The 51 Chief Justices of India (1950–2025): A Jurimetric and Constitutional Legacy

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the highest-ranking officer of the Indian Judiciary. As per the Memorandum of Procedure of appointment of Supreme Court Judges, the outgoing CJI would recommend to the Union Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, the senior most Judge of the Supreme Court considered fit to hold the office for the appointment as the next CJI. The Minster of Law, Justice and Company affairs would then put up the recommendation to the Prime Minister (PM) who then advised the President in the matter of Appointment of the next CJI.

After the sudden demise of the 1^st CJI Sir Harilal Jekisondas Kania on 06-11-1951, the question of appointment of the 2^nd CJI arose. Upon the request of the 1^st Attorney General M C Setalvad, the then Prime Minister was agreeable to appoint Justice M C Chagla as the 2^nd CJI. However, the sitting judges of the Supreme Court threatened to resign if the seniority rule was not followed and resultantly, Justice Patanjali Shastri became the 2^nd CJI. That is how the convention of the senior most Supreme Court judge becoming the Chief Justice of India came to be firmly established. Earlier, during the existence of the Federal Court of India, the said convention was not followed as judges of Indian origin were superseded by the British Government.

The said convention has thereafter been continued all throughout except for three occasions. In 1963, when Justice Syed Jafar Imam was made to resign due to his debilitating illness, Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar became the 7th Chief Justice of India. Later in 1973, Justice A.N. Ray superseded Justice J.M. Shelat, Justice K.S. Hegde and Justice A.N. Grover and became the 14th Chief Justice of India after the pronouncement of Kesavananda Bharti judgment and upon retirement of J S M Sikri. Lastly, in 1977, Justice M.H. Beg superseded Justice H.R. Khanna and became the 15th Chief Justice of India. Another supersession which was avoided was that of J C Shah.J. The Government was considering superseding Justice Shah for his majority judgments in Rustom Cavasjee Cooper case^[3] and Privy Purse case^[4]. Abhinav Chandrachud in his book 'Supreme Whispers' mentions about this incident and states that Justice Hidayatullah went to the PM and said that if Justice Shah were superseded, all the Judges (except one) of the Supreme Court would resign^[5]. The one who was not ready to resign was Justice A.N. Ray^[6], Abhinav Chandrachud states.

This article attempts to empirically analyse the tenure, judgment authorship, and constitutional bench participation of the CJI based on publicly accessible databases like e-SCR and other reports. The objective is to draw meaningful conclusions about trends in judicial productivity, bench strength utilisation, and the evolving role of CJIs in constitutional governance.

Interesting facts and figures:

Some interesting facts, figures and numbers of the 50 CJIs are provided based on their tenure as Judges of the Supreme Court of India, their tenure as CJI and their participation in various benches of different strengths. Although it is extremely difficult to mention all of their achievements, we can have a glimpse through numbers. One can imagine the enormous amount of work that goes in apart from other administrative work that they have to carry out being the CJI. The accuracy of the data depends on the accuracy of the e-SCR data.

I have compiled the data of reported judgements of all the CJIs during their tenures as CJIs as well as their entire tenures as judges of the Supreme Court of India. The number of judgements authored by them and the Constitutional Benches that they were part of are also mentioned to provide an interesting analysis on the CJIs.

The data reveals interesting facts including the fact that Justice P N Bhagwati served the longest as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, for 13 years and 156 days. However the longest serving Chief Justice of India is Justice Y V Chandrachud with a tenure of 7 years and 139 days as the CJI out of his total tenure of 12 years and 317 days as Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The Second longest serving CJI was J B P Sinha who served for 4 years and 122 days followed by A N Ray.J for 3 years and 276 days and S R Das for 3 years and 241 days. The shortest tenure as CJI was that of K N Singh.J who served as CJI only for 17 days followed by Rajendra Babu.J whose tenure was 29 days and then J C Shah.J who served for 35 days.

