Why Constitution Bench Cases Must Be a Priority for the Supreme Court?

lakshmi180592
Jun 9
3 min read

On May 14, 2025, Justice BR Gavai took oath as the 52nd Chief Justice of India. One of his key priorities is to ensure better listing and disposal of important cases, especially those that require three-judge benches and Constitution Benches. This is a much-needed focus, but it brings up a larger issue—the long-standing delay in hearing and deciding Constitution Bench cases.

What Are Constitution Benches?

Constitution Benches are special benches of the Supreme Court made up of five or more judges. These benches hear cases that involve important constitutional questions. Over the years, Constitution Benches have played a major role in deciding the limits of power, rights of citizens, and the functioning of democratic institutions.

Recently, such benches made important decisions like:

Upholding the integration of Jammu & Kashmir with India,
Striking down the electoral bonds scheme, and
Limiting the State’s power to acquire private property.

The Recent Slowdown

Despite their importance, the Supreme Court has not been actively listing Constitution Bench cases in the last six months. Under the tenure of former CJI Sanjiv Khanna, only one Constitution Bench case was decided. This is a sharp drop compared to 31 such cases under former CJI DY Chandrachud.

This slowdown has led to a huge backlog of important cases that need immediate attention.

The Current Pendency

According to data from Vidhi’s Constitution Bench Pendency Project (as of May 13, 2025):

28 main Constitution Bench cases and 265 connected cases are still pending.
On average, these cases have been pending for more than 7 years (2,562 days).
Four cases have been pending for over 15 years.
In 11 of the 28 cases, no bench has ever been formed.
Only one case (Tej Bhan v. Ram Kishan) has had a Constitution Bench formed recently.

Some important cases still waiting to be heard include:

Sedition law challenge (SG Vombatkere)
Guidelines for death penalty sentencing
Limits on state borrowing by the Union (State of Kerala v. Union of India)

In 14 other cases, the Court needs to reconstitute benches because the judges who were supposed to hear them have retired. These include big constitutional matters such as:

Sabarimala-related rights (Kantaru Rajeevaru)
Reservations under Article 334
MLA disqualification powers (Subhash Desai)

Why These Delays Matter

When Constitution Bench cases are not decided:

Citizens’ fundamental rights remain uncertain – e.g., death row prisoners may not get a fair hearing; Muslim women’s prayer rights remain undecided.
Legal clarity suffers – lower courts are left to apply older or conflicting judgments.
For example, 90% of death penalty cases in 2024 were decided without proper background information about the accused—despite Supreme Court rulings requiring it.

What Can Be Done?

There are already systems in place to handle these cases efficiently:

Former CJI UU Lalit had distributed pending Constitution Bench cases proportionally across five benches.
Courts have also been limiting argument time, helping them dispose of cases in less than five hearings on average.

While CJI Gavai’s term is only for six months, he can still make a lasting impact by restarting the hearing of Constitution Bench matters. These cases are not just about increasing disposal numbers—they are about preserving the constitutional promise of justice, equality, and democracy.

Final Thought:-

India needs a Supreme Court that leads by example when it comes to upholding the Constitution. Prioritizing Constitution Bench cases is a key part of that leadership. CJI Gavai has a critical opportunity to revive momentum and ensure that vital constitutional questions are no longer stuck in limbo.