Lok Sabha Passes Bill to Increase Supreme Court Judges to 37 Without Debate

03 Aug Lok Sabha Passes Bill to Increase Supreme Court Judges to 37 Without Debate

✎ The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 aims to increase the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 33 to 37 (excluding the CJI) to address judicial vacancies and case backlog, but its effectiveness…

Subject Relevance — Where This Topic Fits

• GS Paper II — Polity and Governance (Constitutional Amendments, Judiciary)
• Prelims: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, Article 124(1) of the Constitution, Judicial Vacancies, Collegium System, Judicial Reforms
• Essay: The judiciary as the guardian of fundamental rights and the balance of power in a democracy, Institutional capacity and efficiency in the administration of justice

Quick Revision: The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 aims to increase the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 33 to 37 (excluding the CJI) to address judicial vacancies and case backlog, but its effectiveness depends on concurrent reforms in judicial appointments and case management.

Why is this in the news?

The Lok Sabha recently passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, which seeks to increase the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 33 to 37 (excluding the Chief Justice of India). The bill was passed without debate due to disruptions in Parliament, highlighting the procedural challenges in legislative functioning. This amendment is significant as it directly impacts the judicial capacity of the apex court, which has been grappling with a substantial backlog of cases and delays in adjudication.

Background

• The Supreme Court of India, established under Article 124 of the Constitution, has a sanctioned strength of judges determined by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, as amended from time to time.
• The last increase in sanctioned strength occurred in 2019, when the number of judges was raised from 30 to 33 (excluding the Chief Justice of India) through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019.
• The judiciary has consistently highlighted the issue of judicial vacancies and the resultant pendency of cases, which exceeds 70,000 in the Supreme Court alone as of recent reports.
• The government’s rationale for the increase is to enhance the efficiency of the Supreme Court by reducing the workload per judge and ensuring timely disposal of cases, particularly those of constitutional and national importance.
• Parliamentary debates on judicial reforms have often been overshadowed by other legislative priorities, leading to procedural lapses such as the passage of this bill without discussion.
• The Collegium System, which governs the appointment of judges to higher judiciary, has been a subject of debate regarding its transparency and efficiency, indirectly influencing the need for structural reforms in the judiciary.

What is the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026?

• The bill proposes to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to increase the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 33 to 37 (excluding the Chief Justice of India).
• The amendment is intended to address the issue of judicial vacancies and the mounting backlog of cases in the Supreme Court, which has been a persistent challenge in the administration of justice.
• The increase in sanctioned strength is expected to improve the efficiency of the Supreme Court by distributing the workload more evenly among judges, thereby reducing delays in adjudication.
• The bill was introduced in Parliament after the Union Cabinet approved it on May 5, 2026, and was subsequently passed by the Lok Sabha without debate due to disruptions.
• The amendment does not alter the constitutional provisions governing the appointment of judges, which are governed by the Collegium System under Article 124(2) of the Constitution.
• The increase in sanctioned strength is a legislative measure to enhance the institutional capacity of the Supreme Court, but it does not guarantee immediate improvements in judicial efficiency without concurrent reforms in the appointment process and case management.
• The bill reflects the government’s emphasis on judicial reforms as part of broader efforts to strengthen the rule of law and ensure timely justice delivery.
• The passage of the bill without debate underscores the procedural challenges in Parliament, particularly in the context of legislative functioning and the need for structured discussions on critical bills.

Key Features

Feature	Significance
Increase in sanctioned strength from 33 to 37 judges (excluding CJI)	Addresses the persistent backlog of cases by expanding judicial capacity, aligning with the constitutional mandate of speedy justice under Article 21.
Amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956	Provides a legislative framework for adjusting the judiciary’s structural capacity in response to evolving caseload demands, ensuring institutional adaptability.
Procedural bypass of debate in Lok Sabha	Highlights the procedural constraints in parliamentary functioning, particularly when legislative business is overshadowed by extraneous disruptions, raising questions about democratic accountability.
Cabinet approval on May 5, 2026	Demonstrates executive prioritisation of judicial reforms, reflecting the government’s recognition of the judiciary as a critical pillar for governance and legal certainty.
Exclusion of CJI from the count of 37 judges	Maintains the hierarchical structure of the Supreme Court, preserving the Chief Justice’s constitutional role as the head of the judiciary and administrative authority.

Why it Matters

Judicial Efficiency

• The increase in judicial strength is a direct response to the burgeoning pendency of cases, which currently exceeds 70,000 in the Supreme Court alone, undermining the constitutional guarantee of timely justice under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
• Expanding the bench strength may reduce the average disposal time per case, particularly for constitutional and civil appeals, thereby enhancing judicial productivity and public trust in the judiciary.
• However, mere numerical expansion does not guarantee efficiency; structural reforms in case management, digitalisation, and appointment processes remain equally critical to sustain long-term gains.

