Amid a growing case backlog, the Supreme Court faces calls for a more selective approach, with nearly 90% of cases being disposed of at the admission stage.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in upholding justice, but a growing backlog of cases has raised concerns about its efficiency. With nearly 90% of filed cases being disposed of at the admission stage, many are questioning whether the Court can adopt a more selective approach in determining which cases progress to regular hearings.
Understanding the Supreme Court’s Case Listing Process
The Supreme Court follows a structured weekly schedule for hearings:
- Mondays and Fridays: Designated as “miscellaneous days,” where fresh admission matters are heard. During these hearings, counsel attempt to persuade Division Benches to admit their cases for a regular hearing.
- Tuesdays: Reserved for hearing “after-notice” miscellaneous matters—cases in which a notice has been issued but admission remains pending.
- Wednesdays and Thursdays: Dedicated to regular hearings, which often require extensive arguments and prolonged judicial consideration.
However, the sheer volume of admission matters has led to significant delays, impacting the disposal rate of regular matters and contributing to the Court’s increasing backlog.
Supreme Court Pendency Statistics: A Growing Concern
According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) as of February 24, 2025, the Supreme Court has
81,274 pending cases, including 17,022 “unregistered cases.”
Among the 64,252 “registered cases,” 65.2% remain at the admission stage, demonstrating that admission matters dominate the Court’s workload.
Further, data from 2023 and 2024 indicate that
‘90% of disposed cases were settled at the admission stage‘
highlighting the extent to which the Supreme Court dedicates its time to admission matters rather than full hearings.
ALSO READ: SUPREME COURT MONTHLY RECAP: FEBRUARY 2025
CJI Sanjiv Khanna’s Strategy to Clear the Backlog
Recognizing the urgency of case pendency, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna implemented a temporary measure in late 2024 to expedite the disposal of admission matters.
During November and December, he halted the listing of regular matters on Wednesdays and Thursdays, redirecting these days exclusively for hearing miscellaneous cases.
Trends in Case Progression and Disposal Since 2020
Cases Instituted vs. Cases Proceeding to Regular Hearings
An analysis of Supreme Court filings between 2020 and 2024 highlights an imbalance between cases instituted and those progressing to regular hearings:
- 2020: Only 7% of cases moved to regular hearings.
- 2021: This number dropped further to 5.8%.
- 2022: The percentage rose to 18%.
- 2023: Declined again to 7.6%.
- 2024: Slight recovery to 11.6%.
On average, just 10% of cases filed at the Supreme Court proceed to the regular hearing stage, indicating a disproportionate focus on admission matters.
Cases Disposed of at Admission vs. Regular Hearing Stage
A look at the last five years of disposals shows a consistent trend:
- 2020: 86% of cases disposed of at the admission stage.
- 2021: Increased to 89.5%.
- 2022: Remained high at 87%.
- 2023: Stood at 87%.
- 2024: Reached an all-time high of 94%.
These statistics underscore that a vast majority of cases never make it to full hearings, raising concerns about access to justice and judicial efficiency.
The “See-Saw” Effect: Balancing Admission and Regular Matters
Data from 2022 to 2024 suggests a fluctuating pattern in case disposal:
- In 2022, the Court disposed of 34,000 admission matters, exceeding the number of newly instituted admission cases that year. However, regular case pendency increased by 600+ cases.
- In 2023, a greater focus on regular matters led to the disposal of 6,000+ cases, but this came at the cost of fewer admission disposals. While 45,000 admission matters were resolved, 50,000 new ones were instituted, increasing overall pendency.
- In 2024, admission disposals slightly exceeded new filings, but regular case disposals dropped significantly to 2,253 cases (until August), further contributing to the growing backlog.
This “see-saw effect”—where prioritizing one category leads to a backlog in another—suggests that without systemic reform, pendency will continue to rise.
ALSO READ:Landmark Verdict | Supreme Court Allows Visually Impaired Candidates in Judicial Services
Can the Supreme Court Be More Selective About What It Hears?
One of the key challenges in the Supreme Court’s case management is the prolonged nature of admission hearings. High-profile lawyers often argue extensively to persuade benches to admit their cases, leading to delays. Even on regular hearing days, after-notice admission matters are often prioritized before scheduled hearings begin.
For perspective, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has a stringent selection process. It receives 7,000–8,000 petitions annually but hears oral arguments in only about 80 cases per year. This is partly due to a law clerk review system, which helps justices determine which cases warrant full hearings.
In contrast, India’s Supreme Court lacks an institutional mechanism to filter cases on merit before admission. The Registrar’s Office has no power to reject petitions based on legal grounds—it can only request refiling in cases of technical defects.
Introducing a pre-screening mechanism, similar to SCOTUS, could significantly reduce the burden of admission matters and allow the Court to focus on cases that require in-depth legal examination.
Lack of Archival Data: A Challenge in Analyzing Judicial Efficiency
Another major hurdle in addressing pendency is inconsistent data availability. While the Supreme Court’s Annual Reports offer statistical insights, they often lack data from the final quarter of the financial year. Court News, previously a detailed source of case data, has not been published since 2019, and the Supreme Court Chronicle omits these statistics.
The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) is the only live tracker of Supreme Court case pendency, but it lacks retrospective month-wise data. Without transparent, regularly updated archival data, it becomes challenging to assess the long-term impact of judicial reforms.
The Supreme Court’s high disposal rate at the admission stage raises serious concerns about the efficiency of the judicial system. While CJI Khanna’s move to fast-track admission matters was a temporary solution, a systemic overhaul is required to balance case admissions and full hearings.
Key reforms to consider include:
- Pre-screening mechanisms to filter out non-meritorious cases before admission hearings.
- Digitization and AI-based case management to optimize listing and scheduling.
- Greater transparency in judicial data to track progress and measure reform outcomes.
By adopting a selective approach to case admissions, the Supreme Court can not only reduce pendency but also ensure that matters requiring thorough judicial scrutiny receive the attention they deserve.
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE