Critics of the expansion warn that simply adding more judges to the Supreme Court may be a superficial solution to a much deeper, systemic problem. Skeptics argue that the backlog is not solely a result of a shortage of personnel, but rather a consequence of inefficient case management, frequent adjournments, and the way cases are prioritized. Without fundamental reforms to how the court operates, they fear that adding more judges will only increase costs without significantly improving the speed of justice.
There is also concern regarding the quality of judicial appointments. Critics emphasize that the focus should be on filling existing vacancies promptly rather than just increasing the total number of seats. If the appointment process remains slow or subject to political friction, the new positions may sit empty for long periods, rendering the legislative effort ineffective. The focus, they argue, should be on streamlining the collegium system to ensure that the best legal minds are appointed without unnecessary delay.
Furthermore, some legal analysts worry that a larger Supreme Court could lead to inconsistent rulings. With more benches operating independently, the risk of conflicting interpretations of the law increases, which could create confusion for lower courts and the public. Maintaining a unified judicial voice is critical, and a larger bench requires more robust internal coordination to ensure that the law remains predictable and stable.
Ultimately, the concern is that this policy acts as a band-aid on a structural wound. Critics suggest that the government should prioritize modernizing court technology, improving the efficiency of lower courts, and reducing the number of frivolous appeals that reach the Supreme Court in the first place. Without these broader reforms, they argue that the expansion is an expensive measure that fails to address the root causes of judicial congestion.