The mystery of Court 10

1. At a Glance

• Court 10 is a courtroom inside the Supreme Court of India (SCI) complex that remains perpetually empty and closed, appearing as a "white space" on the causelist (daily case list) while all 16 other active courts carry full dockets. [1]
• The topic is examined under GS-II (Judiciary / Governance) and is a lens into judicial infrastructure utilisation, administrative opacity, and the functioning of India's apex court.
• The article, a first-person reportorial essay by Krishnadas Rajagopal (Senior Legal Correspondent, The Hindu), signals the broader issue of under-utilised court infrastructure at a time of crippling judicial pendency.
• Why UPSC cares: Questions on Supreme Court structure, pendency, judicial reform, and infrastructure regularly appear in both Prelims and Mains. [2]

2. Why in the News

• Published 23 January 2026 (The Hindu, Print Edition, Page 9) as a feature essay. [1]
• Trigger: Growing media and civil-society attention to judicial infrastructure utilisation amid the Government's push to increase judge strength (Cabinet approved raising SCI judges from 33 to 37 in 2024) [2] and the e-Courts Phase III rollout. [3]
• Juxtaposition: At a moment when tens of millions of cases clog Indian courts and the government is investing billions in new court halls, the SCI's own Court 10 sits idle — making for pointed journalistic irony.

3. Background & Evolution

4. Core Static Facts

• Location: Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg, New Delhi — 110001
• Parent Constitutional provision: Article 124 (Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court); Article 130 (Seat of Supreme Court)
• Controlling authority: Supreme Court of India (its own administrative arm — the Secretary-General's Office)
• Total courtrooms in SCI complex: ~19 (sources vary; article implies 17 are currently operational — "the other 16 courts" plus Court 10) [1]
• Causelist: A daily publication listing cases fixed for hearing before each Bench; Court 10 does not appear on the causelist [1]
• Judge strength (post-2024 Cabinet decision): Sanctioned strength raised to 37 (from 33) [2]
• e-Courts integration: SCI onboarded to National Judicial Data Grid (NJJDG) for real-time case-status tracking [3]
• Infrastructure scheme: Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for Development of Infrastructure Facilities for Judiciary (operative since 1993–94) — funds court halls, residential quarters, digital rooms, lawyer halls [4]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The SCI derives its administrative autonomy from the doctrine of separation of powers and judicial independence — decisions on courtroom allocation are internal, insulated from executive scrutiny. [1]
• No statutory provision mandates public disclosure on why a courtroom is deactivated; this feeds the "opacity" the article alludes to.
• Article 145 empowers the SCI to frame its own rules for the conduct of business — courtroom assignment is an exercise of this rule-making power.

Governance / Administrative

• The article exposes an information asymmetry: even seasoned court reporters cannot obtain a straight answer about Court 10's status. [1]
• Amid 5.1 crore+ pending cases across Indian courts (as per NJJDG data), the sight of an idle SCI courtroom raises questions about resource optimisation.
• The CSS scheme has funded a 41% increase in court halls nationally (from ~15,818 in 2014 to ~22,372 by 2023) [4], yet the bottleneck often lies not in physical space but in judicial appointments and roster management.

Historical

• The SCI building was designed (1958) for a far smaller bench and docket. Expansion by accretion (wings added in 1979, 1994, 2015) means some spaces may be structurally or procedurally "inherited" without active assignment.
• Court rooms in Indian High Courts have historically been opened/closed based on the sitting strength of judges vis-à-vis sanctioned strength — a persistent gap.

Ethical / Governance

• The "hem and haw" response from court officials reported in the article [1] raises a governance concern: even in the nation's apex judicial body, routine administrative transparency is absent.
• The poet Pierre-Albert Birot is invoked in the article — "The world pulse beats beyond my door" — to symbolise Court 10's existential removal from the live churn of litigation. [1]

Economic

• Capital expenditure on judicial infrastructure is substantial; PIB data shows government has funded 22,372 court halls and 19,851 residential units nationally [4]. An idle courtroom at the apex court represents an opportunity cost in symbolic and fiscal terms.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 2024: Cabinet approval to increase Supreme Court judges from 33 to 37, the first such enhancement since 2019 [2]; this is expected to operationalise additional Benches, potentially opening hitherto-closed courts.
• 2025 (ongoing): e-Courts Phase III rollout includes SCI onboarding to NJJDG, enabling real-time tracking of case-status for 3,293+ court complexes [3].
• January 2026: The Hindu's Krishnadas Rajagopal publishes a feature article specifically flagging Court 10's mystery — the first traceable media piece dedicated to this administrative curiosity [1].
• 2025–26: National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India (NJIAI) framework being operationalised post-PIB announcement in 2022 [4] — aims to standardise court infrastructure planning nationwide.

7. Prelims Hooks

1. The Supreme Court of India was established under Article 124 of the Constitution on 26 January 1950.
2. The SCI's current building was inaugurated in 1958, designed by architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar.
3. The seat of the Supreme Court is determined under Article 130 — it is Delhi (unless the CJI, with Presidential approval, appoints another place).
4. Cabinet approved increasing Supreme Court judge strength from 33 to 37 in 2024 [2].
5. The Centrally Sponsored Scheme for judicial infrastructure has been operational since 1993–94 [4].
6. Court hall availability increased from ~15,818 (2014) to ~22,372 (2023) — a 41.43% increase [4].
7. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJJDG) was extended to include the SCI following the e-Courts Phase III rollout [3].
8. The causelist (list of cases for the day) is the primary scheduling document in SCI; Court 10 does not appear on it [1].
9. National Judicial Infrastructure Authority of India (NJIAI) was announced by PIB to standardise judicial infrastructure planning [4].
10. The SCI building first underwent expansion in 1979 (East and West Wings) and again in 1994 and 2015.
11. Article 145 of the Constitution empowers the SCI to frame rules regulating its own procedure and conduct of business.
12. The feature on Court 10 was written by Krishnadas Rajagopal and published on 23 January 2026 in The Hindu [1].

8. Mains Relevance

GS Paper: GS-II (Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice)

Syllabus headings:

• Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
• Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability
• Judicial reforms and pendency

Plausible Mains Question Stems:

1. "Administrative opacity within constitutional institutions poses as significant a challenge to judicial reform as pendency itself." Critically examine with reference to the functioning of the Supreme Court of India. (GS-II, 15 marks)

2. "Expanding judge strength without proportionate improvements in court management and infrastructure utilisation risks being a cosmetic reform." Discuss in the context of recent developments in India's judicial infrastructure. (GS-II, 10 marks)

3. "The gap between sanctioned judicial infrastructure and its actual utilisation reflects deeper administrative dysfunctions in India's court system." Analyse. (GS-II, 15 marks)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

1. Confusing courtroom count with judge strength: The SCI has ~19 courtrooms but only 34 judges (post-2024 appointment pending); not all courts need be open simultaneously — aspirants wrongly assume 1:1 parity.
2. Wrong ministry for judicial infrastructure: The CSS for Judicial Infrastructure is implemented by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice — not the Ministry of Home Affairs.
3. Confusing Article 124 with Article 130: Article 124 establishes the SCI; Article 130 deals with its seat (location). Questions often test these separately.
4. Assuming NJJAI/NJIAI is a constitutional body: It is a statutory/executive proposal announced via PIB — it is not a Constitutional body like the NHRC or Election Commission.
5. Overstating the article's scope: "The mystery of Court 10" is a feature essay, not an investigative report with a definitive answer — aspirants should not invent a "reason" (renovation, security concerns, etc.) that the article itself does not confirm. The mystery remains unresolved in the piece. [1]