D Y Chandrachud.J emerged as the top contributor by volume of authored Judgments in the Supreme Court, having authored 852 out of 1,284 reported judgements during his tenure of 8 years and 181 days. The record of having the highest reported Judgments goes to J C Shah.J having authored 1537 reported judgments. However, he stands 2^nd having authored 729 judgments in his tenure as judge of the Supreme Court for 11 years and 42 days. With regard to having the highest authored judgments in the history of Supreme Courts around the world, the record is held by Arijit Pasayat.J who has authored 2202 judgements throughout his tenure of 7 years and 200 days as a Judge of the Supreme Court. He was referred to as the 'Sachin Tendulkar of the Supreme Court Of India' due to his consistent and high-volume contribution to Indian Jurisprudence. Next is Justice Kurian Joseph who has authored 1147 judgements in his tenure of 5 years and 265 days as Judge of the Supreme Court followed by G B Patnaik.J with 1037 Judgments authored by him during his tenure of 7 years and 39 days as Judge of the Supreme Court of India. Fourth in line is K N Wanchoo.J who has authored 1007 Judgments in his tenure of 9 years and 108 days as judge of the Supreme Court of India and 5^th is P B Gajendragadkar.J with 978 Judgments in his tenure of 9 years and 57 days.

Justice K N Wanchoo has the distinction of being a part of 556 five judge benches, which is the highest for any Supreme Court judge. Additionally, he served as the CJI without having any law degree as he was an ICS officer. He was appointed as a High Court judge and then elevated to the Supreme Court of India. The next is Justice P B Gajendragadkar who has been part of 520 five judge benches. Justice Wanchoo also has the unique distinction of being the only ICS officer and the only non-lawyer to hold the highest judicial office in the land. The chart of the top 10 CJIs by reported Judgments is produced below:

The Annual Productivity of Chief Justices calculated based on the reported judgments per year of their tenure is provid

ed below where D Y Chandrachud.J leads with 151.2 reported judgments per year in his tenure of 8 years and 181 days, followed by G B Pattanaik.J with 145.9 reported Judgments per year in his tenure of 7 years and 39 days followed by P Sathasivam.J, J C Shah.J, K N Wanchoo.J, P B Gajendragadkar.J etc.

The Top 10 CJIs by total Constitution Bench participation include K N Wanchoo.J who has been part of 585 Decisions of 5 judge and above, followed by P B Gajendragadkar.J with 541 decisions and the 3^rd being J C Shah.J with 529 decisions and M Hidayatullah.J with 529 decisions. The chart indicating the top 10 CJIs by Constitution Bench participation is given below.

The average CJI tenure of all the 50 CJIs comes to 1 year and 218 days whereas their average Supreme Court tenure comes to 8 years and 190 days. There are only 5 CJIs in 75 years having a tenure of more than 3 years as CJI.

J C Shah.J has the distinction of being the part of three 11-judge bench decisions. Whereas S M Sikri.J, K Subba Rao.J, M Hidayatullah.J and K N Wanchoo.J have been part of 11 judge benches twice. D Y Chandrachud.J has been part of five 9-Judge bench decisions followed by J C Shah.J who was part of four 9-judge bench decisions. D.Y. Chandrachud.J also has been part of one 8-Judge bench decision, six 7-Judge Bench decisions, thirty six 5-Judge Bench decisions and 371 3-Judge Bench decisions. J C Shah.J has been part of various Constitutional Benches which includes three 8-Judge Bench decisions, twelve 7-Judge Bench decisions, twenty-six 6-Judge Bench decisions, 481 5-Judge Bench decisions, thirty 4-Judge Bench decisions and 812 3-Judge Bench decisions.

As per the e-SCR website, Supreme Court has reported 37,300 judgements including one 13-judge bench decision, five 11-judge Bench decisions, fifteen 9-judge bench decisions, four 8-judge bench decisions, eighty-two 7-judge bench decisions, fifty-five 6-judge Bench decisions, 1950 5- judge bench decisions, 305 4-judge bench decisions, 7686 3-judge bench decisions, 25858 2-judge bench decisions and 85 single Judge decisions till date.

Larger Benches of the SCI (13, 11, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 Judge Benches):

Larger Benches are constituted to decide substantial questions of Constitutional law as per Article 145 of the Constitution of India. The questions to be decided by the Constitution Benches have huge ramification upon the governance of the Country including the interpretation of Fundamental Rights, independence of judiciary, federal structure of the States, right of minorities etc. Generally, the larger Benches are constituted to either resolve long standing Constitutional ambiguities or to decide on differing views of benches of equal strength, for overruling earlier Constitutional Bench decisions or for interpreting questions regarding Fundamental Rights and the limits of State Power and for deciding Presidential Reference under Art 143 of the Constitution of India. From 1950 till 2025, 171 judgments have been delivered by the Supreme Court of India regarding various important questions. These judgements have been delivered by the Apex Court with strength of more than 5 Judge Benches including one 13-Judge Bench decision, five 11-Judge Bench decisions, eighteen 9-Judge Bench decisions, five 8-Judge Bench decisions, eighty-five 7-Judge Bench decisions and fifty-seven 6-Judge Bench decisions. The Supreme Court of India has delivered 1971 5-Judge Bench decisions in a span of 75 years which makes the 5-Judge Constitution Bench the most used Constitution Bench to decide substantial questions of Constitutional Law. The Bench wise break-up is given below:

