of judicial pendency in the Supreme Court. The initiative involves constituting four dedicated benches specifically to hear the oldest civil and criminal cases, operating on non-miscellaneous days. This strategic shift aims to address the backlog of approximately 83,000 active matters, distinguishing them from nearly 10,000 defective cases. The CJI hopes this focused approach will provide a model for future Chief Justices to emulate, marking a significant effort to ensure timely justice and enhance the efficiency of the apex court.

The Indian judiciary grapples with a formidable challenge: an ever-increasing backlog of cases that impedes the timely delivery of justice. With over 54 million cases pending across all court levels by the end of 2025, and the Supreme Court alone facing a pendency of over 93,000 matters in March 2026, the scale of the problem is undeniable. This persistent issue not only strains judicial resources but also erodes public trust in the legal system, underscoring the urgent need for innovative solutions.

In a significant move to confront this crisis, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant has unveiled an experimental strategy: the establishment of four dedicated benches to exclusively hear the Supreme Court's oldest pending cases. This initiative, described by the CJI as an “experiment” whose success will be judged by its results, represents a targeted effort to clear the most entrenched disputes that have languished in the system for decades. The move signals a renewed focus on systemic efficiency and a proactive approach to judicial administration, aiming to correct historical imbalances in case listing and disposal patterns.

The Supreme Court of India, established under Article 124 of the Constitution, stands as the apex judicial body, entrusted with interpreting the Constitution and safeguarding fundamental rights. Its powers and functions are meticulously outlined in Part V, Chapter VI of the Constitution, from Article 124 to Article 147. A critical aspect of the Supreme Court's functioning is the administrative authority vested in the Chief Justice of India, who serves as the 'Master of the Roster.' This prerogative empowers the CJI to constitute benches and allocate cases, a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in cases such as *State of Rajasthan v Prakash Chand* (1997).

Further, Article 145 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to formulate its own rules for regulating practice and procedure, subject to presidential approval. These procedural guidelines are codified in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which govern various aspects of court operations, including the constitution of Division Benches and the listing of cases. Historically, judicial pendency has been a persistent challenge, with various Chief Justices implementing diverse strategies to manage the burgeoning caseload. Despite periodic increases in the sanctioned strength of judges and the introduction of measures like the Integrated Case Management Information System (ICMIS), the overall pendency figures have continued to rise, often due to new case filings outpacing disposals. The CJI's current initiative builds upon this history, seeking to address a specific facet of pendency: the oldest cases that have been inadvertently sidelined by the existing listing mechanisms.

The CJI's new initiative involves the constitution of four dedicated benches, two for civil matters and two for criminal matters, specifically tasked with hearing the Supreme Court's oldest pending cases. These special benches are slated to operate on “non-miscellaneous days” – Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays – which are typically reserved for “regular matters” requiring detailed arguments. This strategic allocation aims to provide uninterrupted judicial attention to cases that have been pending for decades, some dating back to 1986 for civil cases and 1991 for criminal cases.

The CJI's analysis of pendency reveals a crucial distinction between approximately 93,000 total pending matters and an “actual pendency” of around 83,000 cases. The remaining 10,000 cases are categorized as “defective matters,” where objections are pending, and lawyers have not cured the defects. This highlights a procedural bottleneck that contributes significantly to the overall backlog, independent of judicial capacity. By focusing dedicated benches on the actual, oldest pending cases, the Court seeks to bypass the systemic issues that cause these matters to be perpetually deferred under the general listing system, which often prioritizes fresh filings and preliminary hearings on “miscellaneous days” (Mondays and Fridays).

This approach is a departure from, yet complementary to, previous efforts by other Chief Justices. For instance, former CJI U.U. Lalit introduced a rigorous listing mechanism with distinct time slots for fresh and long-pending matters, while CJI D.Y. Chandrachud leveraged technology through the SC-JUDICARE project to automate case classification and constituted special benches for specific categories like death penalty references. Despite these efforts, the Supreme Court has faced a “productivity paradox” where, even with increased disposal rates, the overall pendency has continued to climb due to the exponential rise in new case intake. The current initiative, by specifically targeting the oldest cases, aims to address the qualitative aspect of pendency – ensuring that justice is not merely disposed of, but that long-standing grievances are finally resolved.

The success of this experiment will hinge on several factors, including the sustained commitment of the dedicated benches, the efficiency of case preparation by legal practitioners, and the ability to prevent new filings from overwhelming the system. While the creation of these benches is a commendable administrative step, it also underscores the broader systemic challenges facing the Indian judiciary, such as judicial vacancies (with India having a judge-to-population ratio of 21 judges per million, far below recommended standards) and the sheer volume of litigation. Nevertheless, by providing focused attention to the most protracted disputes, the CJI's initiative offers a glimmer of hope for litigants who have awaited justice for decades, potentially setting a precedent for more effective backlog management.

The Chief Justice of India’s initiative to establish dedicated benches for the Supreme Court’s oldest pending cases represents a pragmatic and focused attempt to alleviate a critical aspect of judicial pendency. By distinguishing between actual and defective matters and allocating specific judicial resources to long-standing disputes, the Court aims to inject efficiency and finality into cases that have historically been neglected. This “experiment” holds significant implications for legal practitioners, as it suggests a potential acceleration in the resolution of old civil and criminal appeals, necessitating prompt action in curing defects and preparing cases for hearing.

Practitioners should closely monitor the progress of these dedicated benches, as their success could influence future listing policies and judicial administration reforms. While this targeted approach is a positive step, it is crucial to recognize that it is part of a larger, ongoing battle against judicial backlog. The long-term solution will require a multi-faceted strategy encompassing not only innovative listing mechanisms but also addressing underlying issues such as judicial vacancies, infrastructure improvements, and potentially, legislative reforms to streamline procedural laws. The outcome of this experiment will be a key indicator of whether focused judicial teamwork can indeed make a substantial dent in India’s persistent pendency challenge, potentially paving the way for a more accessible and efficient justice delivery system.