A Temporal Analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s Workload: Empirical Insights and the Path Forward

The Indian legal system, the world’s largest democratic judiciary, continues to wrestle with unprecedented backlogs and systemic challenges. Among its many cogs, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) sits at the apex, playing both a constitutional and error-correcting role for over a billion citizens. But how do we measure the functioning, efficiency, and bottlenecks at the country’s highest court? The answer lies in a temporal analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s workload, a pioneering approach that shifts our perspective from counting cases to quantifying time—making it possible to move from anecdote to actionable insight.

What Makes a Temporal Analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s Workload Unique?

For decades, conversation about judicial pendency in India has been dominated by data on pending cases. Official sources estimate over 27 million cases are pending nationwide, with the SCI itself reporting over 55,000 cases, many languishing for five years or more. Yet, simply counting cases is an inadequate proxy for understanding court capacity, congestion, or efficiency. The essence of a temporal analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s workload is to recognize that judicial resources are fundamentally time-driven—not all cases consume equal slices of a judge’s day.

This analysis uses hearing duration as its baseline, offering a far richer, more accurate lens. Leveraging display board logs, daily cause lists, and case status databases, a new dataset—“Supreme Court Hearing Time”—has been developed, providing granular insight into how the court spends its most valuable resource: time. 54,164 hearings, from January to December 2016, were scrutinized to paint a comprehensive picture.

Why Case-Type Matters in a Temporal Analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s Workload

Not all proceedings are equal. Through a temporal analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s workload, it became apparent that case-type is the most reliable aggregator for workload modeling:

• SLP (Special Leave Petitions), which form over 80% of the incoming docket, consume only around 63% of judge time.
• Criminal appeals may require as much as 125 judge minutes per case, whereas transfer petitions may consume just 8 judge minutes.
• The average hearing of any case lasts approximately 7.5 minutes, yet most are resolved in under three minutes.

This data breaks every stereotype about uniform case management. The time invested in cases is positively skewed—some cases drag for hours, while the majority are dispensed quickly. Thus, a temporal analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s workload dispels the myth that every pending case represents the same judicial effort.

Applying the Weighted Caseload Method: The Heart of Temporal Analysis

The backbone of this approach is the weighted caseload method, a quantitative tool regularly used in US and European court systems. The method’s steps, as adapted for the Indian context, are:

1. Calculating the average judge time per hearing by case-type.
2. Determining the average number of hearings needed to dispose of each case-type.
3. Multiplying these figures to determine disposal time per case-type.
4. Estimating the annual incoming caseload and multiplying by disposal time for total workload.
5. Comparing the above with judge time actually available in a year, and identifying time deficits or surpluses.

Data from a temporal analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s workload finds that with an average bench strength of 26.46 judges (2016), the SCI operated at 87.8% efficiency, yet still faced an annual time deficiency of 401 judge hours. In other words, even if every judge performed near optimally, the court’s workload outpaced its capacity to clear pending and new cases, making backlog an inevitability.

may refer A Quantitative Analysis of the Indian Supreme Court’s Workload also

Testing Solutions: What Would Actually Help Resolve Pendency?

The granular perspective gained via a temporal analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s workload enables real scrutiny of several perennial policy suggestions.

1. Appointing More Judges

If the SCI had operated at its full sanctioned strength of 31 judges (instead of 26-27), it would have achieved a 15.5% increase in available judge time. At current rates, this alone could reduce the break-even time for clearing all backlogs from 20 years to 18 years—meaning that pendency would persist for nearly two decades even with a fully staffed bench.

2. Eliminating Court Vacations

India’s courts have long faced criticism for extended vacations. Modeling in the temporal analysis reveals that scrapping all court vacations (assuming unchanged efficiency) could reduce the break-even to just 4 years, providing a huge boost to throughput. However, this comes with the caveat of potential judge burnout and reduced decision quality, as vacations are often used by judges to write detailed judgments.

3. Radical Case-Type Exclusion (e.g., Special Leave Petitions)

Special Leave Petitions, often criticized for overburdening the SCI, actually consume minimal time individually but collectively account for 63% of the incoming workload. Abolishing SLPs entirely is constitutionally radical, but if enacted, it would bring the break-even time to about 4 years—a controversial but mathematically powerful lever.

4. Reducing SLP Admission Rates

If the SCI admitted only half the number of SLPs it does now, the time to clear backlog would fall to approximately 9 years—a significant, though less dramatic, improvement.