Bench	Judgments
13 Judge Bench	1
11 Judge Bench	5
9 Judge Bench	18
8 Judge Bench	5
7 Judge Bench	85
6 Judge Bench	57
5 Judge Bench	1971
4 Judge Bench	305
3 Judges Bench	7872
2 Judge Bench	26875
1 Judge Bench	106

13-Judge Bench:

The 13-judge bench decision is one of the largest benches, having heard the longest arguments spanning 68 days over 5 months, covering the widest area of law and legal literature resulting into 703-page judgment with 11 opinions in the matter of Kesavanand Bharati versus State of Kerala & ors^[7]. The core question apart from the validity of the 24^th, 25^th, 26^th and 29^th Constitutional Amendments in the said case was “Did the Parliament have unlimited power to amend the constitution or are there any implied Limitations on such amending power?” The majority Judgement by 7 judges of the 13 Judge bench overruled the 11 judge bench decision in the matter of L C Golaknath Vs. State of Punjab^[8], upholding the validity of the 24^th, 25^th and 29^th Constitutional Amendment and declaring the last part of Art 31-C as invalid. It laid down the famous Doctrine of Basic Structure by which the Parliament's power to amend any part of the Constitution was curtailed as it held that the amendment to the Constitution cannot alter the essential features or the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

11-Judge Bench:

The Larger Bench consisting 11 Judges has been constituted only 5 times from 1950 till date to decide important questions of Constitutional law, the 1^st in 1961 and the 5^th in 2002. An 11-judge bench is rare, convened only for cases of extraordinary constitutional importance. The first 11-Judge bench to have been constituted in the Supreme Court of India was in the matter of Kathi Kalu Oghad versus state of Bombay^[9], wherein 11 Judges of the Supreme Court sat together to decide the scope and ambit of the protection granted under article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, regarding testimonial compulsion and whether obtaining specimen writing and signature from the accused contravened the fundamental right of remaining silent guaranteed under article 20(3) of the Constitution.

The 2^nd 11-Judge bench decision was delivered by the Supreme Court in the matter of I C Golak Nath versus State of Punjab and others^[10]. The Supreme Court in Golaknath was considering the correctness of the decisions in the matter of Shankari Prasad and Sajjan Singh, wherein the Supreme Court had held that the word “law” in article 13 does not include an amendment to the constitution. The Supreme Court by razor-thin majority of 6:5 held that the word “law” under article 13 would include an amendment to the constitution and therefore any constitutional amendment passed by the Parliament under article 368 could not abridge any fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It is because of this judgment that the largest bench of 13 judges was constituted and this Judgment came to be overruled by the landmark Kesavanda Bharti judgment.

The 3^rd 11-Judge bench was constituted to decide the validity of The Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1969 also known as the Bank Nationalisation which was challenged by R C Cooper who was the shareholder of one of the banks that came to be nationalised. The 11-Judge bench held that the Act did not provide for adequate compensation and therefore struck down the policy of bank nationalisation as being in violation of the fundamental rights^[11]. This judgment played a significant role in developing Constitutional law as it overruled the A K Gopalan judgment which interpreted the Fundamental rights in restrictive manner and the same judgment marked the way for the development of the fundamental rights jurisprudence.

The 4^th 11-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court is in the matter of H H Maha Rajadhi Raja Vs Union of India^[12] also known as the “Privy Purse case” which challenged the Presidential Orders derecognizing the rulers and thereby ending the privy purse paid to 565 rulers of princely states in India which was a solemn guarantee under Article 293 of the Constitution of India. The 11-judge bench of the Supreme Court by majority of 10:1 held the presidential order to be illegal. It is a significant judgment as the majority affirmed the rule of law and established the Constitutional supremacy over the political will of the Strong Government.

The 5^th 11-Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court of India is in the matter of TMA pai foundation Vs State of Karnataka and others^[13] in which the scope of right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30(1) read with Article 29(2) of the Constitution was decided. This judgment had a huge impact on Education Law and by virtue of this judgment, the Supreme Court established that merit and excellence in educational institutions cannot be sacrificed.

