Difference Between Single Bench, Division Bench, Full Bench, and other such benches of the Supreme Court and High Court

Index

• Synopsis
• Introduction
• Different Benches of the Supreme Court
• Different matters that are handled by the different benches
• What do these benches mean?
• How does the Chief Justice allocate benches?
• Historical evolution of the bench system in India
• Why do some cases go to larger benches?
• Role of benches in speedy justice
• Temporary versus permanent benches - what’s the difference?
• Vacation bench - urgency versus delay.
• Comparative study of Supreme Court benches in India versus the US and the UK.
• Why does India not have regional benches of the Supreme Court yet?
• Public interest litigation and bench selection 
• Need for Regional Benches
• Case laws
• FAQs
• Conclusion
   

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India uses different types of benches that differ in their compositions and functions. Each bench is formed around the complexity of the various cases. This article is going to delve into the meaning and purpose of these benches, ranging from the Division Benches to the larger Benches of five or more judges and even to the rarest of the Thirteen-Judge Bench. This article will explain what these benches are called, the different kinds of matters that these benches handle, like constitutional interpretation, civil and criminal appeals or policy issues, and the rationale that is behind their constitution. Apart from these, we will also be exploring the special benches that are formed for specific cases or for time-sensitive issues, as well as the vacation benches that make sure urgent matters are heard and do not get missed during the court holidays.

Illustrating their practical importance, we will also highlight the landmark judgments that were delivered by each of these Benches, such as the Kesavananda Bharati verdict by the Thirteen Judge Bench, the Right to Privacy judgment by the Nine Judge Bench and also the recent rulings on sedition, LGBTQ+ Rights and the caste-based sub-classification.
 

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India is the apex authority of the judicial system; however, it does not function as a monolithic body but through a diverse chain of Benches that is constituted for the effective and specialised delivery of justice. Depending on the nature and complexity of the cases—be it constitutional interpretation, civil disputes or urgent public interest matters— the Court forms the Benches with varying numbers of judges. This structural flexibility ensures that justice is not only delivered efficiently but also with due consideration of the legal weight that each of these matters carries.

From the commonly seen Division Bench that consists of two judges to the historically rare Thirteen Judge Bench, the formation of each bench is a reflection of the legal gravity that is involved. The Constitution Bench, which comprises five or more judges, is particularly important to interpret constitutional provisions and to resolve questions of national importance. Special Benches are formed for precise issues like long-pending disputes, and Vacation Benches deal with urgent cases during the holidays of the court.
Getting to understand why and how these benches are formed and the pivotal judgments that they have delivered gives a deeper insight into the functioning of the Indian Judiciary. This article is going to unpack the different types, different roles, and impacts of different Benches in the Supreme Court while also shedding light on the notable judgments that were passed by each of these Benches.
 

Different Benches of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India, being the Apex Court of India, does not sit as one single body but functions through the various types of its benches. These benches are constituted by the Chief Justice of India depending upon the nature, urgency, and constitutional importance of the matter at hand. The most common type of bench is the Division Bench; it consists of two judges and usually handles civil and criminal appeals, matters of bail, and routine cases. A step above is the Three-Judge Bench; it bears more complex legal issues, including the issues that involve more significant precedents or conflicting decisions of the lower courts. When substantial questions of constitutional interpretation arise, a Constitution Bench is formed under Article 145(3) of the Indian Constitution. This bench comprises at least five judges and is responsible for ruling on important issues such as fundamental rights, federal relationships, or the validity of the laws. Larger Constitution Benches, like the ones that comprise seven, nine, or thirteen judges, are set up for matters that are of extraordinary constitutional importance or when a previous ruling by the smaller constitution bench needs reconsideration. For example, the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati, which established the Basic Structure Doctrine, was decided by a thirteen-judge bench, which is the largest in India’s judicial history. In addition to this, the Supreme Court of India also constitutes  Special Benches that often deal with long-pending or high-profile cases that need focused attention, such as the Ayodhya land dispute or environment-related matters. Another unique setup is the Vacation Bench, which is formed during the court holidays to hear urgent matters like habeas corpus petitions, anticipatory bails, or stay orders. To read more about bail petitions on vacation bench, click here.

