How does the Supreme Court balance individual grievances with the need to maintain judicial efficiency?

The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in safeguarding individual rights while also ensuring the smooth functioning of the judicial system. Given the large number of petitions it receives, the Court must balance the need to address personal grievances with the necessity to maintain judicial efficiency and focus on matters of public importance.

• Special Leave Petitions (SLPs): The Supreme Court receives thousands of SLPs under Article 136 of the Constitution. It has discretionary power to accept or reject these petitions, usually selecting cases that involve substantial questions of law or public interest.
• Filtering Mechanism: The Court uses a filtering mechanism to screen cases. It gives priority to cases involving constitutional interpretation, fundamental rights, or significant legal principles rather than routine or purely personal disputes.
• Doctrine of Certiorari: The Court often applies the doctrine of certiorari, which allows it to review lower court decisions only when there is a gross miscarriage of justice or a significant legal error, rather than re-examining facts or minor errors.
• Judicial Efficiency: To maintain efficiency, the Supreme Court limits the number of cases it hears by dismissing petitions that do not raise new or significant legal issues. This helps prevent backlog and ensures timely justice in more pressing matters.
• Alternative Remedies: The Court usually expects litigants to exhaust all remedies in lower courts before approaching it. This prevents the Supreme Court from being overwhelmed with individual grievances that can be resolved elsewhere.
• Public Interest vs. Private Interest: While the Court is sympathetic to severe personal losses, it gives precedence to cases with broader implications for society, law, or constitutional governance.