Feed

Why in news?

Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has granted in-principle authorisation to Paytm Payments Services Ltd (PPSL) — a wholly-owned arm of Paytm’s parent One 97 Communications — to set up and operate a payment system for issuing Prepaid Payment Instruments (PPIs), including digital wallets.

This comes over two-and-a-half years after the RBI imposed debilitating restrictions on Paytm Payments Bank, which had effectively shut down Paytm’s wallet services.

If finalised, this would mark the return of Paytm’s wallet — once India’s largest digital wallet offering — this time operating under PPSL instead of the bank.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What the RBI’s In-Principle Approval Actually Means?
• Background: How Paytm’s Wallet Ended Up in Trouble
• Timeline: RBI’s Regulatory Action Against Paytm
• Impact on One 97 Communications
• Conclusion

What the RBI’s In-Principle Approval Actually Means?

• This is not final approval — PPSL cannot yet commence wallet operations.
• Full operations require a Certificate of Authorisation, granted only after PPSL fulfils specific RBI conditions:
  • Undertake a system audit, including a cybersecurity audit, via a CERT-In empanelled auditor or qualified information systems auditor.
  • Audit must comply with RBI’s Master Directions on Cyber Resilience and Digital Payment Security Controls (dated November 5, 2026) for non-bank Payment System Operators.
  • Ensure compliance with RBI’s April 6, 2018 circular on storage of payment system data.
• Deadline: PPSL must submit the system audit report within six months of the RBI’s letter — failure leads to automatic lapse of the in-principle authorisation, with no further consideration for final approval.
• Any future change in PPSL’s shareholding or ownership must follow RBI’s July 2022 directions on prior approval for takeover/acquisition of non-bank payment system operators.
• PPSL had applied for this authorisation in December 2025, anticipating the bank licence cancellation. Following the announcement, One 97 Communications’ shares rose 1.1%, closing at ₹1,945 on the BSE.

Background: How Paytm’s Wallet Ended Up in Trouble?

• Paytm transferred its prepaid instruments business to Paytm Payments Bank in 2017, complying with RBI norms requiring payments banks to house such operations separately.
• In April 2026, RBI cancelled Paytm Payments Bank’s banking licence entirely, stating its operations were “detrimental to the interest of the bank and its depositors.”
• This followed years of regulatory action, culminating in a full business shutdown.

Timeline: RBI’s Regulatory Action Against Paytm

• 2018: RBI scrutiny began over KYC (Know Your Customer) violations — notably, a single PAN linked to multiple customer accounts, raising red flags about bypassing regulatory safeguards.
• June 2018: RBI audit found significant gaps in customer onboarding verification; bank directed to halt new customer onboarding until compliance improved.
• March 2022: Bank formally barred from onboarding new customers.
• October 2023: RBI imposed a ₹5.39 crore penalty on the bank.
• January 2024: RBI barred the bank from accepting deposits, top-ups, prepaid instruments, wallets, FASTags, and NCMC cards after February 29, 2024, citing persistent non-compliance and supervisory concerns — including failure to maintain a “Chinese wall” with group company One 97 Communications.
• April 2026: RBI cancelled the banking licence entirely, invoking Section 22(3)(c) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 — which requires that a bank’s management not be prejudicial to public or depositor interest.
  • The RBI also invoked Section 22(3)(e), stating no useful purpose would be served by allowing continuation.
  • The bank was barred from conducting banking business under Section 5(b)/Section 6 of the Act.

Impact on One 97 Communications

• The RBI’s actions caused One 97 Communications’ stock to plunge 40-50%.
• Paytm’s integrated payments ecosystem broke down — disrupting wallets, merchant settlements, FASTag, and autopay services.
• The company was forced to partner with banks like Axis Bank and YES Bank, migrate users/infrastructure, and absorb higher compliance costs.
• This led to temporary user and merchant attrition toward rivals like Google Pay and PhonePe, though it eventually pushed Paytm toward a leaner, partner-driven business model.

