The Supreme Court of India, the country’s highest judicial authority, currently faces a daunting backlog of over 81,000 pending cases. This huge pendency not only delays justice for common citizens but also stalls critical constitutional matters that shape the future of the nation. While several proposals to reduce this burden exist, many involve government intervention, such as increasing the number of judges or creating new benches—solutions that are slow-moving and often politically contentious.
However, there are concrete, actionable steps the Supreme Court can take on its own to reduce pendency significantly, without needing government approval. In this post, we explore five practical reforms that can help the Supreme Court improve efficiency and reduce its case backlog.
1. End the Overuse of Miscellaneous Days
One of the most significant causes of delay in the Supreme Court is the practice of designating Mondays and Fridays as “Miscellaneous Days”. On these days, the Court focuses primarily on deciding whether to admit new cases for full hearings. But the numbers are eye-opening:
- Out of 100 admission-stage cases, only 13 are actually heard on merits.
- In 2023, 89 out of 191 working days were Miscellaneous Days—nearly 47% of the Court’s time.
- Average time spent on an admission hearing? Just 93 seconds.
This process leads to an inefficient allocation of precious judicial time.
Proposed Reform:
Adopt a written-submission-based filtering system. Judges can review case files in their chambers and decide whether the case merits a full hearing. Only if the written documents are unclear should a hearing be scheduled.
This model is already followed for Review Petitions and aligns with practices in countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. This change would not only free up time but also allow the Court to spend more time resolving cases it has already agreed to hear, instead of continually processing new ones.
2. Group and List Similar Cases Together
Another major inefficiency is the current case-listing system, which often fails to identify similar or related matters.
Currently, lawyers must request that their cases be “tagged” with others, but they may not be aware of every similar case across the Court. This opens the door to strategic tagging—where lawyers might try to get their case listed before a judge they believe will favor their side.
Proposed Reform:
The Court should proactively group similar matters, such as:
- Land acquisition disputes from the same district.
- Pension claims from a common employer.
- Similar tax disputes.
These cases should be listed before the same bench on the same day, leading to:
- Consistency in judgments on similar legal issues.
- Specialized benches handling specific subject matters.
- Reduced duplication of effort and fewer hearings overall.
By streamlining how similar cases are handled, the Court can drastically cut down the time spent on repetitive hearings.
3. Implement a True E-Filing System
India’s courts have made significant progress in digitization, but the e-filing system used in the Supreme Court is still largely symbolic.
Currently, lawyers upload PDF versions of their petitions and affidavits. But:
- Many files are scanned images, not machine-readable.
- The Court often prints these documents anyway.
- Data extraction for analytics is manually intensive.
Proposed Reform:
Create a dynamic online submission system where lawyers fill out a form with:
- Key case details.
- Jurisdiction information.
- Relevant legal issues.
This shift would:
- Minimize clerical errors (like wrong margins or fonts).
- Enable machine-readable data, helping the Court identify trends.
- Support automated case grouping, improving listing efficiency.
In the long run, such a system would form the backbone for integrating AI and data analytics into court management.
4. Use Data to Identify Fast-Track Cases
The conversation around AI in Indian judiciary often hits a wall due to the lack of quality data. Even basic analytics are hard to run when the system lacks standardised digital case records.
But with better data from improved e-filing, the Court could:
- Flag minor criminal appeals where the sentence is under 3 years for speedy disposal.
- Identify cases where the undertrial has served more than 50% of their sentence—these should be fast-tracked.
- Group and decide low-stakes tax disputes in special sittings.
The key to unlocking such innovations lies in building a clean and structured dataset. Once available, the Court can implement intelligent sorting, automatic tagging, and eventually machine learning tools to manage and prioritise cases more effectively.
5. Establish a Permanent Pendency Reduction Body
To ensure continuity in judicial reform, the Supreme Court should create a dedicated body to reduce pendency. Currently, every new Chief Justice comes with new priorities, and long-term strategies are often abandoned mid-way.
Proposed Reform:
Form a permanent advisory committee composed of:
- Legal experts familiar with Supreme Court practices.
- Data scientists and court technology specialists.
- Representatives from the Bar.
This committee would:
- Conduct empirical research on judicial performance.
- Evaluate existing reforms with data-driven insights.
- Publish transparent strategies with measurable targets.
- Facilitate stakeholder consultations with judges and lawyers.
Having such an institutional mechanism would help build a long-term, consistent strategy for managing the Court’s docket—ensuring reforms survive beyond the tenure of individual Chief Justices.
Addressing Concerns from the Legal Community
Some lawyers may worry that reducing oral hearings would affect the fairness of cases. Others might fear fewer appearances, and therefore reduced income. But history offers precedent:
- In the 1970s, when the Court abolished oral hearings for Review Petitions, the decision was challenged but upheld by a Constitution Bench in P N Eswara Iyer v. Registrar.
- The Bench clarified that oral hearings are not a constitutional right, especially at the admission stage.
- Leading democracies like the US, UK, and Australia already limit oral arguments in early case stages.
The focus must remain on delivering timely justice—not just providing endless opportunities to be heard.
Conclusion
Reducing pendency in the Supreme Court of India is not just a matter of increasing manpower or building new infrastructure. It is about making smarter choices with the resources we already have. By reforming procedures, leveraging technology, and institutionalizing change, the Court can drastically improve its efficiency.
From ending inefficient Miscellaneous Days to embracing digital transformation, the solutions are within reach. All that’s needed is the will to act—and a vision that goes beyond individual tenures.
If India is to live up to the promise of “Justice delayed is justice denied,” the time to act is now.