Each of these benches plays a vital role in distributing the workload, promoting efficiency, and ensuring that the matters are heard by the appropriately sized panel, depending upon the legal weightage of the case. The Chief Justice of India acts as the master of the roster and determines the composition and case allocation of these benches.

This flexible and hierarchical bench structure reflects the Supreme Court’s commitment to judicial discipline, constitutional interpretation, and speedy delivery of justice in a country that is as complex and as diverse as India.
 

Different matters that are handled by the different benches

The Supreme Court of India has to deal with a broad spectrum of legal issues, and to manage this efficiently, different benches are constituted based on the nature and gravity of the matter. Division benches typically handle civil and criminal appeals, bail applications, service matters, and other routine petitions. Three-Judge Benches are assigned to more complex appeals, which include cases involving conflicting decisions or important statutory interpretations, especially involving questions that are related to fundamental rights, the validity of laws, or the distribution of powers between the Centre and the states. A Constitutional Bench with five or more judges is formed under Article 145(3). Cases like the decriminalisation of homosexuality or the Aadhar verdict were heard by such benches. When a previously settled constitutional principle is being challenged, larger benches, like the seven, nine, or thirteen judges, are constituted to reconsider the legal stance of the matter. Special Benches handle specific matters relating to environmental protection, long-pending land disputes, or other sensitive PILS. Meanwhile, the vacation benches hear matters with more urgency, like the habeas corpus petitions or the stay applications during the judicial breaks. This division of responsibility makes sure that the cases are dealt with at the proper level of scrutiny, expertise, and constitutional depth.

What do these benches mean?

The Supreme Court of India, being the highest court in the country, is responsible for making the final decisions on important legal matters. However, the court does not always work as a single group of judges. Instead, it partitions itself into smaller teams called benches; each bench is made up of a certain number of judges. These benches are made depending on how complicated or serious the case is and what kind of issue is being discussed.

Simply a group of judges that come together to hear a case. A division bench that is made up of two judges is the most common one. A division bench handles routine cases like civil or criminal matters. When a case is more complex or involves legal confusion between earlier decisions, a three-judge bench is formed. For cases that involve questions about the Constitution or violating someone’s rights, a constitution bench of at least five judges is required. Larger benches, including seven, nine, eleven or even thirteen judges, are formed when very important legal principles are being reconsidered, or when past judgements need to be scrutinised again.

There are also special benches that are formed to deal with specific topics like environmental cases or long-pending disputes. During the holidays, the courts form vacation benches in order to make sure that urgent matters like bail or stay orders do not get delayed. The Chief Justice of India decides which judges will sit on which benches and what will be the cases that they will hear.

These different types of benches help to work faster and in a more efficient manner. Every case needs all the judges to sit together. Therefore, dividing cases into two benches saves a lot of time and allows multiple cases to be heard at the same time. This also lets important constitutional or national issues get more attention by assigning more judges.

In short, the benches are a part of the Supreme Court organising itself in order to manage different kinds of cases and hearings. A big role is played in the verdicts delivered on time and with the right level of seriousness, depending on the issue.

How the Chief Justice allocates benches

The Chief Justice of India holds the key administrative power that decides which judges are on which cases— it is known as being the master of the roster. This role lets the CJI form benches and assign matters that regulate the court schedule. While the system assures order, it has faced a lot of criticism. In 2018, four senior judges publicly questioned the fairness of the bench allocations in politically sensitive matters, which sparked a nationwide debate. To maintain transparency, many advocate for a more structured or collegiate system in assigning the benches, especially for high-profile or constitutionally significant cases.

Historical evolution of the Bench system in India

The bench system in India evolved from colonial-era practices, drawing influence from the British courts. Initially, the cases were heard by the full court or small benches, depending upon availability. As the volume and complexity of the cases increased, the need for specialised benches emerged. Post-independence— Article 145 of the Constitution empowered the Supreme Court of India to frame its own rules that gave rise to the formal use of division benches and constitutional benches. This evolution allowed the court to manage its moves more effectively while preserving judicial coherence in interpreting constitutional matters.

Why do some cases go to larger benches?