Conclusion

Paytm’s journey from India’s leading digital wallet provider to regulatory shutdown, and now a cautious path to revival, highlights the critical importance of compliance, transparency, and robust cybersecurity in India’s fintech ecosystem.

The RBI’s conditional approval signals opportunity — but final authorisation remains contingent on Paytm successfully rebuilding regulatory trust through verified systemic safeguards.

Why in news?

Between 2300-2330 IST on November 12, 2026, users across India began reporting login issues with Microsoft 365 applications — Outlook, Teams, and CoPilot AI. Within an hour, the outage had spread to 74 countries and territories, including the US, UK, Canada, Japan, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand.

By 1630 IST on November 13, over 21 hours later, the disruption remained unresolved — exposing how deeply the world’s businesses, governments, and institutions depend on a single cloud provider.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What Happened?
• Why Did the Disruption Spread So Widely?
• Why Did It Take So Long to Fix?
• Not an Isolated Incident
• The Real-World Fallout
• Microsoft’s Market Dominance: Why This Matters

What Happened?

• Exchange Online — Microsoft’s cloud-hosted email service — was the first to show intermittent connectivity issues, originating in the Americas.
• Since Exchange Online is integrated into multiple Microsoft 365 functions, its disruption had a cascading effect beyond email alone.
• Microsoft tracked the issue, later confirming it affected a wider set of services: Exchange Online, Teams, SharePoint Online, Microsoft 365 Copilot, and Microsoft Defender XDR.
• Crucially, Microsoft clarified that only features dependent on Exchange Online were affected — not the entirety of these applications.
• Root Cause: A number of servers unexpectedly became unavailable, placing excess load on remaining infrastructure. Microsoft explicitly stated this was not caused by increased user traffic or malicious activity.
• Scale: Microsoft didn’t officially disclose affected user numbers, but BBC reported ~430 million global users, with complaints from tens of thousands of users across 70 countries.

Why Did the Disruption Spread So Widely?

• Cloud-hosted services operate through a network of interconnected servers, data centres, and backend processes — not independent silos.
• Many applications share common infrastructure for authentication and connectivity.
• When one section of infrastructure fails, remaining components absorb additional load, stressing total system capacity.
• Since organisations worldwide — across different countries, sectors, and jurisdictions — rely on the same technology provider, a single point of failure simultaneously disrupted unrelated institutions globally.
• Even third-party integrations were affected: Anthropic’s Claude AI reported elevated errors in its Microsoft 365 connector, with mail, calendar, and search functions failing, and Claude for Outlook also impacted.

Why Did It Take So Long to Fix?

• Restoring the initially affected servers does not automatically restore services — Microsoft must verify that restored infrastructure can handle the renewed volume of requests.
• The report offers an analogy: like an athlete recovering from injury, being “injury-free” doesn’t mean being immediately “match-fit.”
• Microsoft itself acknowledged that some recovery measures had not delivered expected improvements, prolonging the disruption.

Not an Isolated Incident

• This was not Microsoft’s first major 365 Suite outage in 2026. Between August 31–September 3, 2026, a separate disruption affected Exchange Online and other services due to an authentication configuration issue — impacting Outlook, SharePoint Online, and OneDrive for Business.
• This pattern highlights recurring vulnerabilities in Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure despite its massive scale.

The Real-World Fallout

• The outage’s consequences extended far beyond lost email access:
  • Financial sector: Stock-exchange operator Euronext faced email communication problems within its listing teams; British insurer Aviva activated backup arrangements for earnings calls.
  • Aviation sector (India): IndiGo, Akasa Air, and Air India reported disruptions to email support services; some flights were grounded as a result.
• Key Takeaway: While these sectors didn’t completely cease functioning, the outage demonstrated how failure in a single technology provider can simultaneously disrupt seemingly unrelated industries worldwide.