Constitutional and Legal Implications

• The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, empowers Parliament to determine the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court, subject to the constitutional limit of not exceeding the maximum permissible strength as per the Act.
• The amendment does not alter the constitutional provisions governing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction (Article 136) or the collegium system for judicial appointments (Second and Third Judges Cases), ensuring continuity in judicial governance.
• The exclusion of the CJI from the count maintains the balance between administrative leadership and judicial capacity, preventing dilution of the CJI’s constitutional role.

Parliamentary Functioning and Democratic Accountability

• The passage of the bill without debate underscores the procedural erosion in Parliament, where legislative business is frequently disrupted by political sloganeering, raising concerns about the quality of democratic deliberation.
• Such procedural lapses may erode public confidence in legislative institutions, particularly when substantive reforms are enacted without adequate scrutiny or opposition participation.
• The episode highlights the need for reforms in parliamentary conduct, including stricter enforcement of rules to prevent disruptions and ensure meaningful debate on critical legislation.

Governance and Institutional Reforms

• The government’s emphasis on judicial efficiency aligns with broader governance goals, as a robust judiciary is essential for enforcing rule of law, protecting fundamental rights, and resolving inter-state disputes (e.g., Cauvery water disputes, Article 262).
• The amendment reflects a recognition that judicial delays have economic costs, including reduced investor confidence, prolonged contract enforcement, and increased litigation expenses for citizens and businesses.
• However, the success of this reform hinges on complementary measures, such as strengthening lower judiciary capacity, expediting the appointment process, and leveraging technology for case management.

Challenges

1. Judicial Backlog and Pendency

• Despite the increase in sanctioned strength, the Supreme Court’s pendency remains a critical challenge, with over 70,000 cases pending as of 2026, including high-priority constitutional matters.
• The backlog is exacerbated by the increasing complexity of cases, frequent adjournments, and the lack of a robust mechanism for early resolution of disputes.
• Addressing pendency requires not only increasing judicial strength but also systemic reforms in case allocation, digitalisation, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

UPSC Link: GS-II: Judiciary – Structure, Organisation and Functioning

2. Appointment Bottlenecks in Collegium System

• The collegium system, established by judicial precedent (Second and Third Judges Cases), governs the appointment of Supreme Court judges, but it is often criticised for opacity and delays.
• The current amendment does not address the collegium’s functioning, meaning that the expanded bench strength may not translate into immediate relief if appointments are delayed.
• Reforms in the collegium system, such as introducing a transparent and time-bound appointment process, are essential to ensure that the judiciary can fully utilise its expanded capacity.

UPSC Link: GS-II: Judiciary – Appointment and Transfer of Judges

3. Parliamentary Disruptions and Legislative Efficiency

• The passage of the bill without debate highlights the systemic issue of parliamentary disruptions, which undermine the legislative process and erode public trust in democratic institutions.
• Frequent disruptions prevent meaningful debate on critical bills, leading to rushed or unscrutinised legislation, as seen in this instance.
• Addressing this challenge requires stricter enforcement of parliamentary rules, incentives for constructive opposition participation, and reforms in the conduct of parliamentary sessions.

UPSC Link: GS-II: Parliament and State Legislatures – Functions and Conduct

4. Resource Constraints and Infrastructure Gaps

• Expanding the judiciary’s sanctioned strength requires commensurate investments in infrastructure, including additional courtrooms, staff, and digital resources to support the increased workload.
• Many High Courts and subordinate judiciary units already face resource constraints, which may limit the Supreme Court’s ability to fully utilise its expanded bench strength.
• The government must prioritise budgetary allocations for judicial infrastructure to ensure that the reform translates into tangible improvements in case disposal.

UPSC Link: GS-II: Judiciary – Judges and Administration

5. Public Trust and Judicial Independence

• Judicial reforms must be perceived as apolitical and driven by institutional needs rather than executive or legislative convenience to maintain public trust in the judiciary.
• The lack of debate in Parliament may fuel perceptions of executive overreach, particularly if the reform is seen as a response to external pressures rather than a genuine effort to address judicial delays.
• Ensuring transparency in the reform process and engaging stakeholders, including the judiciary and legal fraternity, is critical to mitigate such perceptions.

UPSC Link: GS-II: Judiciary – Independence and Accountability

Challenges — UPSC Perspective

Issue	Concern
Judicial Pendency	Over 70,000 cases pending in the Supreme Court, undermining constitutional guarantees of speedy justice and increasing litigation costs.
Collegium System Delays	Opaque and time-consuming appointment process may delay the filling of the expanded bench, limiting the reform’s effectiveness.
Parliamentary Disruptions	Systemic disruptions prevent meaningful debate, raising concerns about the quality of legislative scrutiny and democratic accountability.
Infrastructure Gaps	Insufficient courtrooms, staff, and digital resources may hinder the Supreme Court’s ability to utilise its expanded capacity effectively.
Public Perception of Executive Overreach	Lack of debate in Parliament may fuel perceptions of political interference, potentially eroding trust in judicial independence.
Inter-State Dispute Resolution	Delays in Supreme Court rulings on inter-state disputes (e.g., water-sharing) impact governance and federal relations.

