Summary
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has said that a growing number of litigants approach the Supreme Court for directions on urgent listing or early hearing of matters pending before High Courts. Speaking at the Kerala High Court's platinum jubilee, he respected High Courts' control over their rosters while asking whether urgent matters could be better identified and listing made more transparent and predictable.
The remarks expose a queueing problem that the wide writ power of Article 226 cannot solve on its own and that adding judges may not fix unless listing itself is reformed.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
On 1 November 2026, at the inauguration of the Kerala High Court's platinum jubilee celebrations, the Chief Justice of India flagged a rise in requests to the Supreme Court for early hearing of High Court matters. He posed questions on identifying urgency, predictable listing, the use of technology and access that does not depend on the ability to reach the national capital.
Standard News
A Wide Writ Power Cannot Shorten a Queue Article 226
lets a High Court issue writs to enforce Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. Article 32 lets a person approach the Supreme Court only to enforce Fundamental Rights. On paper, then, the High Court is the wider door.
The Chief Justice of India made the same point at the Kerala High Court and it deepens the puzzle he raised: why are a growing number of litigants going to Delhi simply to seek an early date in a High Court? The answer lies in what the text does not say.
The Constitution defines the power to grant relief. It sets no timetable for when a petition must actually be heard. The right exists from the moment of filing, but its usefulness depends on the listing.
The
Rule as Written, the Rule as Practised The text assigns no role in this queue to the Supreme Court. In State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998), the Court affirmed that the Chief Justice of a High Court is master of the roster, with exclusive authority to allocate cases.
The CJI was careful to acknowledge that autonomy and said his questions were an expression of shared responsibility and not a criticism. In practice, this leaves litigants in a loop. The Supreme Court refused in July 2026 to list a demolition matter urgently and told the petitioner to go to the High Court.
That stance is constitutionally sound. But a person with no realistic early date in the High Court can be left between two doors and only those who can afford a journey to Delhi can test the second one. The clearest illustration came in *Ravindra Pratap Shahi v.
State of UP* (2025), where an appellant had moved the High Court nine times for early listing, hearing and disposal of an appeal pending since 2008.
Why More Judges Are Not the Whole Answer
Capacity matters. High Court pendency was above 60 lakh cases in November 2025 and more judges would plainly help. But the Supreme Court's own recent experience should caution against treating numbers as the complete answer.
Its strength has risen to 38, yet the argument about its backlog of over 90,000 cases, as of November 2025, had to be paired with procedure. From December 2025 it restructured oral mentioning and urgent listing, with certain urgent matters listed automatically within two days.
Similarly, the Court's May 2026 binding directions set a three-month timeline for reserved judgments in High Courts. That addresses the end of the queue. The front of the queue, where a case waits for its first effective hearing, remains the harder part because it falls within the roster power.
This is the real position the piece defends. Roster autonomy and transparent listing do not conflict. A Chief Justice can decide which bench hears a case while publishing how urgency is judged, what timeline applies and why a matter has been held back.
As the CJI argued, independence and efficiency are intertwined.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Article 32 allows a person to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
-
Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose.
-
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) held judicial review under Articles 226 and 32 to be part of the basic structure.
-
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) affirmed the Chief Justice of a High Court as master of the roster.
-
Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) set guidelines on delayed judgments in High Courts.
-
The Supreme Court's sanctioned strength is 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India.
-
High Court pendency stood at over 60 lakh cases in November 2025.
-
The National Judicial Data Grid tracks pending and disposed cases.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
Why the May 2026 reserved-judgment directions reach the end of the queue but not its front
How the master of the roster doctrine shapes what the Supreme Court can and cannot order
The story of an appellant who sought early listing nine times and what it reveals
A listing design that keeps the Chief Justice's authority while making urgency decisions public
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free