Limits and Opportunities in Temporal Analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s Workload

While a temporal analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s workload offers unprecedented clarity, it is not without caveats:

• Some case activities (like judgment writing, cases in chambers, and administrative tasks) remain outside the dataset.
• Events such as continuing mandamus cases, or batch-listing related cases together, can skew the cumulative time calculations.
• The method presumes a steady inflow and disposal rate, while in reality, annual case filings have consistently increased over the past two decades.

Crucially, this method offers structure for future empirical studies, providing a template for applying similar time-based analyses to district and high courts nationwide, and even facilitating international court comparisons.

FAQs: A Temporal Analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s Workload

Final Thoughts:
A temporal analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s workload equips policymakers, judges, and citizens with actionable, evidence-based insight, moving discourse beyond numbers to what counts most—judicial time. As India’s judiciary modernizes, such rigorous approaches are indispensable for ensuring timely, equitable justice for all.

MCQs — Hemrajani & Agarwal, “A temporal analysis of the Supreme Court of India’s workload”

1. According to Hemrajani and Agarwal, which of the following is NOT a limitation of existing empirical studies on Indian court workload?
(a) They adopt the count of cases as their primary measure to study pendency
(b) They miss the varying complexity of different case-types
(c) They fail to account for individual judges having different capacities
(d) They rely too heavily on qualitative interview data rather than quantitative metrics
(Correct answer: (d))

2. What is Hemrajani and Agarwal’s central research objective?
(a) To compare the SCI’s efficiency with international constitutional courts
(b) To analyze the SCI’s workload using time measure rather than case count, and evaluate pendency reduction methods
(c) To study the impact of judicial appointments on case disposal rates
(d) To examine the relationship between case complexity and judicial decision quality
(Correct answer: (b))

3. How did Hemrajani and Agarwal operationalize “judge time” in their study?
(a) By multiplying hearing duration by the total number of SCI judges
(b) By adding preparation time to actual hearing time for each case
(c) By multiplying hearing duration by the number of judges on the specific bench hearing that case
(d) By dividing total court hours by the number of cases heard per day
(Correct answer: (c))

4. Which of the following is NOT a data source used by Hemrajani and Agarwal?
(a) SCI display board timestamps tracked by cloud software
(b) Daily cause lists published by the Supreme Court
(c) Individual judge interview responses about time allocation
(d) Case status pages from the SCI website
(Correct answer: (c))

5. What was the sample size of Hemrajani and Agarwal’s hearing time dataset?
(a) 44,900 hearings
(b) 54,164 hearings
(c) 19,380 hearings
(d) 78,444 hearings
(Correct answer: (b))

6. How did Hemrajani and Agarwal measure the “efficiency rate” of the Supreme Court?
(a) By comparing actual hearing time to ideal hearing time for the same period (87.79%)
(b) By dividing disposed cases by incoming cases per year
(c) By calculating the percentage of cases heard within statutory time limits
(d) By measuring judge satisfaction scores with their workload
(Correct answer: (a))

7. According to Hemrajani and Agarwal, what was the Supreme Court’s time deficiency in 2016 under the actual efficiency model?
(a) 2,239 hours surplus
(b) 401 hours deficiency
(c) 18,980 hours available
(d) 19,380 hours required
(Correct answer: (b))

8. Which research design innovation distinguishes Hemrajani and Agarwal’s approach from previous NCSC studies?
(a) Using judges to manually track their own time allocation
(b) Conducting the study over a 6-9 week period for focused analysis
(c) Automated timestamp collection via display board tracking, eliminating manual data entry errors
(d) Focusing exclusively on constitutional bench cases
(Correct answer: (c))

9. Which of the following is NOT a limitation of Hemrajani and Agarwal’s dataset mentioned by the authors?
(a) Minimum time change reflected is 7 seconds
(b) Display board may not be turned off during lunch in some long hearings
(c) Cases listed for pronouncement are not tracked since they use alphanumeric item numbers
(d) The study period was too short to capture seasonal variations in court workload
(Correct answer: (d))

10. How did Hemrajani and Agarwal differentiate between Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) that are admitted versus those that are dismissed?
(a) By examining the subject matter categorization assigned by filing advocates
(b) By tracking conversion data from case status pages and calculating separate disposal times for each category
(c) By analyzing the length of written judgments for each SLP category
(d) By surveying judges about their decision-making criteria
(Correct answer: (b))

