Mathews J Nedumpara
98205 35428
20th April 2026

The maximum strength of the Supreme Court is 34 judges. It operates for approximately 200 days a year; the remainder consists of vacations, holidays, and weekends. The court functions for roughly 4.5 hours a day. Of these working days, Mondays and Fridays are known as “Miscellaneous Days.” On these days, the Court hears Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and Writ Petitions to decide whether they should be admitted.

2. If the Court decides to admit a petition, it issues a notice to the opposing parties, and the SLP is re-numbered as a Civil or Criminal Appeal.
   ​Roughly 95% of SLPs and Writ Petitions are dismissed, except for those represented by a few dozen lawyers—the “dynasties” of lawyers and judges who have hijacked the institution. Of the remaining 5%, where a pre-admission notice is issued, the other side is heard. Only in these 5% of cases is there a meaningful hearing. Certain studies indicate that the average time an SLP is heard is 93 seconds; in reality, it may be even less.

​3. The common man is often unaware of these truths. A common litigant does not realize that the dismissal of an SLP does not constitute finality or the end of litigation. There is often still room for a review before the High Court or Tribunal whose decision was challenged, where leave to appeal was declined.

4. On Mondays and Fridays, the judges typically do not sit for the full day ie 4.5 hours.They hear cases for mere seconds—averaging 93 seconds—before dismissing them. For the common man, there is no meaningful hearing. On Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays (regular hearing days), a significant portion of time is consumed by admission-stage cases involving the top ten to twenty lawyers. Who are these lawyers? Without exception, they come from dynasties of lawyers and judges. These fresh matters involving high stakes—where figures like Singhvi, Sibal, and Salve appear—consume the court’s time, leaving little room for regular hearing cases. While many of these high-stakes commercial matters involve legitimate issues, they are heard in priority over appeal against death sentence/life imprisonment pending for decades.
5. There is yet another class of litigation: Public Interest Litigations (PILs). A vast majority of these are pursued for fame, money, or other oblique motives—often purely political. They frequently address issues that are not justiciable, such as matters of governance and policy, even faith. Often, these PILs run contrary to elementary principles of jurisprudence. What is a PIL? In many cases, it has become a call for the Court to decide on legislative policy behind the public’s back. It is a threat to democracy—a game where a few dynasties of lawyers in Delhi use the Supreme Court to undo what Parliament has ordained. It becomes a means to usurp power using the courts as a platform. The common man has no role in the orders passed in these PILs. It has become a business involving dynasties appearing as petitioners, Amicus Curiae, or even as Government Counsel (AG, SG, or ASG) who may fail to remind the Court that the Attorney General, as parens patriae, is the sole repository of public interest. For these lobbies, PILs are a means to perpetuate self-importance.
6. The question is: why is there no resistance to this hijacking of the judiciary? Standing up against such powerful interests is no easy task. Judges may not be fully aware of the extent of this control, and even if they are, it is difficult to resist. Judges come and go, serving for only a few years. But this powerful lobby of dynasties is perpetual. It is impossible to challenge them, nay, entrenched vested interests.
7. While 98% of the Bar consists of first-generation lawyers, many are not fully aware of these realities. Those who are aware often agree with me but remain silent out of fear. However, the day they overcome that fear is not far off. I have been relentlessly campaigning for the rights of MSMEs, first-generation lawyers, slum dwellers, undertrials, and common litigants for over two decades. While I may not have achieved drastic change yet, I have brought these issues into the public domain. I will continue my efforts with even greater dedication. I am confident that my efforts will not be in vain. My dream is to see radical reforms through peaceful means, using the pen as my primary weapon.
   ​Jai Hind.