9-Judge Bench:

The 18 Landmark 9-Judge bench decisions of the Supreme Court of India include the Property Owners Association & Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra^[14] which dealt with the issue of whether privately owned properties are covered under “Material Resources of the Community” under Art 39(b) of the Constitution of India. In this case, it was held by majority that not all privately owned property qualifies as “material resources of the Community”. Then Right to Privacy judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court of India in K S Puttaswamy Vs UOI^[15], then Second^[16] and Third Judges case^[17], wherein the Supreme Court of India was dealing with the appointment of Supreme Court Judges and High Court Judges. The Supreme Court of India established the Judicial Primacy in appointments and transfers to the higher judiciary and to uphold the independence of Judiciary. Later in 1992, the 9-Judge Bench delivered the landmark judgment in Indra Sawhney Vs UOI^[18] which arose from the implementation of the Mandal Commission report recommending 27% reservation for OBC in public employment. The Majority upheld the 27% reservation. However the concept of Creamy Layer was introduced along with the 50% ceiling rule which lays down that total reservation cannot exceed 50%.

In 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered three 9-judge bench decisions. D Y Chandrachud.J is part of all the three recent 9 Judge Bench decisions which is the highest amongst all CJIs. The decade wise chart of 9-Judge Bench decisions is produced below:

8-Judge Bench:

There are only five 8-Judge Bench decisions delivered by the Supreme Court of India till date, the first being in 1954 in the matter of M P Sharma & Ors Vs Satish Chandra^[19] and the last in 2024 in Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr Vs M/s Steel Authority of India & Anr (II)^[20]. This is quite rare as the Constitution Benches generally have an odd number of Judges to ensure that there is a clear majority of opinions. However, there are 5 Judgments having the strength of 8-Judges in the history of the Supreme Court of India.

The 1^st 8-Judge Bench decision in M P Sharma in 1954 dealt with the issue of determination of whether the Right to Privacy is a part of Fundamental Rights and whether it is protected under the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India in 1954 held that right to privacy is not explicitly guaranteed under the Constitution and therefore is not a part of Fundamental rights. This 8 Judge Bench decision was overruled in 2017 by a 9 Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court of India in Justice K S Puttaswamy Vs UOI^[21] which recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Art 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The 2^nd 8-Judge Bench decision is in the Presidential Reference under Art 143(1) in Re Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves^[22] in 1960. It is a landmark decision regarding the Constitutional implications of ceding territory. The majority held that Parliament alone cannot cede Indian territory to another Country and the exchange or cessation of the Indian territory can be done only by way of a Constitutional Amendment under Art 368 of the Constitution of India.

The 3^rd 8-Judge Bench decision was in the matter of Pandit M S M Sharma Vs Dr Shree Krishna & ors^[23] wherein the Supreme Court of India was asked to decide on the conflict between fundamental right under Art 19(1)(a) i.e., freedom of speech and expression and Legislative privileges of State legislature under Art 194(3) of the Connstitution of India. The Majority of 6:2 held that Art 194(3) confers absolute privileges on State Legislature and these are not subject to fundamental rights. It is the foundational case on the scope of legislative privileges in Indian Constitutional law.

The 4^th 8-Judge decision is in the matter of Keshavlal Jethalal Shah Vs Mohanlal Bhagwandas & Anr^[24] where the Supreme Court examined whether the Gujarat Amendment Act, 1965, which amended Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, could be applied retrospectively to a revision petition that was already pending before the High Court. The Supreme Court concluded that unless the amendment explicitly states its retrospective application, it should not be presumed to have such an effect. This judgment has significant implications for the interpretation of legislative amendments and their application to ongoing and concluded cases.

The 5^th 8-Judge bench decision is in the matter of Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr Vs M/s Steel Authority of India & Anr (II) where the Court was called upon to decide whether the 9 Judge bench judgment in Mineral Area Development & Anr^[25] could be given prospective effect.

7-Judge Bench:

There are 85 Seven Judge bench decisions delivered by the Supreme Court of India which include the landmark decisions like the Special Reference No 1 of 1964 relating to Separation of Powers and the Privileges of House of Commons conferred on State Legislatures when Legislative Assembly of State of UP committed Keshav Singh to prison for its contempt and the State Assembly further directed the High Court judges who passed orders in habeas corpus petition on behalf of Keshav Singh, to be brought before it for its contempt. This led to a serious battle between the Constitutional Institutions. The full bench consisting of 28 Judges of Allahabad High Court sat together to decide the petitions filed by 2 High Court judges. This is the largest bench to decide in the Country till date. Moreover, there are judgments like Madhu Limaye Vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate, State of Kerala vs N M Thomas, Maneka Gandhi Vs UOI, S. P Gupta & Ors Vs UOI known as the 1^st Judges Case, L Chandra Kumar Vs UOI where Supreme Court reiterated that jurisdiction conferred upon High Court under Articles 226 & 227 and Supreme Court under Article 32 is part of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution. It was further held that judicial review by High Court and Supreme Court cannot be ousted or excluded even by the Parliament or State Legislature. The larger bench decisions represent the Supreme Court's commitment to the Constitution and the Constitutional Goals and Constitutional Morality which has been preserved and carried forward through its creative interpretation.

