CJI to HCs: Why make litigants rush to Supreme Court for early hearings

The CJI conveyed his anxiety about the frequency of requests from litigants for early hearing of their cases pending in High Courts. File | Photo Credit: J. ALLEN EGENUSE

Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Sunday (November 1, 2026) flagged a “growing tendency” among litigants to approach the Supreme Court with requests to speed up justice delivery in State High Courts.

“We are witnessing a growing tendency of litigants approaching the Supreme Court requesting directions for urgent listing or early hearing of matters pending before the High Courts,” Chief Justice Kant said in an address at the Kerala High Court.

His remarks are significant, as 65,54,788 cases are pending in High Courts across the country. The pendency in the Supreme Court is dangerously close to an unprecedented one-lakh mark, with a backlog hovering at 97,201 cases. The increase in the number of judges from 34 to 38 (including the Chief Justice of India) has not stemmed the steady northward progress of pendency. The 25 High Courts have 292 judicial vacancies against a total sanctioned strength of 1,122 as on October 6, 2026.

The CJI conveyed his anxiety about the frequency of requests from litigants for early hearing of their cases pending in High Courts.

“The Supreme Court has consistently respected the institutional autonomy of High Courts, including their authority to regulate their own rosters... Yet the frequency of such requests invites us to consider whether there is room to improve the responsiveness of our processes,” he said.

The CJI said his questions must not be construed as a criticism of the institution of High Courts, but as a vocalisation of collective responsibility. The breadth of powers of the High Courts to safeguard legal rights under Article 226 of the Constitution exceeds the Supreme Court’s powers under Article 32.

“We must ask ourselves: Can urgent matters be identified more effectively? Can listing procedures be made more transparent and predictable? Can technology assist in prioritising cases where delay may cause irreversible prejudice? And can we ensure that a litigant’s access to timely justice does not depend upon their ability to travel to the national capital?” he asked.

The CJI said judicial independence and efficiency were braided together and were not competing virtues. Timely and effective functioning reinforced public confidence in the independence of courts.

“The difference between justice and injustice lies not in the final judgment, but in whether the court intervenes when intervention is most needed,” he said.

Published - November 01, 2026 08:54 pm IST