Larger benches are constituted when a case raises a substantial constitutional question or when previous judgments collide. For instance, a three-judge bench gives a ruling that contradicts an earlier bench of equal strength; a larger bench, normally of five more judges, is formed to resolve the legal inconsistency. This process helps maintain consistency in the law and ensures a deep scrutiny of complex matters. Larger benches are also necessary when a previous interpretation of the Constitution is challenged or reconsidered, as seen in historical cases like Kesavananda Bharati.

Role of benches in speedy justice

Dividing the Supreme Court into smaller benches allows it to handle thousands of pending cases efficiently. Not every matter needs the full strength of the court. Therefore, benches with two or three judges stick to routine and procedure. This helps avoid unnecessary delays and assures that urgent and important cases are not overlooked. However, despite this system, the court still faces a large backlog, prompting suggestions like increasing the number of judges and creating regional benches to further improve access and reduce case pendency.

Temporary versus permanent benches—what’s the difference?

In the Supreme Court, benches are temporary and formed on a case-by-case basis. This composition can be altered daily based on the roster prepared by the Chief Justice. These benches are dissolved after the matter is heard. In contrast, permanent benches exist in some High Courts, like in Mumbai, Nagpur, and Aurangabad, under the Bombay High Court. Permanent benches operate from fixed locations to improve access to justice regionally. The Supreme Court, being centralised, does not have permanent regional benches, although the idea has seen many debates.

Vacation bench—urgency versus delay.

Vacation benches are special benches that sit during the Supreme Court’s winter or summer break to hear urgent matters like bail, stay orders, or habeas corpus petitions. The purpose of this is to ensure that justice is not denied due to the delays caused by holidays. However, vacation benches handle a limited number of cases and are usually restricted to very pressing issues. Critics argue that some urgent matters don’t get listed, while others feel that these benches are important for holding a right in critical situations. Their functioning often depends on judicial discretion.

Comparative study of Supreme Court ventures in India versus the US and the UK.

Unlike India, the US Supreme Court always sits as one full bench of nine justices, while the UK Supreme Court generally has sets of five or more, all depending upon the case. India’s usage of smaller and temporary benches is unique and helps manage a vast caseload. However, it can lead to inconsistencies and judgments, especially when benches of equal strength are interpreting laws differently. The US model offers more consistency, but that is at the cost of speed. The Indian system balances speed with depth, but it will benefit from a structural reform.

Why does India not have regional benches of the Supreme Court yet?

Despite repeated demands, the Supreme Court of India has no regional benches. All the hearings are conducted in New Delhi, which often makes access to justice expensive and inconvenient for people from distant states. Several political leaders and the Law Commission have suggested regional benches in metropolises like Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata. The idea is to cut down travel costs for litigants and lawyers and to distribute the caseload better. However, the opponents argue that multiple benches may dilute the court’s authority and lead to inconsistent interpretations.

Public Interest Litigation and bench selection

Public Interest Litigation is a powerful tool for social justice; it lets citizens raise issues that affect the public at large. These cases often land before specially formed benches, particularly when they involve urgent or high-impact matters. Bench selection in PIL has sometimes led to controversy, especially when politically sensitive cases are being heard by specific judges. The critical question is whether such types of allegations are always neutral. The Chief Justice’s role in assigning benches for PIL remains crucial, and fostering transparency in this process could strengthen the public trust in the judiciary.

Need for Regional Benches

The Supreme Court of India, as the Apex judicial body, currently has functions only from New Delhi. This centralisation aims to maintain judicial consistency. However, it has raised concerns regarding accessibility, thus, the need for regional benches of the Supreme Court stems from these key reasons.

1.Access to justice - People from distant states usually face a lot of financial and logistical challenges when they try to approach the Supreme Court in Delhi. The regional benches would ease this burden, especially for those people who are from the Southern, North, Eastern, and far western regions of India.
2.Judicial decentralisation- the regional benches would be of help in decentralising the heavy case load from Delhi and allowing the Apex Court to work more efficiently. The Law Commission of India, in its 229th  report, strongly recommended establishing four regional benches to ensure that justice has better access.
3.Reduction in case pendency- With the rising backlog of cases, the regional benches could be of help in distributing the workload and thereby expediting the serving of justice and reducing delays.
4.Promoting federalism- India’s quasi-federal structure justifies the need for a more geographically spread judiciary. Regional ventures would show a more inclusive and federal approach to the justice system.
5.Ground realities- while the virtual hearings have gained some progress in bridging the gap, the digital literacy and internet infrastructure still have many disparities, which makes in-person access to the regional bench a more viable option for many.