11. What did Hemrajani and Agarwal find about the average hearing time across all case types in the Supreme Court?
(a) 17 minutes per hearing
(b) 7.45 minutes per hearing
(c) 35 minutes per case disposal
(d) 87.79 minutes per case disposal
(Correct answer: (b))

12. Which of the following is NOT one of the steps in the weighted caseload method as applied by Hemrajani and Agarwal?
(a) Calculate the average amount of judge time per hearing in each type of case
(b) Determine the average number of hearings in each type of case
(c) Survey litigants about their satisfaction with hearing duration
(d) Multiply average judge time per hearing by average number of hearings to get disposal time
(Correct answer: (c))

13. According to Hemrajani and Agarwal’s analysis, which case type requires the most court resources to dispose of on average?
(a) Criminal Appeal (125 judge minutes)
(b) Original Suit (1484 judge minutes)
(c) Civil Appeal (84 judge minutes)
(d) SLP Civil (14 judge minutes)
(Correct answer: (b))

14. How did Hemrajani and Agarwal calculate the “break-even point” for clearing the Supreme Court’s pendency?
(a) By dividing pending time by excess capacity time available after disposing incoming cases
(b) By multiplying the number of pending cases by average disposal time
(c) By comparing the court’s efficiency rate to international constitutional court benchmarks
(d) By analyzing historical trends in case filing rates over the past decade
(Correct answer: (a))

15. Which of the following is NOT a method Hemrajani and Agarwal tested to reduce Supreme Court pendency?
(a) Appointing additional judges up to sanctioned strength
(b) Eliminating court vacations entirely
(c) Creating specialized subject-matter benches for different case types
(d) Reducing SLP admission rates by 50%
(Correct answer: (c))

16. What did Hemrajani and Agarwal find about the time required to clear all incoming cases filed in a year?
(a) 18,980 judge hours (time available)
(b) 19,380 judge hours (time required)
(c) 44,900 judge hours (pending cases)
(d) 21,620 judge hours (ideal capacity)
(Correct answer: (b))

17. How did Hemrajani and Agarwal address the problem of cases that have had multiple hearings when calculating pending case disposal time?
(a) They treated all pending cases as requiring full disposal time
(b) They proportionately reduced hearings remaining by subtracting median orders passed from average orders required
(c) They excluded cases with more than 5 previous hearings from analysis
(d) They used only cases with zero previous hearings in their calculations
(Correct answer: (b))

18. According to Hemrajani and Agarwal, what percentage of incoming cases do SLPs constitute by numbers versus judge time required?
(a) 63% by numbers, 80% by judge time
(b) 80% by numbers, 63% by judge time
(c) 78% by numbers, 67% by judge time
(d) 85% by numbers, 72% by judge time
(Correct answer: (b))

19. Which of the following is NOT a reason Hemrajani and Agarwal chose to aggregate data by “case-type” rather than “subject matter”?
(a) Case-type categorization is checked by the SCI registry and is fairly accurate
(b) Subject matter categories can have multiple possible classifications for the same case
(c) Case-type corresponds to well-defined jurisdiction clauses
(d) Subject matter categorization provides more detailed insights into case complexity
(Correct answer: (d))

20. What was the period covered by Hemrajani and Agarwal’s Supreme Court Hearing Time dataset?
(a) 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016
(b) 28 January 2016 to 5 December 2016
(c) 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016
(d) 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015
(Correct answer: (b))

21. How did Hemrajani and Agarwal determine the average number of hearings required to dispose of each case type?
(a) By surveying court masters about typical case hearing patterns
(b) By using the number of orders passed in disposed cases as a proxy for number of hearings
(c) By analyzing historical court records from the past 20 years
(d) By timing each individual hearing and calculating cumulative averages
(Correct answer: (b))

22. According to Hemrajani and Agarwal’s findings, how many years would it take to achieve break-even (clear all pending cases) if the court worked at ideal efficiency?
(a) 4 years
(b) 18 years
(c) 20 years
(d) Never achievable
(Correct answer: (c))

23. Which of the following is NOT a component of Hemrajani and Agarwal’s “ideal efficiency model”?
(a) 179 working days per year (2016)
(b) 4.5 working hours per day (excluding lunch)
(c) Average of 26.46 judges in 2016
(d) 15% buffer time for administrative responsibilities
(Correct answer: (d))