Microsoft’s Market Dominance: Why This Matters

• Microsoft’s FY2026 SEC filing reported $101.997 billion in revenue from Microsoft 365 Commercial products and cloud services — a 16% increase year-on-year.
• The company also reported a 6% increase in commercial seats (paid users under Microsoft 365 Commercial subscriptions).
• The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), while assessing whether Microsoft should be granted Strategic Market Status (SMS), found that Microsoft accounts for 60-70% of global revenue in the productivity software suite market.
• This level of market concentration means outages of this scale carry systemic, cross-sector risk — a single point of failure with global economic consequences.

Conclusion

The Microsoft outage underscores a critical vulnerability of the digital age: concentrated dependence on a handful of cloud providers can trigger cascading, cross-sector disruptions affecting millions worldwide.

As governments and businesses increasingly digitise operations, building redundancy, diversification, and stronger regulatory oversight of dominant tech providers becomes essential to safeguarding global digital resilience.

Context:

• The US Secretary of State announced that leaders of the four Quad countries — India, Australia, Japan, and the US — are expected to meet in Manila in November 2026, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit.
• This marks the first Quad Leaders’ Summit since Donald Trump’s second term began, and the first attended by Japanese PM Sanae Takaichi.
  • The last such summit was held in Wilmington (2024), under Biden and Kishida.
• This announcement comes after a turbulent 2025 for the grouping, raising key questions about the Quad’s future cohesion and Trump’s Indo-Pacific vision.
• This article highlights the challenges facing the Quad grouping amid shifting US geopolitical priorities and growing uncertainty over Washington’s Indo-Pacific engagement.
• It examines the grouping’s efforts to sustain cooperation despite strategic turbulence, the significance of the proposed Manila summit, and how India, Japan and Australia are diversifying their security partnerships.

A Period of Strategic Turbulence

• Though India was expected to host the next summit, 2025 saw the Quad undergo intense strategic turbulence due to shifting US geopolitical priorities and changing bilateral dynamics, especially with India.
• Despite this, the grouping did not collapse — operational cooperation continued.
• Key Achievement: The Quad’s Indo-Pacific Maritime Domain Awareness initiative was elevated to the Indo-Pacific Maritime Surveillance Collaboration framework, launched in New Delhi (May 2026) following a Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.

Keeping the Quad Afloat: Ministerial Engagement

• Foreign Ministers met multiple times despite the political low point:
  • 2025: Twice in Washington (first meeting marked Marco Rubio’s debut as Secretary of State).
  • 2026: Three times — in New Delhi, Manila, and Atlanta.
• Since the Quad lacks a permanent bureaucracy or institutional framework, leader-level summits serve as vital platforms to reaffirm shared purpose and set the agenda.

The Core Question: Trump’s Indo-Pacific Engagement

• This summit will be the first real indication of Trump’s Indo-Pacific vision for his second term.
• Historical Context: The Quad was revived during Trump’s first term (2017), which also saw the US Pacific Command renamed US Indo-Pacific Command.
• Current Concerns: Trump’s priorities have been dominated by the Russia-Ukraine war, transatlantic/NATO relations, and the West Asia conflict — causing regional partners to worry about a potential shift away from the Indo-Pacific.
• Trump’s push for greater burden-sharing among partners, and the White House’s review of AUKUS, have heightened uncertainty among Indo-Pacific players.

Regional Responses: Diversification Strategies

• Facing this uncertainty, Quad partners have pursued diversification of their security approaches:
  • Japan: Launched the OCEAN (One Cooperative Effort Among Nations) framework, reshaping its post-war security posture through deeper strategic alignment with partners.
  • Australia: Strengthened defence partnerships with India, Japan, Southeast Asian nations, and Pacific Island countries to counter China’s expanding footprint.
  • India: Continues its policy of multi-alignment, diversifying defence and strategic ties across the Indian Ocean and wider Indo-Pacific.
  • JAI grouping (Japan-Australia-India): Defence Ministers met recently in Cebu, signalling deeper trilateral cooperation independent of Washington’s role.
  • France: Emerging as a new Indo-Pacific player, strengthening ties with regional countries for a balanced security environment.
• Despite this diversification, Washington’s role remains critical — particularly in safeguarding the Taiwan Strait, a key flashpoint amid China’s growing maritime assertiveness.

