- The story so far
- What does the Bill do?
- Why was the increase considered necessary?
- What did the government tell Parliament?
- How will additional judges help?
- Is increasing the number of judges enough to reduce pendency?
- Why did the government promulgate an ordinance?
- How has the Supreme Court’s strength changed over the years?
- What happens next?
The story so far
The Lok Sabha on Monday (August 3, 2026) passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, replacing an ordinance that increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The Bill was passed by voice vote without a debate amid Opposition protests over unrelated issues. It now awaits consideration in the Rajya Sabha.
What does the Bill do?
The Bill amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of puisne (ordinary) judges from 33 to 37. With the CJI included, the apex court’s sanctioned strength rises from 34 to 38.
This is the first increase in the court’s strength since 2019, when Parliament raised the sanctioned strength from 31 to 34 judges.
Why was the increase considered necessary?
The government has cited the growing backlog of cases in the Supreme Court.
As on January 1, 2026, 92,101 cases were pending before the apex court. In 2025, the court received 75,410 fresh cases but disposed of 65,615, despite functioning at nearly its full sanctioned strength.
According to the government, the persistent gap between the institution and disposal of cases has made it necessary to increase the number of judges.
What did the government tell Parliament?
Introducing the Bill in the Lok Sabha, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said the increase in the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court was aimed at ensuring speedy and effective justice by enabling the apex court to deal with its growing workload.
The government has argued that the proposal was intended to address the mounting backlog of cases and improve the court’s disposal capacity. The increase in judicial strength, it said, was one of the “most exigent and viable solutions” to tackle pendency. It would also enable the Chief Justice of India to constitute Constitution Benches more frequently to hear cases involving substantial questions of constitutional law without disrupting the hearing of regular matters.
How will additional judges help?
The government says the increase will enable the Supreme Court to hear more cases simultaneously, thereby improving the disposal rate.
One of the arguments in favour of additional judges is that it will make it easier for the Chief Justice of India to constitute Constitution Benches on a regular basis.
The Constitution Benches, comprising at least five judges, hear cases involving substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. Because of the heavy daily roster, constituting such Benches has often proved difficult.
Is increasing the number of judges enough to reduce pendency?
Most legal experts say it is a necessary step but not a complete solution.
Pendency is also linked to delays in judicial appointments, rising litigation, frequent adjournments, vacancies in High Courts and the subordinate judiciary, and the large number of appeals that reach the Supreme Court.
The backlog of cases across all courts in India had crossed 5.5 crore, with the bulk of them in the lower courts.
The India Justice Report, 2025, noted that there are 15.9 judges for every million Indians, as against a Law Commission of India recommendation of 50 judges per million in 1987.
In 22 of the 25 States, the same report noted, cases pending for over three years in subordinate courts amount to 25% of all cases pending.
And across 25 high courts, the number of cases which are pending for over five years accounts for 51%.
Experts have argued that improving case management, strengthening the High Courts and filling vacancies across the judiciary are essential to reduce pendency.
Why did the government promulgate an ordinance?
The Union Cabinet approved the proposal in May 2026, when Parliament was not in session. The government therefore promulgated an ordinance under Article 123 of the Constitution, allowing the increase in sanctioned strength to take effect immediately.
After the ordinance came into force, five judges were appointed against the enhanced sanctioned strength. Under the Constitution, an ordinance must be replaced by an Act of Parliament within six weeks of the commencement of the next session, failing which it ceases to operate. The Bill passed by the Lok Sabha seeks to replace that ordinance.
How has the Supreme Court’s strength changed over the years?
The Supreme Court began functioning in 1950 with eight judges, including the Chief Justice of India. Parliament has periodically increased its strength in line with rising litigation.
The sanctioned strength was increased to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, 34 in 2019, and now 38 (including the CJI) under the 2026 amendment.
What happens next?
The Bill must now be passed by the Rajya Sabha before being sent to the President for assent. Once enacted, it will replace the ordinance and formally fix the Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength at 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India.
Published – August 04, 2026 09:21 am IST
