The gap between institution and disposal of cases is the primary driver of judicial pendency in India. Critically analyze with reference to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026.

Q. The gap between institution and disposal of cases is the primary driver of judicial pendency in India. Critically analyze with reference to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Pendency arises when cases filed (institution) consistently outpace cases decided (disposal), causing arrears to compound. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 — raising sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges including the CJI — treats this gap as the core problem [1][3]. The diagnosis is largely valid, but incomplete.

Evidence supporting the institution–disposal thesis - In 2025 the Supreme Court registered 75,410 cases against 65,615 disposals, an annual shortfall of nearly 9,800 matters [4]. - Consequently, 92,101 cases were pending as on 1 January 2026, a figure cited in the Bill's Statement of Objects and Reasons [4]. - Judge strength was last revised in 2019 (31 to 34 including CJI); a stagnant bench facing rising filings mechanically widens the gap [1][4]. - Insufficient benches also delay Constitution Bench references, where judges are diverted from routine docket work [1].

Critical limitations of this framing - Capacity is statutory, not actual: the Ordinance route under Article 123 (16 May 2026) created posts, but filling them depends on the Collegium and executive concurrence — vacancies, not sanctioned strength, bind output [2]. - Institution is demand-driven: appeals flow upward because of poor drafting, government litigation (the largest litigant), and adjournment culture — none addressed by adding judges. - Structural bottlenecks persist: infrastructure, court staff, and case-management systems limit disposal irrespective of bench size. - Locus of pendency: the overwhelming backlog lies in subordinate courts and High Courts; expanding only the apex court touches a small fraction of arrears.

The institution–disposal gap is thus the visible arithmetic of pendency rather than its root cause. The 2026 Bill is a necessary corrective to a strength frozen since 2019, but it must be paired with timely Collegium appointments, a national litigation policy to curb avoidable government appeals, and technology-enabled case management. Only then does added capacity translate into the speedy justice implicit in Article 21.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 — PIB Press Release — increase from 34 to 38 judges, 2019 revision, Constitution Bench rationale 2. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, Legislative Department — Article 123 ordinance promulgated 16 May 2026 3. PRS Legislative Research — The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 — Bill's scope and legislative status 4. Govt. introduces Bill in Lok Sabha to raise strength of judges in SC to 38 — The Hindu — 2025 filing/disposal figures and pendency as on 1 January 2026