The chart indicates that the 1970s saw the highest number of cases decided by 7-Judge bench of the Supreme Court of India which is 33 Judgments in a span of 10 years. 69% of all the 7-Judge bench decisions were delivered in the first three decades which shows that the Supreme Court judges during the formative years made the foundation on interpretation of the Constitution for the future larger benches.

5-Judge Bench:

5-Judge Benches are the Workhorse for the Constitution Bench cases. There is not a single year where Supreme Court of India has not delivered 5-Judge Bench decisions. From 1950, every year on average, the Supreme Court of India has delivered twenty-six 5-Judge Bench decisions. The highest has been in the year 1962 when Supreme Court of India delivered 180 5-Judge Bench decisions and the lowest being 2009 when only 1 judgment was delivered by the 5 Judge Bench. In the 1960's, the Supreme Court delivered 939 5-Judge Bench decisions which is the highest from 1950's till date. The first 2 decades (1950-70) contributed to 40% of the total 5 Judge Bench decisions. The formative years were the peak years as the Supreme Court was laying down the foundational principles in constitutional law, civil liberties, property rights, criminal law etc. The trend of division benches and 3 Judge benches to tackle the backlog of cases began in the 1980s. There is a revival of 5 Judge Benches being formed in the current decade which suggests the need for a permanent 5 Judge Bench to decide important cases.

As per Art 145(3), the minimum number of judges to decide substantial questions of Constitutional Law has to be five. So, five Judge Benches are constitutionally mandated for interpretation of important questions. Many Constitutional doctrines have been evolved or affirmed by the 5 Judge Bench decisions. To illustrate, some of the recent 5 Judge Bench cases are: 1) Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors Vs Rajasthan High Court^[26], wherein the 5 Judge Bench held that the Rules of the Game cannot be altered after commencement of the Recruitment process; 2) In Association for Democratic Reforms Vs UOI^[27], the 5 Judge Bench unanimously declared the Electoral Bond Scheme unconstitutional; 3) InjRe: Article 370 of the Constitution judgment, the Supreme Court of India unanimously upheld the Union Governments 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution of India; 4) In Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs UOI^[28] the Supreme Court was dealing with the Same Sex Marriage issue and the Supreme Court of India held that the legalization of same sex marriage falls within the legislative domain and is not within the purview of the Judiciary to decide; 5) In Anoop Baranwal Vs UOI^[29] the Supreme Court was dealing with the independence and impartiality of the Election Commission of India and directed that until the parliament enacts a law as per Art 324(2), the appointment of the ECI shall be made by the President on the advice of the Committee comprising the PM, the Leader of Opposition and the CJI; 6) In Joseph Shine Vs UOI^[30], the 5 Judge Bench unanimously held that Section 497 of IPC is unconstitutional as it violates Art 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Provision was held to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the dignity of women;7) In Common Cause Vs UOI^[31],e the Supreme Court was dealing with the Right of the person to die with dignity and it was held that right to life includes right to die with dignity and the Supreme Court permitted passive euthanasia under strict conditions; 8) In Janhit Abhiyan Vs UOI^[32], the Supreme Court was dealing with the validity of 103^rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 providing 10% reservation in public employment and educational institutions for EWSThe Majority of 3:2 upheld the validity of the amendment and permitted the 10% EWS reservation; 9)In M Siddiq Vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors^[33], the Ram Janmabhoomi case, the 5 Judges unanimously awarded the entire disputed land to the deity Ram Lalla Virajman, recognizing the belief of Hindus that the site is the birthplace of Lord Ram;10) In Navtej Singh Johar Vs UOI^[34], the 5 Judge Bench was dealing with the Constitutionality of Section 377 of the IPC, wherein the 5 Judges unanimously held that Section 377 is unconstitutional insofar as it criminalizes consensual sex between adults of same sex, thereby decriminalizing homosexuality in India; 11)In Shayara Bano Vs UOI, the 5 Judge bench was dealing with the constitutionality of triple talaq. The Majority of 3:2 held that the practice of triple talaq is unconstitutional as it is manifestly arbitrary and therefore violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of India; 12) In Supreme Court Advocate on record association Vs UOI^[35] also known as the NJAC case, the validity of the 99^th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the NJAC Act, 2014 were challenged and the majority 4:1 held that the NJAC Act, 2014 and the Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 were unconstitutional as they violated the basic structure of the Constitution by compromising the independence of Judiciary.

