Increasing the number of judges alone cannot resolve the problem of judicial pendency in India. Critically examine.

Q. Increasing the number of judges alone cannot resolve the problem of judicial pendency in India. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Article 124(1) empowers Parliament to prescribe the Supreme Court's judge strength, exercised most recently through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026, raising strength from 34 to 38 [1]. While added manpower is necessary, pendency is a structural problem that capacity addition alone cannot cure.

Merits of raising judge strength - Higher disposal capacity: more judges permit more Benches sitting simultaneously, improving disposal rates and reducing backlog [2]. - Constitutional obligation: speedy trial is part of Article 21; strength revision is the statutory route recognised by the Law Commission's 245th Report, which recommended a rate-of-disposal method for calculating required judicial manpower [4]. - Institutional response: the increase followed the CJI flagging a widening gap between case institution and disposal [2].

Why it is not sufficient - Vacancies, not sanctioned posts, are the binding constraint: the Economic Survey 2018-19 found a 100% case clearance rate was attainable largely by filling existing vacancies — including just one additional judge at the Supreme Court [3]. High Courts continue to function well below sanctioned strength [5]. - Bulk of pendency lies below: most pending cases sit in district and subordinate courts; enlarging only the apex court leaves the base untouched [5]. - Support ecosystem lags: courtrooms, registry staff, and digital systems must scale together — hence the ₹7,210 crore eCourts Phase-III investment in a unified judicial technology platform [6]. - Procedural and behavioural causes: routine adjournments, weak case management, and government as the largest litigant generate avoidable filings. - Appointment bottleneck: sanctioned strength is meaningless if collegium–executive delays keep posts unfilled [5].

Raising judge strength is a welcome but partial reform — it expands the pipe without reducing the inflow. Sustained relief requires time-bound appointments, judicial impact assessment before new legislation, strengthened mediation and Lok Adalats, a National Litigation Policy curbing government appeals, and full rollout of eCourts. Combined with the 2026 increase, these can make Article 21's promise of speedy justice a working reality rather than an aspiration.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 — PRS Legislative Research — increase from 34 to 38 judges; Article 124(1) basis; replacement of the 16 May 2026 Ordinance 2. PIB, The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 — official rationale of efficiency, speedy justice and rising pendency 3. Economic Survey 2018-19, Vol. I, Ch. 5 — "Ending Matsyanyaya: How to Ramp Up Capacity in the Lower Judiciary" — 100% case clearance rate achievable mainly by filling existing vacancies 4. Law Commission of India, Report No. 245, "Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (Wo)manpower" — rate-of-disposal method for computing required judge strength 5. Department of Justice — Judicial Manpower / Vacancy Position dashboard — sanctioned vs working strength and vacancies in High Courts and subordinate judiciary 6. PIB, Cabinet approves eCourts Phase III for 4 years — ₹7,210 crore outlay for unified judicial technology platform