Answer:

♤ The requirement for large benches is straight forward and logical also. The Constitution is explicit that for important constitutional matters larger benches are needed. Benefits of larger benches hearing important cases can be discussed as under:

o More judges mean that there will be more points of view, greater reflection and more thorough analysis offered in these vital cases that will help set the direction of the country for decades to come.

o It also gives such judgments added value and legitimacy. It is more difficult to overturn a five-judge bench than a two- or three-judge bench, meaning the public can have more confidence in the stability of the law on issues that affect millions of lives.

o More judges also mean that it is likelier that the opinion of the bench will reflect that of the overall Supreme Court and not just two or three judges with a minority viewpoint. This is all the more critical in cases where novel questions of law are being addressed and there is no clear precedent on the issue.

o Alternatively, when there is a clear precedent, more judges are required to overturn the decisions of these earlier benches. It is already worrying that some of today's smaller benches are effectively ignoring or de-emphasising judgments of earlier and larger constitution benches. This is undermining the court's entire system of precedent.

♤ Given all these benefits to larger benches, there must be some reasons because of which they are not being constituted more often. Some of those reasons are as below:

o As the court has found itself bogged down with more and more cases (over 50,000 are currently pending), it has become more difficult to have larger benches. They take judges away from disposing of the long line of backlogged matters.

o Also there are no clear cut guidelines on how to determine when a case involves a "substantial question" of constitutional law and so requires a larger bench.

♤ So there are no alternatives to larger benches as constitution explicitly mandates it. There are no easy answers here, but the court should lay out a vision for how it wants to balance the many competing pressures on its time and judges.