24. What did Hemrajani and Agarwal identify as the “big bugbear” for the Supreme Court, citing Dhawan’s observation?
(a) Criminal Appeals that require extensive constitutional interpretation
(b) Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) which now dwarf the work of the court
(c) Transfer Petitions that involve complex jurisdictional issues
(d) Review Petitions that require detailed re-examination of previous judgments
(Correct answer: (b))

25. How did Hemrajani and Agarwal handle the discrepancy between case status data and Supreme Court Annual Report figures?
(a) They reconciled both sources by conducting independent verification
(b) They used only Annual Report data for consistency with official statistics
(c) They used case status page data since their model requires case-type disaggregation, acknowledging the limitations
(d) They averaged the two sources to minimize potential errors
(Correct answer: (c))

26. According to Hemrajani and Agarwal, which methodological approach would be required to test whether all admissions should happen by circulation rather than oral hearing?
(a) Additional data points distinguishing between admission and regular hearings
(b) Comparative analysis with US Supreme Court practices
(c) Survey research on judicial preferences for hearing formats
(d) Historical analysis of admission rates over time
(Correct answer: (a))

27. What was the minimum time change that Hemrajani and Agarwal’s data collection system could detect?
(a) 1 second
(b) 7 seconds
(c) 30 seconds
(d) 1 minute
(Correct answer: (b))

28. Which of the following is NOT a statistical measure reported by Hemrajani and Agarwal in their findings?
(a) Standard deviation of hearing times across case types (22 minutes average)
(b) Correlation coefficient between case complexity and hearing duration
(c) 87.79% judicial efficiency rate
(d) 54,164 total hearings in sample
(Correct answer: (b))

29. How did Hemrajani and Agarwal calculate the conversion ratios for Special Leave Petitions?
(a) By analyzing cases from 2014-2015 to capture recent trends
(b) By using all cases from 2009-2013, excluding 2014-2015 since many were still pending conversion
(c) By surveying judicial officers about their typical SLP admission practices
(d) By extrapolating from a random sample of 1000 SLP cases
(Correct answer: (b))

30. What did Hemrajani and Agarwal conclude about the effect of adding more judges on individual judge hearing times?
(a) Individual judges increase hearing time when more judges are added (judicial adjustment theory)
(b) Individual judges maintain constant hearing time regardless of total court size
(c) They found no evidence that adding judges leads to decreased disposal rates for individual judges
(d) The relationship varies significantly based on case complexity
(Correct answer: (c))

31. According to Hemrajani and Agarwal’s analysis, if 12 additional judges were appointed over the sanctioned strength, how long would it take to reach break-even?
(a) 3 years
(b) 5 years
(c) 8 years
(d) 10 years
(Correct answer: (b))

32. Which of the following case types did Hemrajani and Agarwal find takes the least average hearing time?
(a) Transfer Petition (Civil) – 2.65 minutes
(b) Transfer Petition (Criminal) – 2.59 minutes
(c) SLP (Civil) CC – 2.74 minutes
(d) SLP (Criminal) CRLMP – 2.78 minutes
(Correct answer: (b))

33. How did Hemrajani and Agarwal address the problem of “hyphenated” cases in their counting methodology?
(a) They counted each hyphenated case individually to avoid undercounting
(b) They treated batch cases (e.g., SLP 832-836/2012) as single cases since they have common hearings and orders
(c) They excluded all hyphenated cases from their analysis due to complexity
(d) They used a weighted average based on the number of cases in each batch
(Correct answer: (b))

34. What does Hemrajani and Agarwal’s “congestion rate” of 301.61% indicate?
(a) The court is operating at three times its optimal capacity
(b) The combined time for incoming and pending cases exceeds available time by 201.61%
(c) The court requires 3.01 times more judges to handle current workload
(d) The pendency has increased by 301.61% compared to previous year
(Correct answer: (a))

35. According to Hemrajani and Agarwal, which comparative advantage does their display board technique offer over manual time-and-motion studies like those conducted by Daksh?
(a) It captures preparation time in addition to hearing time
(b) It provides more detailed qualitative insights into judicial decision-making
(c) It eliminates human error, doesn’t impose demands on judges, and can be easily scaled across courts
(d) It allows for real-time adjustment of court schedules based on case complexity
(Correct answer: (c))

Share on Facebook

Post on X

Save