Proponents of the Bill argue that increasing the number of Supreme Court judges is an essential administrative necessity to ensure the rule of law remains effective. As India's economy and population grow, the complexity and volume of legal disputes have naturally increased. Supporters maintain that a larger bench is the most direct way to ensure that the judiciary can handle this surge without compromising the quality of its deliberations.
For many litigants, the current delays are not merely an inconvenience but a significant financial and personal burden. By adding more judges, the court can sit in more benches simultaneously, allowing for a higher throughput of cases. This is viewed as a pro-justice measure that prioritizes the rights of citizens to have their grievances heard in a timely manner, rather than waiting years for a final verdict.
Furthermore, advocates point out that the judiciary itself has requested this expansion. When the institution tasked with interpreting the law identifies that it lacks the human resources to function optimally, the legislature has a duty to respond. This collaboration between the two branches of government is seen as a healthy sign of a functioning democracy that is responsive to the practical needs of its legal system.
Ultimately, the expansion is expected to bolster public trust in the judicial process. When justice is delivered promptly, the credibility of the legal system is strengthened. Supporters believe that this investment in judicial infrastructure will pay dividends by creating a more predictable and efficient environment for everyone involved in the legal process.