On August 3, 2026, the Lok Sabha passed a significant bill that increases the number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38. This legislative move aims to combat the mounting backlog of cases in India’s highest court. Increasing the number of judges is a traditional response to institutional overload, akin to expanding highways to manage traffic congestion—a measure that often results in the new lanes quickly becoming congested again. The persistent issue suggests that the problem lies not in the scale but in the design of the system.
Learning from the Banking Sector
The banking industry offers a parallel narrative. Initially, after nationalization, the response to increased demand was to establish more branches, which improved access but not the user experience. In the 1990s, the focus shifted to digitizing internal processes, followed by the introduction of net banking, mobile apps, and ATMs in the 2000s, reducing friction but still centering around bank-driven systems.
However, a true breakthrough came with the introduction of the Unified Payments Interface (UPI). This innovation didn’t seek to enhance existing banking processes but rather to enable a person to make instant payments using just a phone number. This person-centric approach revolutionized payment systems, illustrating the difference between institution-centric and people-centric reforms.
Institution-Centric vs. People-Centric Reforms
Institution-centric reforms focus on improving existing systems, while people-centric reforms ask what users need and redesign systems around them. Indian courts are currently in the phase of implementing both capacity expansion and technology enhancements, such as e-filing and AI transcription. These are significant advancements, yet they expand existing judiciary systems rather than fundamentally transforming them.
The real question should be: How can individuals resolve disputes without needing to become procedural experts? A shopkeeper dealing with a refund issue or a gig worker seeking unpaid wages perceives these problems as disagreements needing swift resolution, not as legal “cases.” A people-centric approach to dispute resolution would start with this understanding.
Envisioning a New Ecosystem
Imagine an ecosystem where parties can resolve disputes directly. This could involve a platform that helps frame issues, provides negotiation tools, and offers pathways like mediation or court only if initial steps fail. The Chief Justice recently emphasized the importance of preserving relationships between disputing parties, describing it as a unique form of justice. Although mediation currently relies on expert facilitators, a more radical approach would empower individuals to resolve disputes themselves, an idea still on the edges of reform.
Steps Toward a People-Centric Justice System
First, engage with the system’s users—litigants, undertrials, small claimants, and community mediators. Second, foster collaboration across justice agencies, government, non-profits, and the private sector to unify the experience of a dispute. Third, implement continuous feedback mechanisms to ensure the system learns from its users.
None of these suggestions undermine the need for more judges or the digital advancements of e-courts. Each people-centric leap builds on prior institutional progress, much like how UPI was enabled by pre-existing banking infrastructure. The critical question remains: How can we design a system that facilitates dispute resolution for individuals, and then structure everything else accordingly? This transformative shift is the UPI moment that the Indian justice system still awaits.
Supriya Sankaran is the co-founder of Agami and PUCAR.