These are just the few of the many landmark five Judge Bench decisions of the Supreme Court of India. All these judgments have left a huge impact on the governance of the Country. It has reinforced the principles of fairness, boosted transparency, reaffirmed accountability of legislators, expanded the scope of Fundamental Rights and significantly influenced public policy, legislative action and social reform. These Judgments demonstrate the judiciary's evolving role in upholding Constitutional morality and balancing institutional power.

Data of tenure of 50 CJIs along with their reported Judgments and the Benches they were part of is produced in the table below:

Data of judgments reported and benches from eSCR and authored from Manupatra analytics for the 52 CJI's

Sr No.	Chief Justice	Length of Term as CJI	Total Tenure Length as Supreme Court Judge	Reported Judgments	Authored Judgments	13 Judge Bench	11 Judge Bench	9 Judge Bench	8 Judge Bench	7 Judge Bench	6 Judge Bench	5 Judge Bench	4 Judge Bench	3 Judge Bench	2 Judge Bench
1.	H J Kania (1950-51)	1 year, 284 days	1 year 284 days	51	31	0	0	0	0	4	12	17	3	15	0
2.	M Patanjali Sastri (1951-54)	2 years, 57 days	3 year, 342 days	137	75	0	0	0	0	7	13	91	11	16	0
3.	Mehr Chand Mahajan (1954-54)	352 days	4 years, 330 days	246	132	0	0	0	1	13	14	109	27	68	14
4.	Bijan Kumar Mukherjee (1954-56)	1 year, 39 days	6 years, 5 days	245	106	0	0	0	1	13	17	123	23	65	3
5.	Sudhi Ranjan Das (1956-59)	3 years, 241 days	9 years, 247	425	160	0	0	0	1	15	16	268	33	81	11
6.	Bhuvneshwar Prasad Sinha (1959-64)	4 years, 122 days	9 years, 247 days	574	137	0	0	0	1	13	17	123	23	3	0
7.	P B Gajendragadkar (1964-66)	2 years, 42 days	9 years, 57 days	978	494	0	1	3	2	9	6	520	53	319	74
8.	A k Sarkar (1966-66)	105 days	9 years, 87 days	528	228	0	1	3	2	8	5	244	23	231	11
9.	K Subba Rao (1966-67)	285 days	9 years, 70 days	772	351	0	2	1	2	10	14	270	57	347	69
10.	K N Wanchoo (1967-68)	318 days	9 years, 108 days	1007	494	0	2	2	1	11	13	556	54	392	73
11.	M Hidayatullah (1968-70)	2 years, 294 days	12 years, 15 days	963	461	0	2	3	2	17	16	441	42	360	80
12.	J C Shah (1970-70)	35 days	11 years, 42 days	1537	729	0	3	4	3	12	26	481	30	812	165
13.	S M Sikri (1970-73)	2 years, 93 days	9 years, 54 days	776	305	1	3	2	1	11	5	293	20	392	49
14.	A N Ray (1973-77)	3 years, 276 days	8 years, 19 days	570	564	1	2	1	0	16	12	159	58	207	114
15.	M H Beg (1977-78)	1 year, 24 days	6 years, 71 days	410	194	1	0	1	0	22	0	55	31	203	98
16.	Y V Chandrachud (1978-85)	7 years, 139 days	12 years, 317 days	484	337	1	0	1	0	18	1	107	5	223	128
17.	P N Bhagwati (1985-86)	1 year, 161 days	13 years, 156 days	454	341	0	0	0	0	20	0	85	5	195	149
18.	R S Pathak (1986-89)	2 years, 209 days	11 years, 118 days	555	269	0	0	0	0	1	0	35	0	212	307
19.	E S Venkataramaih (1989-89)	181 days	10 years, 284 days	490	258	0	0	0	0	5	0	33	0	126	324
20.	Sabyasachi Mukherji (1989-90)	281 days	7 years, 194 days	477	317	0	0	0	0	4	0	24	0	92	357
