There is no denying that the Supreme Court is overwhelmed with cases, numbering around 60,000 currently; yet it was disappointing that Chief Justice of India JS Khehar should have allowed himself to make almost an uncharitable and uncharacteristic observation that the apex court is not “Amrit Dhara” for all ailments. His remarks betray a sense of tiredness and helplessness over the heavy burden. But the headship of the top court comes with obligations and expectations. He is supposed to deal with the challenge of pendency confronting him. Given the odds litigants face and the unbearable cost involved at the Supreme Court level, it is also not the case, as CJI Khehar has tried to convey, of people “waking up in the morning and saying let’s go to the Supreme Court”. Over the last four decades the apex court has been applauded for encouraging PIL-centric jurisprudence. People with grievances or victims of excesses committed by the executive feel they can knock at the door of the court in the hope for justice. Despite a thriving democracy in place, the executive quite often wittingly or unwittingly treads on people’s rights. All that voters can do at the most is to replace one set of non-performers with another. It is true most problems would not arise or would be settled at the lower level if the executive were to play fair, deliver promised services in time, respect human rights and ensure the rule of law. In fact, the state itself is the biggest litigant and cases are routinely filed by one department against the other. Ruling politicians and bureaucrats refuse to accept that their decisions could be wrong. Cases and appeals are filed at the state expense up to the highest level. For an aggrieved citizen the court is the last hope.Judges know how to deal with frivolous cases; that they do not do it often is their choice. The CJI can establish his leadership by initiating reforms to cut delays, adjournments and appeals, and discipline advocates. There is a case to be made for judicial discipline —including for judges, lawyers as also the litigants — but it would be a sad day if the citizens were to conclude that the apex court is reluctant to provide them succour against wayward officials.