Cabinet Approves Bill to Increase Supreme Court Judge Strength to 37

The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has approved the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026. This bill amends the 1956 Act to increase the maximum number of Supreme Court judges by four, raising the sanctioned strength from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The move aims to enhance judicial efficiency and tackle the mounting pendency of cases to ensure speedy justice. The additional financial burden for salaries and facilities will be borne by the Consolidated Fund of India.

What Happened

The Union Cabinet approved a proposal to introduce 'The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026' in Parliament. This legislative decision will add four more judges to the Supreme Court of India, expanding its capacity to handle legal matters.

When & Where

The Cabinet decision was officially announced on May 5, 2026, in New Delhi. The amendment will take legal effect once Parliament passes the bill and the President grants assent.

Who Is Involved

The Prime Minister chaired the Union Cabinet meeting that cleared the proposal. The Parliament of India holds the constitutional mandate to pass the amendment, while the Supreme Court Collegium will subsequently recommend names to fill these newly created positions.

How It Works

The government will introduce the amendment bill in Parliament. Once enacted, it modifies Section 2 of the 1956 Act, legally expanding the sanctioned limit to 37 judges. The expenditure for the new judges' salaries, court support staff, and structural facilities will be directly drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Why It Matters

India's apex court is heavily burdened with a massive backlog of pending cases. Increasing the judge strength allows the formation of more constitutional benches and division benches. This ensures efficient judicial functioning and faster delivery of justice, directly supporting citizens' fundamental right to a speedy trial.

Historical Background

Under Article 124(1), the Constitution initially fixed the number of SC judges at seven, leaving room for Parliament to increase it. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act was passed in 1956, setting the maximum at 10. Subsequent amendments raised it to 13 in 1960, 17 in 1977, and 25 in 1986.

Previous Related Events

The most recent structural augmentation happened in 2019. Parliament passed an amendment to expand the sanctioned strength from 30 to 33 judges (excluding the CJI) to manage rising litigation.

Static GK Connection

Article 124 of the Indian Constitution deals with the establishment of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, salaries of Supreme Court judges are "charged" on the Consolidated Fund of India under Article 112(3), meaning they are non-votable by Parliament.

Future Impact

The increased bench strength is expected to accelerate case disposals, specifically long-pending constitutional matters. It will also prompt the Supreme Court Collegium to expedite its process and recommend qualified high court judges or jurists to fill these four vacancies.

🔑 Key Points for Revision

Cabinet approved the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026.
Increases the number of SC judges by 4.
New sanctioned strength is 37 judges (excluding the CJI).
Total strength, including the CJI, becomes 38.
Amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
Article 124(1) grants Parliament the power to increase judge strength by law.
Original constitutional strength was 1 CJI + 7 other judges.
Salaries and expenses will be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.
The previous increase was in 2019 (from 30 to 33 judges).
The move aims to reduce judicial pendency and ensure speedy justice.
Parliament, not the President or CJI, holds the authority to increase SC strength.

🧠 Concept Link (Static GK Deep Dive)

Core Concept: Article 124 and the Supreme Court's Structure

Definition: Article 124 outlines the establishment, constitution, and appointment of judges to the Supreme Court of India.
Constitutional Provision: Article 124(1) states there shall be a Supreme Court consisting of a CJI and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, not more than seven other Judges.
Current Connection: The 2026 amendment utilizes the explicit power granted to Parliament under Article 124(1) to increase the judge count.
Historical Context: The makers of the Constitution intentionally kept the initial number small (8 total) but allowed flexibility for Parliament to scale it as the nation grew.
Parliament vs Executive: Only Parliament can increase the sanctioned strength via ordinary legislation, not the Executive (Cabinet) or the Judiciary (Collegium).
Appointment Mechanism: While Parliament creates the vacancies, the actual judges are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the SC Collegium under Article 124(2).
Salaries and Allowances: Governed by Article 125, salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to ensure judicial independence.
Common Exam Angle: Questions frequently test who has the authority to increase the number of judges (Parliament) vs who appoints them (President).