21.	Ranganath Misra (1990-91)	1 year, 59 days	8 years, 254 days	430	318	0	0	0	0	4	0	28	0	172	226
22.	K N Singh (1991-91)	17 days	5 years, 70 days	199	100	0	0	0	0	3	0	11	0	39	146
23.	M H Kania (1991-92)	340 days	5 years, 317 days	184	110	0	0	1	0	0	0	17	0	60	106
24.	L M Sharma (1992-93)	85 days	5 years, 277 days	230	158	0	0	0	0	0	1	19	2	66	106
25.	M N Rao Venkatachalliah (1993-94)	1 year, 254 days	7 years, 167 days	465	326	0	0	2	0	1	0	34		79	118
26.	A M Ahmadi (1994-97)	2 years, 150 days	8 years, 100 days	395	232	0	0	6	0	1	0	14	0	178	196
27.	J S Verma (1997-98)	298 days	8 years, 317 days	340	150	0	0	4	0	0	0	32	0	163	141
28.	M M Punchi (1998-98)	264 days	9 years, 121 days	384	144	0	0	1	0	1	0	11	0	113	258
29.	A S Anand (1998-01)	3 years, 21 days	9 years, 347 days	455	200	0	0	3	0	0	0	29	0	162	261
30.	S P Bharucha (2001-02)	185 days	10 years, 118 days	464	345	0	0	2	0	3	0	59	0	209	191
31.	B N Kirpal (2002-02)	185 days	6 years, 249 days	342	196	0	1	3	0	20	0	20	0	162	155
32.	G B Patnaik (2002-02)	40 days	7 years, 39 days	1037	427	0	1	1	0	0	0	22	0	183	830
33.	V N Khare (2002-04)	1 year, 134 days	7 years, 41 days	421	182	0	1	0	0	0	0	27	0	165	228
34.	S Rajendra Babu (2004-04)	29 days	6 years, 249 days	504	428	0	1	0	0	0	0	23	0	109	369
35.	R C Lahoti (2004-05)	1 year, 152 days	7 years, 49 days	475	344	0	0	0	0	5	0	22	0	193	255
36.	Y K Sabharwal (2005-07)	1 year, 73 days	6 years, 350 days	265	175	0	0	1	0	1	0	14	0	90	159
37.	K G Balakrishnan (2007-10)	3 years, 117 days	9 years, 279 days	422	222	0	1	0	0	0	0	38	0	144	238
38.	S H Kapadia (2010-12)	2 years, 139 days	8 years, 285 days	656	306	0	0	1	0	0	0	26	0	148	478
39.	Altamas Kabir (2012-13)	292 days	7 years, 312 days	520	365	0	0	1	0	0	0	5	1	63	449
40.	P Sathasivam (2013-14)	281 days	6 years, 248 days	936	337	0	0	0	0	0	0	18	1	187	729
41.	R M Lodha (2014-14)	153 days	5 years, 284 days	361	236	0	0	0	0	0	0	17	1	63	280
42.	H L Dattu (2014-15)	1 year, 65 days	6 years, 350 days	255	119	0	0	0	0	0	0	4	1	52	196
43.	T S Thakur (2015-17)	1 year, 31 days	7 years, 47 days	502	234	0	0	1	0	3	0	3	0	111	382
44.	J S Khehar (2017-17)	235 days	5 years, 348 days	222	143	0	0	1	0	1	0	13	0	22	185
45.	Dipak Misra (2017-18)	1 year, 35 days	6 years, 357 days	785	419	0	0	0	0	1	0	25	0	196	562
46.	Ranjan Gogoi (2018-19)	1 year, 45 days	7 years, 208 days	378	220	0	0	0	0	1	0	15	0	121	240
47.	S A Bobde (2019-21)	1 year, 156 days	8 years, 11 days	239	68	0	0	2	0	3	0	12	0	83	139
48.	N V Ramana (2021-22)	1 year, 124 days	8 years, 190 days	356	180	0	0	1	0	0	0	7	0	157	191
49.	U U Lalit (2022-22)	73 days	8 years, 87 days	435	304	0	0	0	0	3	0	4	0	106	322
50.	D Y Chandrachud (2022-24)	2 years, 1 day	8 years, 181 days	1284	852	0	0	5	1	6	0	36	0	371	466
51.	Sanjiv Khanna (2024-25)	183 days	6 years, 145 days	206	178	0	0	0	0	1	0	14	0	51	140
52.	B R Gavai* (2025)	40 day	6 years and 40 days	393	380	0	0	0	0	2	0	13	0	156	220

*Current CJI B R Gavai record as on 26^th June 2025, his term ends on 23^rd November, 2025.

