Why make litigants rush to SC for early hearings, CJI asks HCs

1. At a Glance

• Core issue: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant pointed to a "growing tendency" among litigants. They are asking the Supreme Court to order urgent listing or early hearing of cases that are still pending before High Courts [1].
• Institutional tension: The SC says it respects HC institutional autonomy, including each HC's power to regulate its own roster. Even so, the number of such requests signals delay at the HC level [1].
• Scale of the problem: 65,54,788 cases are pending in HCs and 97,201 in the SC. About 26% of HC judge posts are vacant [1].
• UPSC relevance: GS-II covers the judiciary's structure and functioning, judicial pendency, HC–SC relations, vacancies, and access to justice.

2. Why in the News

• On Sunday, 1 November 2026, the CJI spoke at the inaugural of the Kerala High Court's platinum jubilee celebrations. SC judge S.V.N. Bhatti was also on stage [1].
• The CJI said: "We are witnessing a growing tendency of litigants approaching the Supreme Court requesting directions for urgent listing or early hearing of matters pending before the High Courts." [1]
• He added: "The Supreme Court has consistently respected the institutional autonomy of High Courts, including their authority to regulate their own rosters... Yet the frequency of such requests invites us to consi[der]..." [1]
• The Hindu reported this on 2 November 2026, Page 9, Chennai edition [1].

3. Background & Evolution

• Constitutional design: HCs are constitutional courts in their own right. They are not subordinate to the SC administratively. Each HC's Chief Justice manages its roster (the "Master of Roster" principle, which applies to HC Chief Justices just as it does to the CJI in the SC) [Static, not retrieved; verify].
• Earlier SC rulings on the roster: The SC upheld the CJI as Master of the Roster in Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India (2018) and Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India (2018). By the same logic, an HC Chief Justice controls listing in that HC [Static, not retrieved; verify].
• SC strength: It rose from 34 to 38 judges (including the CJI). This has not stopped the "steady northward progress of pendency" [1].
• SC pendency today: 97,201 cases, close to an unprecedented one-lakh mark [1].

4. Core Static Facts

Key terms

• Urgent listing / mentioning: an oral or written request to a court to schedule a case ahead of its normal turn.
• Roster: the allocation of case categories to benches, set by the Chief Justice of that court.
• Institutional autonomy of HCs: HCs regulate their own procedure and listing, and the SC does not run their day-to-day administration [1].

Constitutional anchors [Static, not retrieved; verify against the Bare Act]

• Art. 214: a High Court for each State.
• Art. 217: appointment of HC judges.
• Art. 224 / 224A: additional/acting judges, and retired judges sitting in HCs.
• Art. 225: jurisdiction of existing HCs.
• Art. 227: HC superintendence over subordinate courts. The SC has no equivalent power of superintendence over HCs.
• Art. 32 / 136: SC writ jurisdiction and Special Leave Petitions. Litigants use these routes to seek "early hearing" directions.

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• HCs are co-equal constitutional courts. If the SC orders an HC to list a case early, it cuts into the HC's roster authority, which the CJI says the SC has "consistently respected" [1].
• Speedy trial and timely justice are read into Art. 21. Litigants use this to justify going to the SC [Static, not retrieved].
• The SLP route (Art. 136) is being used for listing grievances rather than substantive questions of law. This misuses the SC's discretionary jurisdiction.

Administrative

• About 26% of HC posts are vacant (292 of 1,122) [1]. This shortage of judges is the main cause of listing delays.
• Adding judges to the SC (34 to 38) has not lowered pendency [1]. More judges alone do not fix the problem; case management matters too.
• Each SC petition seeking early listing in an HC adds to the SC's own docket, which is already near 1 lakh [1].

Governance / Federalism of the Judiciary

• Judicial federalism: the HC is the apex court of the State. A culture of going over it to the SC weakens HC legitimacy.
• The CJI framed the problem as one for HCs to fix by creating internal mechanisms for urgent listing, so that litigants do not need to go to the SC [1].

Social / Access to Justice

• Approaching the SC in New Delhi is expensive. The trend favours well-resourced litigants and widens the access-to-justice gap.
• 65.5 lakh pending HC cases [1] include bail, service, and land matters that affect vulnerable groups.

