Adding judges does not address the nature of the Supreme Court's docket. Suggest structural reforms to reduce pendency while keeping precedent coherent.

In 2020 the Supreme Court had 60,603 pending cases, and 49,088 of them (about 81%) were civil [4]. Most of its work is ordinary appeals, not constitutional questions. Adding judges only enlarges the same mixed docket. Pendency will fall only if the work is sorted by type.

Why more judges miss the problem

• Article 136 special leave petitions have made the Court a general court of appeal. Constitutional matters wait behind private disputes.
• More judges mean more two-judge benches. That raises the risk of conflicting rulings and makes it harder to put Constitution Benches together.
• The Court's own structural question, the National Court of Appeal reference of 2016, is still pending [2].

Structural reforms

• Divide the work: a permanent Constitution Bench in Delhi should hear only constitutional questions and substantial questions of law. The Law Commission's 229th Report proposed this, along with four cassation benches at Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai [1].
• Regional benches under Article 130: these need no amendment, only the CJI's decision with the President's approval [2]. The Parliamentary Standing Committee (2023) recommended appellate benches at 4–5 places [3].
• A stricter SLP filter: publish admission criteria, similar to the US Supreme Court's certiorari, so routine appeals end at the High Courts.
• Data before design: classify pending cases by type (admission stage or regular hearing) to decide whether location or filtering is the bigger fix.
• Pilot first: set up one regional bench and use the results to review the 2010 Full Court rejection [2].
• Amend last: create a separate Court of Appeal tier only after the 2016 reference is decided, because it must pass the basic structure test.

Keeping precedent coherent

• Article 141: regional benches stay bound by the Constitution Bench's rulings.
• Compulsory reference upwards: a bench that disagrees with another region's ruling must refer the question to Delhi, which settles it once.
• Rotate judges between benches and keep a common digital registry of judgments.

High Courts → [SLP filter] → Regional Appellate Benches (Art. 130)
                                    ↓ conflict / substantial question of law
                      Constitution Bench, Delhi (final word under Art. 141)

Flowchart: a sorted docket in which Delhi holds final authority

Sorting cases by type, plus regional benches and a firm filter, can cut pendency without breaking the unity of law. If the judiciary starts the change under Article 130, as the Law Commission and the Parliamentary Committee recommended, the Court can return to its role as guardian of the Constitution and make access to justice (Article 39A) real for every region.