Why Manila Matters: A Strategic Message?

• Though India was expected to host the summit, the Philippines hosting it reinforces a foundational Quad pillar: ASEAN centrality.
• The Philippines is at the frontline of Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific, with ongoing South China Sea sovereignty disputes with Beijing.
• Following precedent, Quad leaders are expected to reiterate the importance of respecting sovereignty in the South and East China Seas and condemn violations of international law.
• For Trump, this visit carries two key priorities: resetting American posture in the region and reaffirming the Quad’s commitment against Chinese belligerence — delivered symbolically from Manila itself.

Conclusion

The Manila summit represents a crucial test of the Quad’s resilience amid Trump-era uncertainty. While regional partners diversify their strategic options, sustained American engagement remains indispensable for countering China’s assertiveness and preserving a stable, rules-based Indo-Pacific order.

Why in the News?

• The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has expressed strong disappointment over alleged irregularities and disputes surrounding the Indian Olympic Association's (IOA) electoral process.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• IOA & IOC (Objectives, Functions, etc.)
• News Summary (IOA-IOC Controversy, Background, Implications on Olympics Bid, etc.)

About the Indian Olympic Association

• The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) is the National Olympic Committee of India and the governing body responsible for coordinating the country's participation in the Olympic Games and other international multi-sport events.
• Established in 1927, it is recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and functions within the framework of the Olympic Charter.
• The IOA works with national sports federations and other stakeholders to promote Olympic sports, facilitate the selection and participation of Indian athletes in international competitions, and represent India's interests within the Olympic Movement.
• It is also responsible for ensuring that its governance and electoral processes adhere to its Constitution and the principles of the Olympic Charter.

About the International Olympic Committee

• The International Olympic Committee (IOC) is the supreme authority of the Olympic Movement and is responsible for overseeing the organisation of the Olympic Games.
• Established in 1894 by Pierre de Coubertin, it is headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland.
• The IOC recognises National Olympic Committees, including the IOA, and works with international sports federations and other Olympic stakeholders to promote sport globally.
• It safeguards the Olympic Charter, which establishes the principles and rules governing the Olympic Movement, including the autonomy, integrity and good governance of National Olympic Committees.

News Summary

• The IOC has expressed strong disappointment over recurring disputes and allegations of misconduct surrounding the Indian Olympic Association's electoral process.
• In its communication to the IOA, the IOC warned that the controversy was negatively affecting the functioning and reputation of the Olympic Movement in India.
• The IOC urged the IOA and its Electoral Officer to ensure that elections are conducted in full compliance with the Olympic Charter, the IOA Constitution and applicable rules, in a free and fair manner and without external interference.

Controversy Surrounding Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit Elections

• The controversy intensified after IOA President P.T. Usha finished fifth with 40 votes in the women's category of the Sportspersons of Outstanding Merit (SOM) elections held on November 9, failing to secure one of the four available positions.
• The elected candidates were Anju Bobby George (53 votes), Rani Rampal (50), Dola Banerjee (45) and Saina Nehwal (43).
• The elections were preceded by the withdrawal of 13 candidates, comprising eight men and five women.
• Former athletes Ashwini Nachappa and Ronjan Sodhi alleged that their withdrawals followed external pressure. Consequently, all four men's positions were filled unopposed, while the women's category went to a vote.

