Beyond Numbers: Recasting the Supreme Court for Constitutional Justice

Why in news ?

Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the sanctioned judicial strength from 34 to 38 (including the CJI). This legislative move aims to balance two competing institutional mandates: hearing regular appellate dockets and enabling the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to constitute Constitution Benches on a predictable, continuous basis.

Constitutional & Statutory Framework

• Article 124(1): Empowers Parliament to determine and alter the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges by law.
• Article 145(3): Mandates a minimum Bench of five judges for cases involving a "substantial question of law" regarding constitutional interpretation or presidential references under Article 143.
• Article 136 (Special Leave Petitions): Expands the Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction, causing routine litigation to dominate judicial time over core constitutional adjudication.

Why Constitution Benches Strain the Daily Docket

• Judicial Cannibalization: Five-, seven-, or nine-judge Benches are drawn from the same single pool of sitting judges. Setting up one 5-judge bench directly removes two regular division benches (2–3 judges each) from the daily cause list.
• Non-Hearing Workload: Complex constitutional questions demand extensive time outside courtrooms for oral submission review, bench conferences, and writing separate concurring or dissenting opinions.
• Intermittent Hearings: Because judges must return to their regular rosters, constitutional matters frequently suffer from fragmented, spaced-out hearings, delaying landmark judgments for years.

The Law Commission of India has repeatedly advocated structural bifurcation:

• 95th & 125th Reports (1984, 1988): Recommended establishing a dedicated Constitutional Division separate from the general appellate division.
• 229th Report (2009): Proposed a permanent Constitution Bench at New Delhi and Regional Cassation Benches (North, South, East, West) to handle routine high court appeals and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs).
• Case Management Reforms: Limiting routine SLPs, curbing frequent adjournments, placing strict time caps on oral arguments, and relying more on written briefs.

Way Forward

• Maintain Full Working Strength: Ensure timely recommendations by the Collegium and prompt government notifications to avoid persistent vacancy gaps.
• Dedicated Rosters: Create fixed, rotation-based benches for constitutional matters to avoid disrupting ordinary civil and criminal appellate boards.
• Filter Discretionary Appeals: Re-evaluate admission criteria under Article 136 so the Supreme Court functions primarily as an apex constitutional court rather than a routine court of appeal.

Practice Question

Merely augmenting the judicial strength of the Supreme Court cannot resolve the twin challenges of mounting case pendency and delayed constitutional adjudication. Critically examine in light of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026. (250 words, 15 Marks)