Parliament increases sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges
2-minute summary
The Lok Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, replacing a May 2026 Ordinance to increase the apex court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges (37 puisne judges plus the Chief Justice of India). Amending the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, this marks the first expansion since 2019 when the strength was raised from 31 to 34. The primary driver is mounting pendency, with over 92,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court as of January 2026. In 2025 alone, 75,410 fresh cases were instituted against 65,615 disposals. The additional judge strength aims to enhance case disposal capacity and enable the Chief Justice of India to regularly constitute 5-judge Constitution Benches under Article 145(3) without stalling regular appellate matters. However, legal experts emphasize that judge strength alone cannot eliminate the broader backlog exceeding 5.5 crore cases across all Indian courts without filling lower judicial vacancies, curtailing procedural delays, and upgrading case management.
Why it's in the news
The Lok Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, to replace an executive ordinance that raised the Supreme Court's sanctioned judge strength from 34 to 38. The measure addresses severe judicial backlog and facilitates the regular functioning of Constitution Benches.
Background and context
When the Constitution of India came into force in 1950, Article 124(1) fixed the Supreme Court's strength at eight judges (the Chief Justice of India and seven puisne judges), empowering Parliament to increase this number by law. Parliament enacted the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act in 1956 to manage increasing workload. Over decades, parliamentary amendments progressively raised the sanctioned strength to 10 (1956), 14 (1960), 18 (1977), 26 (1986), 31 (2009), and 34 (2019). The 2026 amendment is the latest response to chronic workload pressures, rising appeal volumes, and a nationwide pendency crisis exceeding 5.5 crore cases.
Constitutional provisions
- Article 124(1) — Establishes the Supreme Court of India and empowers Parliament to increase the number of judges by law.
- Article 123 — Empowers the President to promulgate Ordinances during parliamentary recess, which was utilized in May 2026 for immediate expansion of judicial strength.
- Article 145(3) — Mandates that cases involving substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution must be decided by a bench of at least five judges (Constitution Bench).
Committees and reports
- Law Commission of India (120th Report) — Recommended increasing the judge-to-population ratio in India from 10.5 to 50 judges per million population.
- India Justice Report — Highlighted that India currently maintains only 15.9 judges per million population, far below international and Law Commission recommendations.
Mains practice: Increasing the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges is a necessary step, but insufficient on its own to tackle judicial pendency in India. Discuss.
Parliament's passage of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising judicial strength from 34 to 38, reflects an imperative response to mounting apex court backlogs exceeding 92,000 cases.
Key Benefits of Increasing Judicial Strength:
• Enables Regular Constitution Benches: Facilitates the formation of 5+ judge benches under Article 145(3) for constitutional interpretation without stalling regular appellate rosters.
• Handles Disposal Deficit: Addresses the gap between fresh case filings (75,410 in 2025) and disposals (65,615 in 2025).
• Broadens Judicial Capacity: Allows multiple specialized division benches to function simultaneously.
Why It Remains Insufficient On Its Own:
• Systemic Lower Court Pendency: Over 5.5 crore cases are pending across all tiers, with 51% of High Court cases pending for over 5 years.
• Severe Judge Shortage: According to the India Justice Report 2025, India has only 15.9 judges per million people against the Law Commission's 1987 recommendation of 50 per million.
• Appellate Workload Burden: The Supreme Court functions extensively as an ordinary court of appeal due to vast Special Leave Petitions (Article 136), diluting its core constitutional mandate.
• Procedural Bottlenecks: Frequent adjournments, inadequate case-flow management, and delayed appointments compound delays.
Way Forward:
• Establishing Regional Benches of Appeal as recommended by Law Commissions to let the Delhi bench focus strictly on constitutional law.
• Implementing AI-driven case management and strict limits on oral arguments.
• Filling judicial vacancies proactively across High Courts and Subordinate Judiciary.
Increasing judge strength provides temporary operational relief, but enduring judicial reform requires structural, procedural, and technological overhauls across all judicial tiers.
Prelims practice questions
Q1. Under the Constitution of India, who among the following is empowered to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India?
- The Chief Justice of India
- The Union Ministry of Law and Justice
- The Parliament of India
- The President of India
Answer: C. Article 124(1) of the Indian Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such number of other judges as Parliament may by law prescribe.
Q2. With reference to Constitution Benches in the Supreme Court of India, consider the following statements: 1. A Constitution Bench consists of a minimum of five judges under Article 145(3). 2. The Chief Justice of India possesses exclusive administrative prerogative to allocate cases and constitute benches. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: C. Both statements are correct. Article 145(3) mandates at least five judges for hearing cases involving substantial constitutional questions. The CJI, as 'Master of the Roster', holds exclusive prerogative over bench constitution.
Q3. Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026: 1. It increases the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, including the CJI. 2. It replaces an Ordinance promulgated under Article 123 of the Constitution. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: C. Both statements are correct. The 2026 Amendment increases total strength to 38 (37 puisne judges + 1 CJI) and replaces the Ordinance issued by the Executive during parliamentary recess in May 2026 under Article 123.
Revision flashcards
- What is the new sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges following the 2026 Amendment? 38 judges (37 puisne judges + 1 Chief Justice of India).
- Which Constitutional provision empowers Parliament to increase Supreme Court judge strength? Article 124(1) of the Constitution of India.
- What is the minimum bench size for deciding constitutional questions under Article 145(3)? Five judges (a Constitution Bench).
- What judge-to-population ratio was recommended by the 120th Law Commission Report (1987)? 50 judges per million population (compared to the current level of ~15.9 per million).
- In which year was the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act originally enacted? 1956 (enacted to enable periodic revision of judge strength by Parliament).