The judiciary of India, often heralded as the sentinel on the qui vive for the rights and liberties of its citizens, is vested with immense powers, particularly by virtue of the Supreme Court's constitutional role. The Supreme Court of India is envisaged as the protector of constitutional morality and the arbiter of inter-governmental disputes, standing tall in the institutional structure. Given its vast jurisdiction, the question of its capacity to adjudicate with both speed and efficacy has been an ongoing concern.

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019, which increased the number of judges from 30 to 33 in addition to the Chief Justice, was a response to the burgeoning backlog of cases and the need for expeditious judicial dispensation. This article delves into the constitutional and legislative framework that governs the composition of the apex court, scrutinizing the provisions of the Constitution of India, the judicial backlog, and the exigencies that necessitated the expansion in 2019. Furthermore, this discourse shall dissect relevant case law, analyze jurisprudential trends, and assess whether the increase in the number of judges has been efficacious in addressing the pendency of cases.

Introduction
The Indian Supreme Court, as the highest judicial body in the country, occupies a pivotal position in the constitutional scheme of governance. Since its inception in 1950, the Supreme Court has evolved in both stature and responsibility, shaping the contours of Indian jurisprudence. Article 124 of the Indian Constitution envisages the establishment and constitution of the Supreme Court, while Article 126 provides for the appointment of judges. Originally, the Constitution of India did not explicitly enumerate the number of judges that the Supreme Court should have, leaving it to Parliament's discretion to determine.

Over the decades, the Supreme Court's docket has been inundated with cases, ranging from fundamental rights petitions to complex constitutional matters. The issue of judicial delay, coupled with the enormous backlog of cases, necessitated a reevaluation of the court's capacity to handle the judicial burden. In response to this crisis, the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019 was introduced and passed, increasing the number of judges from 30 to 33. This legislative measure marked a significant shift in the landscape of judicial administration, with profound implications for the functioning of the court.

This article seeks to explore the constitutional underpinnings of the Supreme Court's composition, the historical evolution of its strength, and the impact of the 2019 Amendment on the efficiency of the judiciary. It further delves into the challenges that persist despite the increase in the number of judges and contemplates potential reforms that could further ameliorate the issue of judicial delay.

Constitutional Framework Governing the Supreme Court's Composition

Article 124: Establishment and Composition of the Supreme Court

Article 124 of the Indian Constitution lays down the foundational provision for the establishment of the Supreme Court. It confers upon Parliament the authority to legislate on the number of judges constituting the Supreme Court. Initially, the court was comprised of a Chief Justice of India and seven other judges. However, this number was subject to periodic revision through legislative enactments as the volume and complexity of cases increased.

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, initially set the strength of the court at eight judges, including the Chief Justice. Over time, Parliament has exercised its prerogative to augment the strength of the judiciary to cope with the growing demand for justice.

Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019

The 2019 Amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, marked the latest legislative intervention in the composition of the court. The Bill, introduced in the Lok Sabha by the then Minister of Law and Justice, Ravi Shankar Prasad, sought to increase the number of judges from 30 to 33, in addition to the Chief Justice of India. The rationale for this expansion was premised on the increasing pendency of cases, which stood at approximately 59,000 at the time, and the need for expeditious adjudication.

The Amendment was swiftly passed by both Houses of Parliament, receiving Presidential assent on August 9, 2019. It was framed as an immediate response to the backlog of cases, but it also reflected a broader recognition of the court's evolving role in an increasingly complex legal landscape. With the number of judges now increased to 33, the Supreme Court stands as one of the largest constitutional courts in the world, in terms of judicial strength.

Analysis of Judicial Backlog and Pendency

The Crisis of Pendency

The issue of judicial delay has been a persistent concern for India's legal system. As of September 2019, the Supreme Court had a pendency of over 59,000 cases, with many matters awaiting adjudication for years. The increasing complexity of cases, coupled with the expansive jurisdiction of the court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petitions), Article 32 (Constitutional remedies), and Article 131 (Original jurisdiction in inter-state disputes), has exacerbated the pendency crisis.

The Law Commission of India, in its 245th Report, had recommended several measures to reduce pendency, including increasing the number of judges, improving case management techniques, and reducing the admission of frivolous petitions. The 2019 Amendment, while a step in the right direction, was seen as an incremental solution to a more systemic problem.

Case Law on Judicial Delays
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980 AIR 1369), the Supreme Court itself recognized the deleterious effect of judicial delays on the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that justice delayed is justice denied, and emphasized the need for systemic reforms to ensure timely justice.

In Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 2 SCC 688, the Supreme Court further underscored the need to address pendency in the lower courts as well, suggesting that the problem was not confined to the apex court but permeated the entire judiciary. The court highlighted the need for increasing the number of judges at all levels, improving judicial infrastructure, and utilizing technology to streamline case management.

Impact of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019

Immediate Effects on Case Disposal
The immediate impact of the 2019 Amendment was the appointment of additional judges to the Supreme Court, which allowed for the constitution of more benches and consequently, the faster disposal of cases. However, while the increase in judicial strength has had a positive effect on the rate of disposal, it has not been a panacea for the underlying structural issues that contribute to pendency.

One of the challenges that persist is the uneven distribution of cases across different benches, with certain benches handling a disproportionately high number of complex constitutional matters, while others focus on routine civil and criminal appeals. The allocation of cases continues to be a matter of concern, as highlighted in the Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Reforms v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 196, where the court grappled with issues of transparency in the assignment of cases.

Persistent Challenges and Future Reforms
Despite the increase in the number of judges, the Supreme Court continues to face a significant backlog of cases. As of 2023, the pendency had not reduced to a level that would be considered acceptable for a system predicated on the timely delivery of justice. Several reasons can be adduced for this. First, the sheer volume of cases being filed under the court's special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 remains a concern. The expansive interpretation of the court's appellate jurisdiction has resulted in the Supreme Court hearing matters that would ordinarily be the domain of high courts.

Second, the existing infrastructure of the judiciary remains inadequate to support the increased strength of the court. The physical limitations of the courtrooms and the logistical challenges of constituting larger benches have, at times, impeded the efficient functioning of the court.

Moving forward, a more holistic approach to judicial reform is required. This could include further amendments to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, streamlining the admission of special leave petitions, and enhancing the capacity of the high courts to dispose of matters expeditiously. The use of technology in court management, including the digitization of case records and the adoption of artificial intelligence for case categorization, could also play a crucial role in reducing delays.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019, was a necessary legislative intervention aimed at addressing the mounting pendency of cases in the Supreme Court. By increasing the judicial strength from 30 to 33 judges, the Amendment sought to enhance the court's capacity to handle the ever-increasing caseload. While the immediate impact of this expansion has been positive in terms of case disposal, the underlying issues that contribute to pendency remain unresolved.

To truly address the problem of judicial delay, a multifaceted approach is required—one that involves not only increasing the number of judges but also reforming the procedural and infrastructural aspects of the judiciary. As India's constitutional and legal landscape continues to evolve, the role of the Supreme Court will only grow in significance. It is therefore imperative that the court is equipped, both in terms of judicial capacity and institutional resources, to fulfil its constitutional mandate as the guardian of the rule of law.

References:

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.
2. Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 (as amended by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019).
3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980 AIR 1369).
4. Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 2 SCC 688.
5. Campaign for Judicial Accountability & Reforms v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 196.
6. Law Commission of India, 245th Report on "Arrears and Backlog: Creating Additional Judicial (Wo)manpower".