Case Laws

1.Division Bench Case
The landmark case of S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) CITATION (2013) 9 SCC 659
Bench: Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice Rajan Gogoi
The key issue of this case was whether promises of freebies in election manifestos violate the Constitution. In this case, the court held that promises like these do not per se violate the Constitution but recommended guidelines via the Election Commission.

2.Three-Judge Bench
The landmark case of Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)
CITATION (2017) 9 SCC 1
Bench: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice R.F. Nariman, and Justice U.U. Lalit
The key issue of this case was the constitutionality of the practice of instant Triple Talaq among Muslims. The significance of this case was the declaration that the practice was unconstitutional and a violation of fundamental rights.

3.Constitution Bench
The landmark case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
Citation :(2018) 10 SCC 1
Bench: CJI Dipak Misra, Justice R.F. Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra
The main issue of this case was the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC, which criminalises homosexuality. The significance of this case was the decriminalisation of consensual same-sex practices and relations. It upheld the dignity and privacy of an individual human being.

4.Larger Bench (seven judges or more)
The landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) (13 Judge Bench)
Citation: (1973) 4 SCC 225
Bench: This thirteen-judge bench was headed by CJI S.M. Sikri.
The issue in this case was the limits of Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution. The significance that this case had was that the BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE was introduced, which restricts the Parliament from altering the fundamental features of the Constitution.

5.Special Bench 
The landmark case of MC Mehta v. Union of India (ongoing environmental PILS, including Delhi Air Pollution)
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1086 (Initial case, later orders are ongoing)
Bench: Different combinations over the years, often including Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Deepak Gupta, etc.
The key issues of this case were environmental degradation, pollution control, Ganga cleaning, and Delhi Air Quality. The significance of this case was the continuous monitoring and the judicial orders for sustainable development and cleaner air.

6.Vacation Bench 
The landmark case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020)
Citation:(2020) SCC Online SC 964
Bench: Vacation Bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee
The key issue of this case was a bail petition during court vacation. The significance of this case was that the Supreme Court granted interim bail in a high-profile case during a court vacation, which allowed access to emergency justice.

FAQs

1.What are the different types of benches in the Supreme Court? 
Division bench, three-judge bench, Constitution bench, larger bench, special bench, and vacation bench.

1.Why are benches formed with different numbers of judges?
To match the complexity and the importance of the case.

1.What is a constitution bench?
A bench of at least five judges, formed for crucial constitutional matters.

1.Who decides which bench will hear a case?
The Chief Justice of India is the one who decides the allocation of cases to the different benches.

1.Name one famous case heard by a constitution bench?
Keshavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala (basic structure doctrine case).
 

Conclusion

The bench system of the Supreme Court of India is a carefully designed framework that balances judicial efficiency with constitutional gravity. By constituting benches of varying trends, ranging from division benches for appeals to the Constitution and larger benches for matters of national and constitutional importance, the court ensures that each case receives the level of scrutiny that it deserves. This adaptability reflects on both the complexity of the Indian legal landscape and the evolving demands of justice.

Each bench type has played a crucial role in shaping Indian jurisprudence. Landmark rulings like Keshavananda Bharti by the thirteen-judge bench, Swami by a nine-judge bench and Navtej Johar by the Constitution bench is not only a redefined legal doctrine but it has also protected the spirit of the Constitution. Special vacation benches, though less talked about, still represent the judiciary’s responsiveness to urgent needs and long-standing cases.

Understanding these distinctions is essential and not just for legal practitioners and students, but also for any of the citizens who are invested in the democratic framework of India. These benches are more than procedural formations—they are the instruments through which the judiciary offers justice, interprets the laws and safeguards the rights. The evolution of this spectrum and the different judgments that evolve with it continue to shape the trajectory of Indian law and society.