In a significant move, the Supreme Court of India has established four specialized benches dedicated to addressing its oldest pending cases. Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant characterizes this initiative as an “experiment,” with its success ultimately determining its future implementation. In an interview with Bar & Bench, CJI Surya Kant expressed hope that if this method proves effective, it could set a precedent for future Chief Justices to follow.
The Chief Justice delved into the rationale behind the decision, explaining how a detailed analysis of case pendency and listing patterns informed this strategic shift. The Supreme Court’s existing system often left older appeals languishing, and the newly constituted benches aim to rectify this disparity. Below are key excerpts from the interview.
Addressing Case Pendency
Debayan Roy (DR): Your recent decisions aim to tackle long-standing case pendency at the Supreme Court. Could you elaborate?
CJI Surya Kant: Two key factors need to be considered. Out of approximately 93,000 cases marked as pending, nearly 10,000 are actually defective cases awaiting the resolution of objections. Lawyers’ delays in addressing these issues mean the number remains static, fluctuating but never disappearing. Therefore, the true pendency is around 83,000-plus cases. Among these, 40 to 45 percent are older civil or criminal appeals.
Our current listing prioritizes fresh matters, followed by a prioritized list. On Tuesdays, we address non-miscellaneous matters where notices have been issued but remain at preliminary stages. These account for roughly 48,000 cases, meaning older cases rarely receive attention. The new benches focus on the oldest cases, starting with those from 2005 for civil appeals and 2009 for criminal appeals, from July 15.
More Read
Formation of Dedicated Benches
DR: What motivated this initiative?
CJI: Litigants have expressed frustration over waiting eight to ten years while newer cases receive precedence. To address this, four dedicated benches—two for civil and two for criminal matters—will exclusively handle the oldest cases. By recently appointing four new judges, our total strength increased, allowing us to allocate eight judges to these older cases while other judges manage fresh and post-notice matters.
DR: Was this decision made in consultation with other judges?
More Read
CJI: No, this was a personal initiative, formulated with input from the registry. I assumed the role of CJI on November 24 and lacked sufficient data until January. Observing disposal patterns through May, it became clear that older cases were overlooked due to the crowded roster. This realization prompted the formation of the new benches post-June break.
Judicial Reception and Future Prospects
DR: Is this one of the Supreme Court’s most significant recent developments?
CJI: Indeed, it is a pioneering effort.
DR: Do you believe this could continue after your tenure?
CJI: I see this as a trial for myself. Success would incentivize future Chief Justices to maintain this system. Conversely, failure would discourage its continuation.
DR: How have your fellow judges responded?
More Read
CJI: Positively. The teamwork among Supreme Court judges is excellent, and they are open to new ideas for systemic improvement.
Additional Judicial Insights
DR: You’ve maintained a firm stance against same-day mentions. How is this policy unfolding?
CJI: Mentioning fresh matters is restricted to court no. 1, and the reform is functioning well. Other benches only entertain matters within their roster.
DR: A recent incident involved a litigant using inappropriate language in court. How did you perceive this?
CJI: Such occurrences don’t trouble me. I view them as emotional outbursts, much like a parent’s perspective on a child’s behavior.
DR: Today, you addressed a particularly emotional litigant. How do you balance empathy with law?
CJI: While legal principles guide us, we remain sensitive to litigants’ hardships. Sometimes, we extend help beyond the law’s strict confines to ensure equity.
