Before we delve into that point, let's discuss the current status of the Supreme Court!

Context:

The Supreme Court of India consistently makes headlines as the highest legal authority in the country, tasked with safeguarding the constitutional validity of all aspects of our lives. Recently, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 for the first time in its history. Article 142 grants extensive powers to the Supreme Court to ensure "complete justice" in any pending matter or issue.

While the Supreme Court stands as the sole guardian of constitutional validity, it grapples with an overwhelming caseload. Let's examine the factors contributing to this burden.

Case Disposal Rate & Reasons Behind Supreme Court Burden:

According to the National Judicial Data Grid, there are over 80,000 pending cases in the Supreme Court, with 78% being civil and 22% criminal in nature. The reasons behind this are:

1. Limited Judicial Strength: As the apex court, it is understaffed with only 34 judges, including the Chief Justice, to handle the caseload. In terms of judges per million population, we fall short of the global average of 50, with only 21 judges.

2. Limited Working Days: Judges have an average of 191 working days per year, further reduced by engagements such as seminars and conferences. The Law Commission of India recommends a minimum of 206 working days annually.

3. Infrastructure Deficiency: The lack of effective infrastructure and management within the court premises, coupled with low employee salaries, diminishes court efficiency. Although video conferencing has been adopted post-pandemic, it lacks adequate support and is not a permanent solution.

4. Frivolous Cases: The Supreme Court, being the court of final appeal, is burdened with frivolous cases, wasting valuable court time.

Proposed Solutions:

In addition to increasing working days, improving infrastructure, and leveraging technology for administrative purposes, the idea of establishing regional benches of the Supreme Court has long been debated.

Arguments in Favor:

1. Accessibility: Citizens from distant parts of India find it financially and logistically challenging to access justice in Delhi, where the Supreme Court is located.

2. Specialization: Regional benches can specialize in specific types of cases, enhancing efficiency and expediting justice delivery.

3. Judicial Integrity: Open court proceedings foster transparency and uphold judicial integrity, making virtual hearings suitable only for exceptional cases.if you see the rural india, it is yet to be well equipped with technological advancements.

4. Structural Reform: India's vast population warrants separate courts of appeal and cassation, relieving the Supreme Court of non-constitutional cases.

Arguments Against:

1. Focus on Lower Courts: Critics argue that addressing inefficiencies and corruption in lower courts, including high courts, should take precedence over structural changes.

2. Judicial Expansion: With the rising population and caseload, increasing the number of judges alongside infrastructure improvements is essential.

3.we shall use the technology extensively to address the issues. there should be an mechanism to filter out the cases more effectively, as there are a significant amount of cases which has been filed under: Special Leave Petitions, around 86% cases. Special Leave Petitions are a mechanism by which any case can be challenged in supreme court, which seems to be being misused, most of the time.

Conclusion:

India's judiciary urgently requires comprehensive reforms, considering its vast geographical expanse, diverse population, and varied case nature. While virtual hearings may not be feasible for rural populations, ensuring an adequate number of judges, robust infrastructure, corruption-free administration, and a diversified court structure are imperative. Embracing regional benches for distinct legal and constitutional matters can significantly alleviate the burden on the Supreme Court.