P.T. Usha Seeks Independent Examination

• In a communication dated November 9 to IOC President Kirsty Coventry, P.T. Usha sought an independent examination of alleged irregularities in the SOM election process. Her complaints included:
  • Alleged campaigning by incumbent officials and WhatsApp messages soliciting votes for a particular panel.
  • Communications seeking confirmation of voters' participation.
  • References to the Sports Ministry during an election involving a secret ballot.
  • Concerns over the handling of four representations submitted to the Electoral Officer.
• She maintained that her complaint was not an attempt to challenge the result because she had lost, but an effort to protect the autonomy and integrity of the IOA's electoral process.
• The IOC has expressed concern over the situation but has not adjudicated P.T. Usha's specific allegations or identified individuals responsible for the reported violations.

Disputes Over Nominations and Upcoming IOA Elections

• The controversy has extended to the scrutiny of nominations ahead of the December 5, 2026 elections to the IOA Executive Council.
• P.T. Usha's nomination as a representative of the Ice Hockey Association of India to the IOA General Assembly was challenged, along with those of more than a dozen other nominees. The final electoral roll is scheduled to be published on November 15.
• Olympic medallists Gagan Narang, Saina Nehwal and Anju Bobby George are among the names being discussed in connection with the presidential contest. Former Delhi BJP chief Virendra Sachdeva, representing the Archery Association of India, is also in the fray.

Implications for India's 2036 Olympic Bid

• The controversy has emerged at a sensitive time for India's ambition to host the 2036 Olympic Games.
• An Indian delegation is scheduled to present its case before the IOC's Future Host Commission on November 26, 2026. The delegation is expected to include P.T. Usha, Nita Ambani, representatives of the Central and Gujarat governments, and an athlete. Ahmedabad has been proposed as the host city.
• India submitted its expression of interest in October 2024 and is competing with six other countries: Qatar, Turkey, Germany, South Korea, Hungary and South Africa.
• The IOC's evaluation process is expected to continue over the coming years, with the host city likely to be selected in 2029.
• The IOC had also raised concerns in July 2025 regarding IOA governance, India's anti-doping record and its performance at previous Olympic Games.
• These remain important areas for India to address as it seeks to establish its credentials as a potential host.

Context:

• The alleged rescue of 43 women from an egg-donation trafficking network in Hyderabad has exposed serious gaps in the regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in India.
• The women, recruited from different States, were reportedly promised ₹20,000–30,000 per donation cycle. The accused were allegedly linked to 23 IVF centres.
• Similar incidents in Erode (2022) and Varanasi (2023), involving the alleged forced donation of eggs by minors, highlight the exploitation of economically vulnerable women, the role of brokers, document falsification and inadequate oversight of fertility clinics.

Legal Framework Governing Egg Donation in India:

• The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 provides safeguards to prevent exploitation and regulate egg donation.
• Key provisions -
  • Section 27: Only registered ART banks are authorised to screen and register donors and supply gametes to ART clinics.
  • Section 21(b): ART clinics must obtain gametes exclusively from registered ART banks.
  • Eligibility criteria: A woman can donate eggs only once in her lifetime, between the ages of 23 and 35 years.
  • Limit on retrieval: A maximum of seven oocytes (eggs) can be retrieved from a donor in one cycle.
  • Section 33: Prohibits medical practitioners from using intermediaries to procure donors.
  • Penal provisions: The first offence attracts a fine of ₹5–10 lakh, while subsequent offences can result in imprisonment of 3–8 years and a fine of ₹10–20 lakh.
• These provisions aim to prevent commercial exploitation, repeated egg retrieval and the involvement of unauthorised agents.