Ethical

• "Justice delayed is justice denied" versus institutional restraint. The SC has to balance relief for individual litigants against the hierarchy between courts.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 6 Oct 2026: 292 vacancies recorded against 1,122 sanctioned HC posts across 25 HCs [1].
• SC strength raised from 34 to 38 (including the CJI). The article does not give the date [1].
• SC pendency at 97,201, approaching the 1-lakh mark [1].
• 1 Nov 2026: the CJI's remarks at the Kerala HC platinum jubilee inaugural [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• CJI as of November 2026: Justice Surya Kant [1].
• Total cases pending in High Courts: 65,54,788 [1].
• Supreme Court pendency: 97,201, nearing 1 lakh [1].
• SC sanctioned strength: 38 including the CJI, up from 34 [1].
• India has 25 High Courts [1].
• Sanctioned strength of all HCs combined: 1,122 judges [1].
• HC vacancies: 292 as on 6 October 2026 [1].
• The CJI made the remark at the Kerala High Court's platinum jubilee inaugural [1].
• The Chief Justice of each HC is the Master of Roster for that HC, not the CJI [Static, not retrieved; verify].
• The SC has no power of superintendence over HCs. Art. 227 gives superintendence to HCs over subordinate courts only [Static, not retrieved; verify].
• Art. 224A allows retired judges to sit in HCs, a route to reduce pendency [Static, not retrieved; verify].

8. Fewer Vacancies, Yet More Pending Cases: Why Judges Alone Won't Fix It

• HC vacancies have come down a lot
• In March 2017, 41% of sanctioned HC judge posts were empty [3].
• In September 2021, it was 42%: 465 empty posts out of 1,098 [4].

• By October 2026, it is about 26%: 292 out of 1,122 [1].

• But pending HC cases kept rising over the same period

• In 2021, more than 57 lakh cases were pending in HCs [5].
• In 2023, the figure was over 60 lakh [2].

• In 2026, it is 65.5 lakh [1].

• What this tells us

• The note calls vacancies the main cause of listing delays. They matter, but they cannot be the full answer: courts got more judges, and the backlog still grew.

• The same thing happened in the SC, where going from 34 to 38 judges did not stop pendency rising [1].

• The other cause is the way a case moves through court

• An adjournment means a hearing is put off to a later date.
• The Law Commission (2015) said frequent adjournments asked for by the parties are "the main cause of judicial delay and pendency in courts" [3].
• It also found that when lawyers are paid per hearing, they gain from dragging a case out [3].
• So each case comes up many times without being decided. The queue does not move, and litigants try to jump it through the SC.

9. Every Early Hearing Pushes Someone Else Back

• Urgent listing does not create court time. It moves it around.
• An HC bench can hear only a fixed number of cases in a day.
• If the SC directs that one case be heard early, another case on that bench's list goes back.

• The person pushed back usually has no idea why, and no way to object.

• The people who jump the queue are the ones who can reach Delhi

• In 2023, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice found that a Delhi-centred Supreme Court is a big hurdle for litigants from far-off regions [2].

• So the SC route works best for those who can pay a Delhi lawyer. The rural bail applicant still waiting in an HC queue gets no such help.

• The HC's own list stops meaning anything

• A roster works only if everyone trusts the order of the list.
• If going to the SC becomes the normal way to get a date, the HC Chief Justice no longer really controls the HC docket (the full list of cases a court must hear).
• This is the exact autonomy the CJI said the SC has "consistently respected" [1].

10. Should the SC Refuse These Requests? The Case For Stepping In

• The strongest argument for SC intervention
• Some HC delays directly hurt personal liberty. Examples are an undertrial whose bail plea sits unheard, or a detenu (a person held in preventive detention) waiting on a habeas corpus petition (a plea asking the court to free someone held illegally).
• Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. A remedy that never gets a hearing date protects nothing.

• Article 32 makes approaching the SC to enforce fundamental rights itself a fundamental right. If the SC closed its door, these people would have nowhere else to go.

• What is right about this argument

• In liberty cases, a few weeks of delay is real harm. It cannot be undone later.

• The CJI did not say the SC will stop hearing such requests. He only said their frequency needs attention [1].

• Why it still does not justify the trend

• Most HC pendency is not liberty matters. The SC route is being used for ordinary listing complaints too.
• Every such petition also adds to the SC's own backlog of 97,201 cases [1]. That slows the SC's work on questions of law, which only it can settle.
• A better fix is for each HC to fast-track liberty cases itself. Then the SC stays a last resort, not the first stop.

11. What HCs, Government and the Collegium Can Actually Do

• HC Chief Justices: publish clear urgent-listing rules
• The CJI asked HCs to build their own systems so litigants need not run to the SC [1].

• Each HC can put its rules in writing: which kinds of case count as urgent (bail, detention, demolition, and so on), and how quickly they will be listed.

• All HCs: publish annual reports, so delay can be seen

• In 2023, the Standing Committee found that only some HCs publish annual reports [2].
• It asked the Department of Justice to request the SC to direct all HCs to publish them [2].

