INTRODUCTION
“Justice loses value with delay”- It’s pointing out backlogs, long periods before judgment, and waiting for hearing dates. In India, citizens have the right to speedy justice recognised under a constitutional principle, thus delay not only raises questions regarding the efficiency of the judicial system but also affects the rights and interests of individuals. Considering these issues, recently the Union Cabinet approved to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38[1]. The main question arise is whether this move actually removes the ground issue? Before answering this question, it is important to understand the benefits and overlooked portion of this step.
WHAT’S THE NEED FOR REFORM?
It is noted that around 93,000 cases are pending, especially after the pandemic, when e-filing became widely used. An increased judicial strength is expected to distribute the burden of caseloads more equally among judges and improve the pace of adjudication. Delay in the procedure may already break the confidence in people towards the system of justice, and that can be restored with structural changes, not merely strength expansion. However, this reform raises the important question regarding whether this delay is only because of a lack of judicial strength or whether there are other structural concerns also, which are add-ons to judicial delays. Thus, the effectiveness of reform needs deeper examination beyond backlog figures.
Article 124(1)[2] empowers the parliament to increase the strength of the Supreme Court through legislation. The recent increase in strength is proposed by the “Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026[3]. This is not the first time judicial strength has been increased; it can be traced back from around 1960 to 2026.
Judicial delay is not a recent concern; it has been there in the system for such a long period, traced back to old reforms and bills introduced to address this. The problem is deeply rooted in the system. The government took this new step to distribute the burden of cases and ensure fast hearing dates. The main goal is to maintain the confidence of people and to improve the overall functioning of the court.
IS THE PROBLEM BIGGER THAN NUMBERS?
The main concern is that this issue is not limited to the Supreme Court alone, as subordinate courts have also faced a large number of pending cases. Public confidence in the whole system can’t be strengthened only by increasing the strength of the Apex court. A significant number of people reach the lower court every year whose problems are still not fully resolved. The problem appears to originate from the root level, where lower courts continue to face a large number of pending cases; the delay affects the system from lower to higher levels.
Technology may also be an important solution in addressing the issue of judicial delays. Although the initiative of e-courts has been introduced, it still does not effectively reach every root. Virtual hearings, online case management, e-courts, etc., are the tools helpful to resolve the core issue only if they are executed properly. Therefore, addressing delay at the lower level along with technological implementation is equally important to resolve the issue at its core.
CAN MORE JUDGES ALONE SOLVE THE PROBLEM?
Shortage of judges is not the only problem; multiple structural and administrative factors also affect judicial delay, such as-
- Transfer of judges:
Frequent Transfer of judges creates inconsistency within the system, as newly assigned judges often require additional time to become familiar with pending matters, and it hinders the continuity of hearings.
- Vacancies in the lower court:
Lower courts have vacant seats, which automatically reduces the actual number of judges. This factor affects the working strength and increases the burden upon existing judges.
- Postponement of hearings:
Absence of lawyers, repeated requests for extension and complicated procedural issues contribute to the delay in the system.
- Infrastructure of the court:
Many courts are built with older infrastructure, and they do not have enough rooms to accommodate different categories of cases and litigants simultaneously. Not all of them have digital facilities; they are still dependent on traditional methods, which may affect efficiency in the judicial system.
- Poor Management:
Communication gap between people and court staff, slow movement of files between departments, cases not being listed on time are the points which may have the potential to create delay in the system.[4]
All of these factors suggest that increased judicial strength may help, but other problems also need consideration. There are multiple interconnected issues behind judicial delay. The current reform does not fully address the complexity of the problem.
BEHIND 38 JUDGES REFORM WHO ACTUALLY SUFFER THE WAIT
The recent approval of increasing the strength has gained widespread importance because judicial delay affects the common people emotionally and financially. No one prefers to go to court for years with hope in their eyes that keep on fading by another hearing date; it creates mental breakdown among people, which leads to frustration and loss of hope. People involved in cases also have to bear the financial burden of proceedings by giving legal fees to lawyers, travel charges and other expenses, which make it difficult, particularly for the lower and middle classes.
Society of India is full of stereotypes, due to which a consistent visit to court can also harm the reputation of the common man. A person who is not guilty suffers reputational damage even without any wrongdoing. Sometimes justice becomes irrelevant if not provided at the time of need. In many cases, a long period of time results in loss of evidence or weakens the reliability as time passes. Providing justice is not the only duty, but to provide speedy justice is also the responsibility of the judiciary. A speedy judiciary is required to maintain the effectiveness of justice. Such consequences show that judicial delay is not just an administrative concern and may directly affect the meaningful access to justice. Thus, delay is not just a structural concern but also has a significant impact on the daily life of ordinary citizens.
WHAT DOES THIS 2026 INCREASE IN SUPREME COURT STRENGTH REFORM REALLY INDICATE?
This new step of increasing the number of judges after around 6 years generates hope among people that the system is again considering the issue of delay in the justice system, especially after more technological advancements. Maybe it will not resolve the entire problem, but indicate the government’s approach towards judicial delay. Addressing the problem in the form of an increase in number reflects the possibility of wider institutional change for the upcoming years. Future reforms may be expected to address the other challenges that come in between the speedy and efficient functioning of the judiciary system.
CONCLUSION
The required step of increasing the number of judges gives this issue a policy consideration, but its effectiveness depends on the implementation part, which is yet to be done. The future validity of this reform can be gained by considering broader issues and implementation in other courts as well. Regular assessment of judicial reforms may help to determine whether an increase in strength is actually creating a meaningful impact on the system. Such a mechanism may contribute to long-term improvement. Delay in justice is not just a structural problem; it may also include procedural, financial and administrative factors. The question extends beyond judicial strength expansion; it raises concern regarding the judicial system India wants to seek, one that merely resolves cases faster or one that ensures effective and accessible justice. The success of this reform does not depend upon increasing strength but on strengthening public faith. The current bill helps in resolving the immediate problem, but a long-term solution needs consistent reforms in the lower courts, also with a better implementation policy that ensures ground-level reach and can affect the root cause. At the end, justice is meaningful only when it is delivered fairly on time.
Author(s) Name: Sanjana (Asian Law College, Noida)
References:
[1] ‘Cabinet approves increase in the Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India by Four to 37 from 33’ (Press Information Bureau, 05 May 2026) <https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2258131> accessed 19 May 2026
[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 124(1)
[3] Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2026
[4] Law Commission, Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (Wo)manpower (Law Com No 245, 2014)