❓ Practice MCQs

Q1. Which constitutional article grants Parliament the power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court?
A) Article 123
B) Article 124
C) Article 143
D) Article 226

Answer: B) Article 124

Explanation: Article 124(1) allows Parliament to prescribe by law a larger number of judges for the Supreme Court.

Q2. As per the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, what will be the new maximum strength of the Supreme Court, excluding the Chief Justice of India?
A) 33
B) 34
C) 37
D) 38

Answer: C) 37

Explanation: The 2026 Bill increases the sanctioned strength of judges from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India.

Q3. Which of the following bodies has the sole authority to increase the sanctioned judge strength of the Supreme Court of India?
A) The Supreme Court Collegium
B) The President of India
C) The Union Cabinet
D) The Parliament of India

Answer: D) The Parliament of India

Explanation: While the Cabinet approves the bill, the actual authority to enact the law increasing the strength lies exclusively with Parliament.

Q4. Prior to the 2026 amendment, when was the last time the judge strength of the Supreme Court was increased?
A) 2014
B) 2019
C) 2021
D) 1986

Answer: B) 2019

Explanation: The previous increase occurred through the 2019 Amendment Act, which raised the number of judges from 30 to 33.

Q5. From which fund will the additional expenditure for the salaries and facilities of the newly added Supreme Court judges be met?
A) Public Account of India
B) Contingency Fund of India
C) Consolidated Fund of India
D) PM CARES Fund

Answer: C) Consolidated Fund of India

Explanation: Under the Constitution, salaries and allowances of Supreme Court judges are charged directly to the Consolidated Fund of India to maintain their independence.

Q6. What was the original maximum number of Supreme Court judges (excluding the CJI) prescribed by the Constitution in 1950?
A) 7
B) 10
C) 15
D) 25

Answer: A) 7

Explanation: Article 124(1) originally stated the Supreme Court would consist of a CJI and not more than seven other judges until Parliament passed a law to increase it.

📜 Previous Year Question Style (PYQ)

PYQ 1:

Who among the following has the power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India?

Answer: The Parliament. Article 124(1) of the Constitution clearly states that Parliament by law can prescribe a larger number of judges.

PYQ 2:

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court of India:

1. The Constitution of India initially provided for 10 judges excluding the Chief Justice.
2. The salaries of the Supreme Court judges are subject to the vote of Parliament.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Answer: Neither 1 nor 2. The original Constitution provided for 7 judges excluding the CJI, and judges' salaries are "charged" on the Consolidated Fund of India, making them non-votable.

✍️ Mains Answer Pointers

Question: "Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is a necessary but insufficient step to tackle judicial pendency in India." Analyze this statement in light of the recent Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026. (250 words)

Introduction point: Briefly mention the 2026 Bill increasing SC strength from 33 to 37 to reduce backlogs, acknowledging pendency as a critical national issue.
Political/Administrative dimension: More judges allow for the faster constitution of Constitution Benches, ensuring critical federal and rights-based cases are resolved promptly.
Infrastructure dimension: Just adding judges is insufficient without modernizing digital infrastructure, courtrooms, and expanding specialized support staff.
Systemic dimension: The root of pendency often lies in the lower judiciary, frequent adjournments, and the government being the largest litigator; top-heavy fixes do not cure bottom-up delays.
Procedural dimension: Reforms in case management systems, restricting frivolous appeals (like excessive SLPs under Article 136), and promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) are equally vital.
Conclusion point: Conclude that while augmenting judge strength acts as immediate first-aid, comprehensive procedural and structural reforms are essential for long-term judicial efficiency.

⚠️ Examiner Trap

Trap 1: Students often confuse the authority to appoint judges with the authority to increase their numbers. The correct fact is that the President appoints judges (via the Collegium system), but only Parliament can increase the sanctioned strength by passing a law.
Trap 2: A common wrong assumption is that the numerical "sanctioned strength" mentioned in the Acts always includes the Chief Justice of India. The reality is that the legislative Acts (like 1956, 2019, 2026) specify the count excluding the CJI.

🧭 Exam Tip

For Prelims, focus strictly on the numbers, the years of previous amendments, and the specific text of Article 124(1). For Mains, link this topic directly to GS Paper 2 (Judiciary - structure, organization, and functioning) and analyze it as part of the broader issue of judicial pendency and reforms.