Rajya Sabha clears Bill to increase number of Supreme Court judges

Polity & Governance · 6 August 2026 · Based on The Hindu (original report)

Must read — 2 past UPSC questions on this theme (Mains GS-2 2017, Prelims GS-1 2021).

2-minute summary

The Rajya Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, increasing the sanctioned judge strength of the apex court from 34 to 37. The Bill, which replaces an Ordinance promulgated in May, was introduced as a Money Bill and returned by the Upper House to the Lok Sabha following debate and an Opposition walkout. Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal highlighted that expanding judge strength alongside integrating Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms—such as arbitration, mediation, and conciliation—will enhance judicial efficiency and alleviate case pendency. During parliamentary discussions, MPs emphasized the need for broader structural judicial reforms, addressing High Court vacancies (~30%), and enhancing social representation, noting the underrepresentation of women (14% in High Courts) and SC/ST/OBC groups in the higher judiciary. In response, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju clarified that higher judicial appointments originate from recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium, limiting direct executive intervention in judicial selection.

Why it's in the news

Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, replacing a May ordinance to increase the sanctioned judge strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 37. The legislative step aims to improve judicial efficiency and tackle mounting case pendency in the country's highest court.

Background and context

At the inception of the Constitution in 1950, Article 124(1) fixed the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court at the Chief Justice of India and seven other judges, empowering Parliament to alter this number by law. As case filings escalated over decades, Parliament periodically enacted amendments to expand judicial capacity: to 11 judges in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1977, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, and 34 in 2019. Despite periodic statutory increases, case pendency across Indian courts has continued to rise due to broader demographic growth, expanded fundamental rights jurisprudence, legislative backlogs, and persistent judicial vacancies. The current expansion to 37 judges represents the latest statutory adjustment to assist the Supreme Court in handling constitutional matters and statutory appellate workloads efficiently.

Constitutional provisions

• Article 124(1) — Establishes the Supreme Court of India and empowers Parliament to prescribe the number of judges by ordinary legislation.
• Article 124(2) — Governs the procedure for the appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President of India.
• Article 110 — Defines Money Bills (relevant to the legislative procedure utilized for passing statutory financial provisions related to judicial expansion).

Committees and reports

• Law Commission of India 229th Report — Recommended dividing the Supreme Court into a Constitution Bench at Delhi and four Cassation/Appellate Benches in distinct regions to address pending caseloads.
• Law Commission of India 245th Report — Examined arrears and vacancies in the judiciary, recommending scientific judicial manpower planning.

Government schemes

• National Mission for Judicial Delivery and Legal Reforms — Focuses on structural measures to increase judicial capacity, modernise court infrastructure, and promote ADR to clear arrears.

Previous UPSC questions on this theme

• Mains GS-2 2017 — Critically examine the Supreme Court's judgement on 'National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014' with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
• Prelims GS-1 2021 — With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements : 1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India. 2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

Mains practice: Increasing the sanctioned strength of judges alone is insufficient to address the crisis of judicial pendency in India. Discuss structural and procedural reforms needed in the higher judiciary.

Parliament's passage of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, raising the sanctioned judge strength from 34 to 37, is a welcome legislative step to tackle growing caseloads. However, expanding judge strength offers only incremental relief unless backed by comprehensive structural and procedural reforms.

Key Structural Challenges and Needed Reforms:

• Prompt Filling of Existing Vacancies: Sanctioned strength increases remain ineffective when structural delays persist in clearing vacancies across High Courts (~30% vacancy rate) and trial courts. Establishing streamlined timelines between the Collegium and executive is essential.

• Division of Supreme Court Jurisdiction: The Law Commission (229th Report) recommended establishing a dedicated Constitutional Bench at New Delhi and four regional Cassation Benches for routine appellate cases, preserving the Supreme Court's primary focus on constitutional adjudication.

• Institutionalizing Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Systemic integration of mediation, conciliation, and Lok Adalats under the Mediation Act, 2023, can filter disputes before they enter traditional court dockets.

• All India Judicial Service (AIJS): Implementing AIJS under Article 312 will standardize recruitment, attract top legal talent, and enhance social diversity across subordinate and higher judicial ranks.

• Digital and Process Modernization: Expanding the e-Courts Mission Mode Project, implementing AI-driven case management systems, and setting strict adjournment rules can reduce case processing delays.

Conclusion:

While increasing judge strength strengthens court capacity, long-term judicial efficiency requires holistic reforms encompassing vacancy management, procedural simplification, ADR adoption, and structural bifurcation of constitutional and appellate functions.

Prelims practice questions

Q1. Under which provision of the Constitution of India is Parliament empowered to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court?

1. Article 124(1)
2. Article 131
3. Article 127
4. Article 125

Answer: A. Article 124(1) of the Indian Constitution states that there shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other judges. Thus, Parliament alters judge strength through ordinary law.

Q2. Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill: 1. It increases the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 37. 2. An amendment to alter the sanctioned number of Supreme Court judges requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368 with ratification by half of the states. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: A. Statement 1 is correct (the Bill expands the strength from 34 to 37). Statement 2 is incorrect because Article 124(1) empowers Parliament to adjust judge strength by ordinary legislation, not requiring a constitutional amendment under Article 368.

Q3. Regarding appointments to the higher judiciary in India, consider the following statements: 1. The Supreme Court Collegium initiates recommendations for appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts. 2. The central government possesses independent statutory authority to allocate mandatory reservation quotas in higher judicial appointments without Collegium involvement. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

1. 1 only
2. 2 only
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Neither 1 nor 2

Answer: A. Statement 1 is correct as appointments originate from the Supreme Court Collegium. Statement 2 is incorrect because there is no statutory quota or executive power to independently appoint higher judiciary judges outside the established Collegium process.

Revision flashcards

• What is the newly sanctioned judge strength of the Supreme Court of India? 37 judges (including the Chief Justice of India), increased from 34.
• Which Constitutional Article empowers Parliament to change the number of Supreme Court judges by law? Article 124(1) of the Indian Constitution.
• What was the original judge strength of the Supreme Court at the time of the Constitution's inception in 1950? 8 judges (1 Chief Justice of India + 7 other judges).
• What major structural reform did Law Commission Report No. 229 propose for the Supreme Court? Bifurcating the Supreme Court into a Constitution Bench in New Delhi and four Regional Cassation Benches for appellate cases.
• Which Constitutional Article provisions the creation of an All India Judicial Service (AIJS)? Article 312 of the Indian Constitution.