Government Expands Supreme Court Strength While Subordinate Courts and Tribunals Continue to Struggle With Vacancies
The Union Government’s decision to increase the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court has reignited debate over India’s judicial priorities, with legal experts questioning whether expanding the apex court alone can address the country’s mounting judicial backlog. While the move is aimed at enhancing the Supreme Court’s capacity to hear constitutional and high-profile cases, concerns persist that the real crisis lies in the subordinate courts and tribunals, where persistent vacancies continue to hamper the delivery of justice.
The government recently approved an increase in the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 33 to 37 judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India, with the objective of reducing pendency at the country’s highest judicial forum. The decision has been welcomed as a step towards strengthening the apex court’s institutional capacity.
However, members of the legal fraternity argue that the expansion of the Supreme Court should not overshadow the chronic shortage of judges and tribunal members across the judicial system. District Courts, High Courts, and specialised tribunals continue to grapple with vacant judicial posts, leading to prolonged delays in adjudication and increasing pendency of cases affecting millions of litigants.
The Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) system presents a striking example of the problem. The Department of Financial Services has established 39 Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and five Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) across the country to adjudicate disputes involving bank recoveries and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Yet several tribunals have functioned for extended periods without regular Presiding Officers, Recovery Officers, or other essential officials. These vacancies have resulted in frequent adjournments, delayed hearings, and slower disposal of recovery cases, impacting both financial institutions seeking recovery and borrowers challenging enforcement actions.
Similar concerns extend to other specialised tribunals, including those dealing with taxation, company law, consumer disputes, environmental matters, and service-related litigation. In many instances, benches have remained non-functional or operated with reduced strength due to delays in appointments, forcing litigants to wait months or even years for hearings.
High Courts also continue to face a significant number of judicial vacancies despite repeated recommendations by the collegium for appointments. The shortage has contributed to growing case backlogs, while subordinate courts across several States continue to operate below their sanctioned judicial strength, placing additional strain on India’s justice delivery system.
Legal experts contend that meaningful judicial reform requires strengthening every level of the judicial hierarchy rather than focusing predominantly on the apex court. They argue that the average citizen’s first interaction with the justice system begins in subordinate courts and specialised tribunals, where delays directly affect access to timely justice, increase litigation costs, and erode public confidence in the legal system.
While appointments to High Courts and tribunals involve multiple constitutional and statutory authorities, including the judiciary and the executive, observers say that prolonged vacancies across these institutions undermine the objective of ensuring speedy justice. They emphasize that filling long-pending judicial and tribunal vacancies should remain a national priority alongside enhancing the strength of the Supreme Court.
As India continues to witness a steady rise in litigation across civil, criminal, commercial, and financial sectors, the challenge before policymakers is not merely to strengthen the country’s highest court but to ensure that every tier of the judicial system is adequately staffed and equipped. Without comprehensive reforms addressing vacancies from subordinate courts to specialised tribunals, legal experts caution that the promise of timely and effective justice may remain elusive for millions of citizens.
