You only appoint judges with your ideology: Menaka Guruswamy in Rajya Sabha debate on Supreme Court judges bill

Trinamool Congress MP and Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy on Wednesday argued in the Rajya Sabha that the government was favouring candidates who shared its ideology while making judicial appointments.

“You only appoint judges who you think have your ideology!” she said.

Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh, however, immediately directed that the remark would not go on record.

Guruswamy was speaking during the debate on the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, which increases the sanctioned strength of the Court from 34 to 38 judges, including the CJI. After receiving assent in the Lok Sabha earlier this week, the Bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.

In her speech, she also spoke about women, religious minorities and members of the LGBTQ community remaining inadequately represented in the judiciary.

The Senior Advocate highlighted the inadequate representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in judicial appointments. According to figures cited by her, for appointments between 2018 and 2026, around 3 per cent of appointees were from Scheduled Castes, 2 per cent from Scheduled Tribes and 12 per cent from Other Backward Classes.

The Supreme Court is falling short of disposing of around 10,000 cases every year as fresh filings continue to rise, Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal told the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.

Meghwal said that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) had flagged the growing caseload in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 11, while seeking an increase in the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court.

He revealed that the CJI had pointed out that the increasing number of fresh cases required more judges to be available for regular hearings. The problem becomes more acute when larger Constitution Benches are formed, since judges assigned to such benches are taken away from regular hearings, he added.

“When Constitution Benches are constituted, it diverts judges away from regular hearings,” Meghwal said.

He cited the Sabarimala case, which required a nine-judge Bench, as an example. When several judges are engaged on such benches, fewer judges remain available to hear regular cases, including criminal appeals and matters concerning undertrial prisoners, he explained.

Meghwal said that there was a need for at least one permanent Constitution Bench and 1-3 dedicated three-judge benches in the Supreme Court.

The Minister revealed that 96,024 cases were pending before the Supreme Court as of July 16, 2026. The 25 High Courts together had 64.72 lakh pending cases, while district and subordinate courts had 4.98 crore cases pending.

Meghwal said that while deciding and disposing of cases was the responsibility of the judiciary, the Central government could assist by providing infrastructure, increasing the number of judges and improving technology in courts.

He also said that after the Supreme Court's sanctioned strength was increased through an ordinance in May, the Court constituted four special benches to take up some of its oldest pending civil and criminal cases.

Meghwal also responded to demands for regional Supreme Court Benches. He said that Article 130 of the Constitution permits the Supreme Court to sit outside Delhi if the CJI decides so with the President's approval. However, he said that the Supreme Court's Full Court had previously decided against establishing regional benches.

Other senior lawyers in the Rajya Sabha questioned whether adding 4 judges would be sufficient to address the mounting backlog.

YSR Congress Party MP and Senior Advocate S Niranjan Reddy said that the measure could prove to be only a temporary solution.

“4 may not be the solution; this may only be a band-aid, but this will not be a complete solution."

Reddy said that in 1956, when the Supreme Court had 11 judges, 2,362 cases were filed annually, amounting to 214 cases per judge. By 2025, around 75,000 cases were being filed with a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, taking the number to 2,218 cases per judge.

He proposed the creation of intermediate appellate courts to hear civil and criminal appeals from High Courts before they reach the Supreme Court.

Reddy also suggested an intra-court appeal to a High Court Division Bench against orders of single judges in bail, anticipatory bail and quashing matters. Such a change, he said, could reduce the Supreme Court's workload by around 15 per cent.

He further proposed imposing substantial costs for frivolous litigation and setting up a Supreme Court Bench in South India, preferably Hyderabad.

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP and Senior Advocate P Wilson also sought a regional Supreme Court Bench, proposing Chennai as its location.

Wilson highlighted what he termed a “diversity deficit” in the higher judiciary. Citing Law Ministry data, he said that among 593 judges, 26 belonged to Scheduled Castes, 14 to Scheduled Tribes and 80 to Other Backward Classes.

He also called for increasing the retirement age of High Court judges from 62 to 65 and that of Supreme Court judges from 65 to 70.

Congress MP and Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha questioned whether an addition of 4 judges could make a significant difference when around 95,000 cases were pending before the Supreme Court.

“Is it enough? Is it radical enough to change the situation in the country? Are 95,000 cases going to be decided because of these four judges?” Tankha asked.

Biju Janata Dal MP and Advocate Sasmit Patra supported the Bill while calling for additional courtrooms, judges' chambers and facilities for lawyers and litigants.

Bharatiya Janata Party MP, Senior Advocate and Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra supported the Bill, but said that increasing the Supreme Court's strength alone would not solve the pendency problem.

He said more than 65,000 cases were filed annually in the Supreme Court, against disposals of around 50,000 to 55,000. Mishra also flagged the backlog in subordinate courts, blaming inadequate infrastructure, delayed appointments and large judicial vacancies for cases remaining pending for years.