Structural Weaknesses due to which Egg Donation Trafficking Persist:

• Demand-supply imbalance:
  • Rising demand for donor eggs in fertility treatment, coupled with a limited pool of legally eligible donors, may encourage illegal recruitment.
  • Brokers exploit economically vulnerable women by offering financial incentives and concealing the medical risks involved.
• Role of brokers and document fraud:
  • Intermediaries recruit women across State boundaries, often through coercion, deception or financial inducements.
  • Falsification of identity and age-related documents enables minors and otherwise ineligible women to enter the ART system.
• Inadequate institutional oversight:
  • The National ART and Surrogacy Registry listed 4,726 registered clinics and 940 ART banks (as of October 31), significantly below the academic estimate of approximately 40,000 clinics.
  • The discrepancy raises concerns about unregistered facilities, regulatory coverage and the actual scale of the ART sector.

Weak Enforcement and Lack of Transparency:

• Inadequate regulatory data:
  • The Department of Health Research's (DHR) Annual Report 2025–26 provides information on forms downloaded from the National Registry portal and permissions granted.
  • However, it does not adequately disclose the number of regulatory inspections conducted, violations detected and penalties imposed, etc.
• Non-functional or underdeveloped registry mechanism:
  • ART banks are required to maintain donor records and update the National Registry.
  • An effective registry should identify previous donors and prevent repeat egg retrieval.
  • However, the system for collecting donor information from clinics and banks has only been piloted.
  • Lack of transparency regarding data verification and regular updates weakens safeguards against repeat donations, as illustrated by the Erode case.
• Weak accountability of regulatory boards:
  • Under Section 35, courts can take cognisance of offences under the Act only on complaints filed by the National or State Boards or their authorised officers.
  • Rule 5 of the ART Rules, 2022, requires these Boards to submit annual reports to the government.
  • The absence of the National Board's report in the DHR annual report raises concerns about institutional accountability and transparency.

Protecting Victims and Ensuring Medical Accountability:

• Women recruited through illegal networks should primarily be treated as victims and witnesses rather than accused persons.
• Essential safeguards include:
  • Independent medical care: Comprehensive health assessments and monitoring for complications arising from hormonal stimulation and egg retrieval.
  • Health insurance: Section 22(1)(b) mandates 12 months of health insurance coverage for egg donors.
  • Legal protection: Victims must be protected from intimidation, coercion and further exploitation.
  • Informed consent: Donors must be adequately informed about medical risks and procedures.

Way Forward:

• Strengthen inspections: Conduct regular and surprise inspections of ART clinics and banks, including verification of donor registers and consent documents.
• Operationalise the National Registry: Establish real-time donor-record updating, identity verification and safeguards against repeat donations.
• Improve transparency: The Union Health Ministry should publish annual reports of the National and State Boards, while States should disclose inspections, violations, suspensions and prosecutions.
• Fix institutional accountability: Take strict action against clinics and medical practitioners facilitating illegal recruitment, rather than targeting only intermediaries.
• Inter-State coordination: Strengthen information-sharing between police forces, health regulators and ART authorities to dismantle trafficking networks.

Conclusion:

• India's challenge is not the absence of legislation but the gap between legal safeguards and their implementation.
• Egg donation must remain a regulated medical procedure based on informed consent, donor safety and ethical medical practices.

Context

• The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial authority and guardian of the Constitution, fundamental rights, and democratic values.
• However, its expanding workload and mounting pendency have weakened its ability to perform its primary constitutional responsibilities.
• Increasingly occupied with ordinary appeals, the court has struggled to address important constitutional questions.
• In 2016, three Supreme Court judges raised 11 questions about the institution's functioning and referred them to a larger Bench. A decade later, the reference remains unheard.
• This highlights the urgency of judicial reform and strengthens the case for dividing the Supreme Court into a Constitutional Court and regional Courts of Appeal.

The Growing Crisis of Judicial Pendency

• By the end of 2025, the Supreme Court had approximately 92,318 pending cases, its highest recorded backlog.
• This represented an increase of nearly 10,000 cases over the previous year.
• The problem extends beyond insufficient judicial strength to the institutional structure itself.
• During the first half of the 1960s, Constitution Benches decided an average of 134 cases annually. Over the last decade, this declined to fewer than 10 cases annually.
• Meanwhile, Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) under Article 136 have increasingly dominated the court's workload, accounting for approximately 84.6% of its admission docket in 2011.
• Originally intended as an extraordinary remedy, Article 136 has contributed to transforming the Supreme Court into a general appellate court.
• In Bihar Legal Support Society (1986), a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati clarified that the Supreme Court was never intended to function as an ordinary court of appeal.

