Government Expands Supreme Court Strength While Subordinate Courts and Tribunals Continue to Struggle With Vacancies
The Union Government’s decision to increase the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court has once again sparked a wider debate on whether judicial reforms are being pursued in a balanced manner. While the move is aimed at improving the apex court’s capacity to handle its growing caseload, legal experts argue that the more pressing crisis lies in the High Courts, subordinate courts, and tribunals, where hundreds of sanctioned posts remain vacant.
The government recently approved legislation to raise the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 33 to 37 judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India. The stated objective is to reduce pendency and ensure faster disposal of cases before the country’s highest court.
However, the decision has renewed criticism that the justice delivery system cannot be strengthened by focusing only on the apex court. Official government data presented in Parliament shows that, as of March 2026, 312 High Court judge positions remained vacant against a sanctioned strength of 1,122. Many appointment proposals continue to await completion through the collegium-executive process.
The situation is even more challenging in subordinate courts, where vacancies among judicial officers continue to affect the disposal of millions of pending civil and criminal cases. Tribunal vacancies have also become a recurring concern, with litigants in areas such as taxation, company law, consumer disputes, environmental matters, and service disputes frequently facing delays because benches operate below sanctioned strength or remain non-functional for extended periods.
Legal practitioners point out that for the average citizen, access to justice begins not in the Supreme Court but in subordinate courts and specialised tribunals. Delays in filling these vacancies often translate into years of waiting for hearings, repeated adjournments, and increased litigation costs. They argue that strengthening the foundation of the judicial system would have a more direct impact on reducing pendency across the country than expanding the strength of the apex court alone.
The debate also highlights the complexity of judicial appointments. While the Union Government plays a role in processing appointments, vacancies in the High Courts involve recommendations from the High Court and Supreme Court collegiums, while recruitment to the subordinate judiciary is primarily the responsibility of the respective High Courts and State Governments. Consequently, responsibility for delays is shared among multiple constitutional authorities rather than resting solely with one institution.
With case pendency continuing to burden courts across India, legal observers say that a comprehensive judicial reform strategy must include timely appointments to the High Courts, faster recruitment in subordinate courts, and fully staffed tribunals alongside strengthening the Supreme Court. Many believe that unless vacancies are addressed across every level of the judicial hierarchy, improvements at the apex court alone are unlikely to significantly accelerate the delivery of justice for ordinary citizens.
The Department of Financial Services has established 39 Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) and five Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals (DRATs) across India to adjudicate disputes relating to bank debt recovery and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Despite this institutional framework, several tribunals have continued to function without regular Presiding Officers, Recovery Officers, or other key officials for extended periods. These vacancies have resulted in delayed hearings, growing case backlogs, and prolonged uncertainty for banks, financial institutions, and borrowers alike, raising serious concerns about the effectiveness of India’s debt recovery framework.
The functioning of the DRT and DRAT system has become particularly significant in recent years as financial institutions increasingly rely on the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act for the enforcement of security interests and recovery of defaulted loans. Legal experts contend that while legislative reforms have strengthened creditors’ rights, the absence of adequately staffed tribunals has undermined the timely adjudication of disputes. They argue that ensuring the prompt appointment of Presiding Officers and other tribunal officials is essential to maintaining confidence in India’s financial dispute resolution system and achieving the objective of expeditious debt recovery.