• When delay is visible bench by bench, fixing it becomes possible.

• HC Chief Justices: use retired judges under Article 224A

• Article 224A lets a retired judge be asked to sit in an HC again for a period.

• In Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021), the SC opened the way to appoint ad hoc HC judges under this Article. It cited more than 57 lakh pending cases and vacancies of nearly 40% [5].

• Courts and Parliament: make delay cost something

• A parliamentary Standing Committee suggested that parties pay costs for adjournments beyond a fixed limit, with the cost going up each time [3].

• The Law Commission (2015) suggested linking court fees to how long a litigant takes to present the case, not to the number of hearings [3].

• HCs: stagger vacations, do not shut down together

• The 2023 Standing Committee noted that the higher judiciary shuts for "a couple of months per year" [2].

• It suggested judges take leave at different times through the year, so courts keep running [2].

• Parliament and the SC: bring the SC closer to litigants

• Article 130 says the SC sits in Delhi or in other places the CJI chooses with the President's approval [2].
• The 2023 Committee recommended regional benches in four or five locations to hear appeals. Constitutional matters would stay in Delhi [2].
• This would not fix HC delay. But it would make the SC route less of a privilege for those near Delhi.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: HC pendency 65,54,788 and SC pendency 97,201, against about 26% HC vacancies (292 of 1,122) as on 6 Oct 2026 [1]; HC vacancies stood at 42% (465 of 1,098) in Sept 2021 [4]. Vacancies fell, yet the backlog grew.
• Report/Committee: Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, "Judicial Process and their Reforms" (Aug 2023): regional SC benches, staggered vacations, annual reports for all HCs [2]; Law Commission (2015): adjournments are the main cause of delay, link court fees to time taken [3].
• Law/Case: Art. 21 (speedy justice); Art. 32 and 136 (routes to the SC); Art. 130 (seat of the SC, basis for regional benches) [2]; Art. 224A and Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2021) on ad hoc HC judges [5].

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary; Separation of powers; Appointment to various constitutional posts.
• GS-IV (minor): Institutional integrity, timeliness and accountability in public service delivery.

Likely question stems

1. "The rising tendency of litigants to approach the Supreme Court for early hearing of matters pending in High Courts reflects deeper structural deficits in the Indian judiciary." Discuss with reference to pendency and vacancies. (250 words)
2. High Courts are constitutional courts, not subordinate to the Supreme Court. In this context, examine the limits of the Supreme Court's power to intervene in High Court listing and administration. (150 words)
3. Increasing judge strength alone has not reduced judicial pendency. Suggest a multi-pronged reform agenda for timely justice delivery. (250 words)

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Judicial appointments (Collegium, MoP, NJAC verdict 2015): the main driver of HC vacancies.
• Master of Roster cases (2018): the legal basis of roster autonomy.
• Art. 224A ad hoc judges (Lok Prahari v. UoI, 2021): a tool for reducing HC pendency.
• National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG): the official pendency tracking platform.
• e-Courts Mission Mode Project (Phase III): technology for case management.
• All India Judicial Service (Art. 312): addresses vacancies in the lower judiciary.
• Tribunalisation and the SC's appellate burden: where the SC docket is growing.
• Regional benches / Court of Appeal proposal (Law Commission): decentralising the SC.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Judicial pendency (Polity): The article's core problem: 65 lakh HC cases and nearly 1 lakh SC cases pending, driven by vacancies.
• Master of the roster (Polity): HC Chief Justices control their own rosters and listing, which is the autonomy the CJI says the SC respects.
• High Court (Polity): HCs are constitutional courts with their own powers, not subordinate to the SC, which explains the autonomy issue.
• Supreme Court of India (Polity): Litigants approach the SC, via special leave petitions, for early hearings, adding to its own growing docket.
• Justice delayed is justice denied (Polity): This maxim is the reason litigants seek early hearings, and it sits against institutional restraint in the note's ethics section.
• National Judicial Data Grid (Polity): It is the official platform that tracks the HC and SC pendency figures quoted in the article.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• "The SC superintends HCs": false. Art. 227 superintendence runs from HCs to subordinate courts only.
• Confusing the numbers: 38 is the SC's strength, 1,122 is the HC sanctioned strength, and 292 is HC vacancies. Do not mix SC and HC figures [1].
• Pendency figures: the 65.5 lakh figure is HC pendency. District court pendency is far larger (crores). The SC figure is under 1 lakh [1].
• Number of HCs: 25, not 24 or 28 [1].
• Master of Roster: within an HC, the HC Chief Justice is Master of Roster, not the CJI.