The first 100 days of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant have focused on tackling the Supreme Court’s massive case backlog, promoting mediation, and tightening court procedures. His early tenure signals administrative reforms, stricter case-listing rules, and key decisions that could shape the judiciary in 2026.
The first 100 days of any leader in office are often seen as a crucial test of priorities, direction, and administrative style. This idea became popular after the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose first hundred days in 1933 were marked by a wave of transformative policy decisions during the Great Depression. Since then, the “100-day mark” has become a symbolic milestone to assess the early performance of leaders across governments and institutions.
A similar moment of evaluation has now arrived for Surya Kant, who assumed office as the 53rd Chief Justice of India in November 2025. His appointment came in a year of unusually rapid transitions at the top of the judiciary. Before him, Sanjiv Khanna and B. R. Gavai each served short tenures of about six months. In contrast, CJI Surya Kant has a longer tenure of about fourteen months, giving him most of 2026 to implement administrative and judicial reforms.
Now, roughly 100 days into his tenure, attention has turned to what he has already done and what reforms he may introduce in the coming months.
One of the first priorities highlighted by the Chief Justice was the growing backlog of cases in the Supreme Court. Even before formally taking oath, he had publicly expressed concern about pendency. At that time, the Supreme Court’s total pending cases had crossed 90,000. In fact, the backlog had grown sharply in 2025 alone, increasing by nearly 10,000 cases.
To deal with this problem, the Chief Justice identified two key areas where intervention could help improve the system. The first was the revival of Constitution Benches to decide important constitutional questions that have remained unresolved for years. The second was strengthening mediation as an alternative method to resolve disputes outside traditional court litigation.
Currently, around 29 Constitution Bench matters are pending before the Supreme Court. These cases often involve important constitutional questions whose delay can affect decision-making in lower courts across the country. The Chief Justice indicated that larger benches of seven and nine judges would be prioritised for hearing.
Although the original plan was to start hearing nine-judge bench matters in January 2026, two such cases have now been listed for hearings in March and April 2026. These include the long-pending dispute relating to the Definition of Industry and the Sabarimala Review case.
Apart from constitutional bench matters, CJI Surya Kant has repeatedly spoken in favour of mediation as a practical solution to reduce litigation. While speaking at public events, he has often described mediation as “An easy game changer”. He has also drawn from traditional ideas and cultural references, at times suggesting that mediation forms part of the country’s legal and social tradition.
In December 2025, he led a ‘Mediation Awareness Walk’ to encourage wider acceptance of alternative dispute resolution methods. More recently, he also requested state governments to increase the professional fees paid to mediators. Importantly, he suggested that mediators should receive proper remuneration regardless of whether the mediation process ultimately succeeds or fails.
However, the larger question remains whether these initiatives have actually reduced the Supreme Court’s case backlog. According to data from the National Judicial Data Grid collected on 3 March, there were 92,180 pending cases before the Supreme Court. This represents a decrease of 648 cases compared to figures recorded on 5 February 2026. Although the reduction is modest, it may indicate the beginning of a gradual improvement.
Another major administrative change introduced during CJI Surya Kant’s tenure concerns the practice of oral mentioning in the Supreme Court. Oral mentioning refers to lawyers requesting urgent listing of cases by verbally addressing the court.
From his very first day in office, the Chief Justice made his position clear. He stated that urgent listing through oral mentioning would not be allowed except in cases involving serious threats to life or liberty. Instead, lawyers must submit written requests to the Registry for urgent listing of cases.
Within just five days of taking charge, an official circular was issued stating that oral mentioning would not be permitted in the courtroom of the Chief Justice. This was a significant change from earlier practices where lawyers frequently approached the bench for urgent listing requests.
Despite this directive, oral mentioning continues to take place in other courtrooms of the Supreme Court. Observations made by other judges suggest that there is currently no clear consensus among all benches regarding a uniform Standard Operating Procedure. Questions have also been raised about setting limits on written submissions and oral arguments during hearings.
This situation has sparked an institutional debate about the scope of administrative authority of the Chief Justice. In simple terms, it raises an important question: does the Chief Justice control only Court Hall No.1, or does his administrative authority extend across the entire Supreme Court?
The Chief Justice himself recently expressed dissatisfaction with how certain reforms were being implemented by the court administration. During a hearing, he criticised the Registry for not properly following the new procedural changes introduced under his leadership.
While addressing the issue, he made a sharp remark about long-serving officials in the court administration. He observed that,
“There are officials in the Registry who have been here since the last 20-30 years. They think we (judges) are all here in transit and they are permanent.”
These remarks highlight deeper institutional concerns regarding administrative efficiency within the Supreme Court. The outcome of these efforts to reform internal processes may have a lasting impact on how the Court functions for the rest of the decade.
On the appointments front, the Supreme Court Collegium under CJI Surya Kant has already held seven meetings during his first hundred days in office. During this period, the Collegium recommended the appointment of 19 permanent judges and five ad-hoc judges across different High Courts.
A notable policy decision was also taken on 26 February regarding the appointment of High Court Chief Justices. According to the new approach, if a Chief Justice of a High Court is due to retire, the judge who will succeed them will be transferred to that High Court two months before the retirement. The aim of this policy is to allow the incoming Chief Justice to become familiar with the functioning of the court before formally taking charge.
However, an interesting development concerns vacancies in the Supreme Court itself. Unlike his immediate predecessors, CJI Surya Kant has not yet filled the existing vacancy on the Supreme Court bench since assuming office.
This is somewhat surprising because both former CJIs Khanna and Gavai moved quickly to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court within two weeks of assuming office.
The issue may become more pressing in the coming months. Justice Rajesh Bindal is scheduled to retire in April 2026, while Justices Pankaj Mithal and J.K. Maheshwari are expected to retire in June 2026. If no new appointments are made before these retirements, the strength of the Supreme Court could fall to 30 judges by mid-2026.
This situation raises an important question about the Chief Justice’s long-term plan for filling vacancies in the apex court. Whether appointments will be made soon or delayed further remains to be seen.
As CJI Surya Kant moves beyond his first hundred days in office, his tenure is beginning to take shape through a mix of institutional reforms, administrative changes, and policy initiatives. While some of these efforts—such as encouraging mediation and restricting oral mentioning—have already triggered debate within the legal community, their long-term impact on judicial efficiency and case backlog will become clearer in the months ahead.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Women Leaders