Recommendations of the Law Commission and Parliament

• The 229th Law Commission Report (2009) recommended a Constitution Bench in Delhi alongside four regional Cassation Benches.
• Similarly, a Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2023 recommended regional Benches, subsequently accepted by the Union Law Ministry.
• These recommendations demonstrate that judicial restructuring has considerable institutional support.

International Experiences and Comparative Models

• Several democracies successfully separate constitutional adjudication from ordinary appellate functions.
• United States: The Supreme Court operates above 13 federal Courts of Appeals and considers only a small proportion of cases.
• South Africa: It has a separate Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
• Germany: Its Federal Constitutional Court exclusively handles constitutional matters, while specialised federal courts address other disputes.
• Brazil: Its 1988 Constitution established a separate Superior Tribunal of Justice to handle ordinary federal appeals, relieving the Supreme Federal Tribunal of its dual responsibilities.

Importance of Judicial Filtering

• Brazil's experience demonstrates that structural separation alone cannot eliminate congestion.
• Effective case-selection mechanisms are equally necessary.
• The U.S. Supreme Court accepts roughly 1% of the 7,000 petitions it receives annually through its discretionary review system.
• Similarly, Brazil introduced the general repercussion requirement in 2004, allowing constitutional appeals only when questions have significance beyond the immediate parties.
• India could adopt comparable mechanisms to prevent the proposed Constitutional Court from becoming another overburdened institution.
• The 229th Law Commission Report also suggested that Article 130 could permit regional Benches without necessarily requiring a constitutional amendment.

Concerns Regarding the Division of the Supreme Court

• Successive Chief Justices have opposed the proposal on grounds of institutional unity.
• They argue that regional Courts of Appeal might be perceived as inferior institutions, encouraging litigants to approach the Constitutional Court in Delhi.
• Such a development could create another appellate hierarchy and weaken the authority of a single final court.
• Institutional coherence, judicial independence, and consistency of judgments must therefore remain central considerations. 

The Way Forward: Restoring the Court

• Addressing the Illusion of Institutional Unity
  • The existing Supreme Court already functions through numerous small Benches, sometimes delivering contradictory judgments.
  • Its constitutional responsibilities receive inadequate attention because of excessive appellate litigation.
  • Thus, institutional unity is increasingly theoretical. A separate Constitutional Court could restore coherence by concentrating on questions affecting the entire Republic.
• Steps Beyond Increasing Judicial Strength
  • Expanding judicial strength has not resolved the problem. When the sanctioned strength increased to 34 judges in 2019, pendency stood at approximately 60,000 cases.
  • By the end of 2025, it had reached nearly 93,000.
  • During 2025, the court disposed of 65,615 cases, while 75,410 fresh matters arrived. In 2026, Parliament increased its sanctioned strength to 38 judges.
  • These figures demonstrate that appointing additional judges without restructuring judicial responsibilities cannot provide a lasting solution.
  • The priority must be rationalising the distribution of judicial work.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court's mounting pendency reflects a deeper institutional crisis affecting constitutional adjudication and access to justice.
• Establishing a dedicated Constitutional Court and regional Courts of Appeal, supported by effective case-filtering mechanisms, offers a practical solution.
• Although concerns about institutional unity require safeguards, preserving the existing structure is unlikely to resolve the crisis.
• Judicial specialisation, constitutional accountability, institutional efficiency, and speedy justice must guide reform.
• Restructuring would not diminish the Supreme Court's authority but restore its constitutional purpose while ensuring accessible and timely justice for ordinary citizens.