Over a period of time, the strength of the bench has reduced due to increase in number of cases being filed in the Supreme Court of India. From 2000 onwards, the decisions of division bench have increased by leaps and bounds. Nearly 73% of all Supreme Court reported judgments have been delivered by 2-judge benches, reinforcing that most constitutional and statutory interpretation happens through Division Benches. Over 21% of reported judgments were delivered by 3-judge benches. The 3 Judge Bench decisions often reconcile conflicting two-judge Bench decisions. The 5 Judge Bench decisions constitute around 5% of the total reported Judgments.

The comprehensive jurimetrics analysis of the Chief Justices of India (CJIs) from 1950 to 2025 offers insight into the evolution and functioning of the Supreme Court of India. 51 CJIs have guided the Supreme Court of India through times of constitutional crises, historic interpretations, and judicial reforms during the course of the judiciary's 75-year history. Each of the CJIs has played a prominent role in shaping the Indian Judiciary more importantly through the number of judgements they have written and that are reported, apart from the majority of admitted yet unreported judgments that they have decided in their tenure.

From the longest-serving CJI, Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, whose tenure reflected judicial stability, to the one having served the shortest period, Justice K. N. Singh, whose impact despite brevity is recorded, each tenure contributes uniquely to the legacy of Indian Judiciary. Judges like Justice J. C. Shah and Justice D. Y. Chandrachud have exhibited extraordinary bench participation, authorship and scholarship. Chandrachud.J has been instrumental in bringing technology to the Indian Judiciary. He set up the 1^st paperless Court in the Supreme Court of India. Sanjiv Khanna.J's appointment as the CJI was nothing short of poetic justice since his uncle H R Khanna.J was not made the CJI and was superseded despite being the senior most Supreme Court Judge in 1977.

Notably, the data on larger benches establishes the Supreme Court's pivotal role in resolving constitutional questions of far-reaching impact; from Kesavananda Bharati to the recognition of privacy as a fundamental right and rulings on electoral reforms, minority rights, and social justice etc., are just a few of the wide-ranging Judgments with huge impact on the governance of the Country. The 5-judge benches' contribution highlight their critical function as the workhorse of constitutional interpretation. This article serves as a small tribute to the contributions of the nation's highest judicial officers.

Jeet J Bhatt is an Advocate practicing at Gujarat High Court , views are personal.

1. Article 124 of the Constitution provides for Establishment and Constitution of Supreme Court of India. ↑

2. https://judgments.ecourts.gov.in/pdfsearch/?p=pdf_search/home&text=&captcha=925881&search_opt=PHRASE&fcourt_type=3&escr_flag=&proximity=&app_token=eef37f73a780f64501ae8da64f174cefb4a8bb7d2501cbcf5c8926409d7549dc last viewed on 13.05.2025 ↑

3. (1970) 1 SCC 248 ↑

4. (1971) 1 SCC 85 ↑

5. Abhinav Chandrachud, Supreme Whispers, p. 10 (Penguin Random House India) ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

7. 1973 4 SCC 225 ↑

8. AIR 1967 SC 1643 ↑

9. 1962 3 SCR 10 ↑

10. 1967 2 SCR 762 ↑

11. 1970 3 SCR 530 ↑

12. 1971 3 SCR 9 ↑

13. 2002 SUPP 3 587 ↑

14. 2024 11 SCR 1 ↑

15. 2017 10 SCC 1 ↑

16. 1993 4 SCC 441 ↑

17. 1998 7 SCC 739 ↑

18. 1992 SUPP 2 SCR 454 ↑

19. 1954 1 SCR 1077 ↑

20. 2024 8 SCR 540 ↑

21. 2017 10 SCC 1 ↑

22. 1960 3 SCR 250 ↑

23. 1961 1 SCR 96 ↑

24. 1968 3 SCR 623 ↑

25. 2024 INSC 554 ↑

26. 2024 INSC 847 ↑

27. 2024 INSC 226 ↑

28. 2023 INSC 920 ↑

29. 2023 INSC 190 ↑

30. 2018 11 SCR 765 ↑

31. 2018 5 SCC 1 ↑

32. 2022 14 SCR 1 ↑

33. 2019 18 SCR 1 ↑

34. 2018 7 SCR 379 ↑

35. 2015 14 SCR 975 ↑