For years, the month of May has marked a predictable rise in the Supreme Court’s case backlog, a seasonal surge linked to the Court’s summer vacation schedule. But in a quiet, meaningful shift, May 2025 broke that trend. For the first time in six years, the month of May saw a decline in pendency.
The top court not only avoided the usual spike but actually saw a dip in pendency. The Supreme Court began the year 2025 with a total pendency of 82,445 cases. After five months, the number has reduced marginally by 711 cases, marking a notable, if modest, improvement in overall pendency.
These include Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), review and curative petitions, civil and criminal appeals, and Constitution Bench matters. Nearly 80% of these are miscellaneous cases, which often clog the docket and delay substantive hearings.
In May 2025, the Court operated for 16 working days, including partial sittings from May 26 onward as part of its Partial Working Days.
Also Read
The clearance rate in May 2025 was at 79.91 per cent, down from April when it was at 86.5 per cent. The drop in disposal numbers could be attributed to the Partial Working Days, where only five benches, led by the senior-most judges of the Court, were constituted.
The Court cleared approximately 375 cases each day during the 16 working days, and this shows that the institution and disposal figures were higher than any other year in May 2025. Reforms like digital listing, increased bench strength, and AI-enabled systems are beginning to show impact.
India’s Supreme Court entertains a wide range of matters, owing to its broad appellate jurisdiction and liberal approach under Article 136. Unlike many apex courts globally, it often functions as a court of last resort for individual litigants, contributing significantly to its high caseload.
Supreme Court’s pendency is not just a statistical concern but a reflection of how accessible and responsive the justice system is. Reducing the backlog requires not just technological fixes but reform in judicial mindset, discipline in case listing, and a sharper focus on constitutional adjudication.