Way Forward

• Constitute a high-powered committee comprising the CJI, Law Minister, and senior jurists to draft a time-bound roadmap for filling the expanded bench strength, ensuring transparency and accountability in the appointment process.
• Accelerate the digitalisation of the judiciary, including the implementation of e-courts and AI-driven case management systems, to reduce pendency and improve efficiency.
• Strengthen the subordinate judiciary by increasing sanctioned strength in High Courts and District Courts, ensuring a seamless flow of cases from lower to higher judiciary.
• Introduce mandatory mediation and arbitration for civil and commercial disputes to reduce the burden on the Supreme Court and expedite resolution.
• Enact the Judges (Inquiry) Bill, 2026, to introduce a transparent and time-bound process for judicial appointments, addressing the opacity in the collegium system.
• Allocate dedicated budgetary provisions for judicial infrastructure, including additional courtrooms, staff, and technology upgrades, to support the expanded bench strength.
• Conduct periodic reviews of the reform’s impact on case disposal rates and pendency, with public reporting to ensure accountability and course correction.
• Engage with the legal fraternity, bar associations, and civil society to build consensus on judicial reforms, ensuring that the process is perceived as apolitical and institution-driven.

UPSC Value Addition

Prelims Practice Questions

Q1. Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court of India:
1. The sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India, was last increased from 30 to 33 in 2019.
2. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, empowers Parliament to determine the number of judges in the Supreme Court.
3. The Chief Justice of India is included in the sanctioned strength of judges under the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
4. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to increase the sanctioned strength from 33 to 37 (excluding the Chief Justice).
How many of the above statements are correct?

1. Only one
2. Only two
3. Only three
4. All four

Answer: All four — Statements 1, 2, and 4 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect as the sanctioned strength excludes the Chief Justice of India. The 2019 amendment increased the strength from 30 to 33 (excluding CJI), and the 2026 bill proposes to increase it to 37 (excluding CJI).

Q2. Assertion (A): The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
Reason (R): The Act empowers Parliament to determine the number of judges in the Supreme Court, excluding the Chief Justice of India.
Options:
A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
B. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.
C. A is true, but R is false.
D. A is false, but R is true.

Answer: ? — Both the Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 does seek to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. The Act, as amended in 1956, empowers Parliament to determine the number of judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India.

Q3. Match the following columns regarding the Supreme Court of India:

Column I
1. Article 124
2. Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956
3. Collegium System
4. Judicial Appointments Commission

Column II
A. Constitutional provision for the establishment of the Supreme Court
B. Act empowering Parliament to determine the number of judges
C. System of judicial appointments evolved through judicial pronouncements
D. Proposed body for judicial appointments under the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act

Options:
A. 1-A, 2-B, 3-C, 4-D
B. 1-B, 2-A, 3-D, 4-C
C. 1-C, 2-D, 3-A, 4-B
D. 1-D, 2-C, 3-B, 4-A

1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D

Answer: A — The correct match is: 1-A (Article 124 establishes the Supreme Court), 2-B (Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 empowers Parliament to determine the number of judges), 3-C (Collegium System is a judicial appointments system evolved through cases), 4-D (Judicial Appointments Commission was proposed under the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act).

Mains Practice Question

✍ The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, which seeks to increase the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 33 to 37 judges (excluding the Chief Justice of India), has been passed by the Lok Sabha without debate. Critically examine the constitutional and institutional implications of this amendment, with reference to the principles of separation of powers and judicial independence. Also, outline the challenges in judicial appointments and the need for judicial reforms in India. (15 Marks)

Approach: MODEL-ANSWER SKELETON:

1. **Constitutional Provisions and Amendment Process**:
– Article 124 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to determine the number of judges in the Supreme Court.
– The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, provides the statutory framework for this.
– The 2026 amendment reflects Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 124(1).

2. **Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence**:
– **Pro**: Increasing the number of judges may reduce pendency and improve efficiency, aligning with the constitutional mandate of Article 21 (right to speedy justice).
– **Con**: Potential executive overreach in judicial appointments if not balanced by the Collegium System or an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.
– **Judicial Pronouncements**: Cite *Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India* (2015) on judicial independence and *S.P. Gupta v. Union of India* (1981) on judicial review.

3. **Challenges in Judicial Appointments**:
– **Collegium System**: Critique its opacity and lack of transparency, as highlighted in the *Second and Third Judges Cases*.
– **Judicial Pendency**: Cite data from the Supreme Court’s *Court News* (e.g., over 70,000 pending cases as of 2024).
– **Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC)**: Discuss the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act (2014) and its subsequent striking down by the Supreme Court in 2015.

4. **Need for Judicial Reforms**:
– **Institutional Reforms**: Propose measures like fixed tenure for Chief Justice, transparency in appointments, and digital case management.
– **Legislative Reforms**: Enact a comprehensive judicial reforms bill addressing appointment, accountability, and pendency.
– **Judicial Pronouncements**: Reference *Common Cause v. Union of India* (2018) on judicial accountability.

5. **Conclusion**:
– Balance between efficiency and judicial independence is critical.
– Reforms must prioritize transparency, accountability, and constitutional principles.

Source: Times of India

---

Generated by AanyaAi for educational purpose.