Supreme Court Judge Strength Increased to 38 via Ordinance

What Happened

On May 16, 2026, President Droupadi Murmu promulgated an ordinance to augment the working capacity of the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, officially increases the sanctioned strength of the court from 34 to 38. The immediate trigger for this expansion was the unprecedented backlog of cases, which has breached the 93,000 mark.

When & Where

The ordinance was notified through a gazette publication in New Delhi on May 16, 2026. The impact of this legislative action centres entirely on the Supreme Court of India located in the national capital, but its functional effects will ripple across the country by accelerating the appellate justice delivery system.

Who Is Involved

• President Droupadi Murmu: Promulgated the ordinance upon satisfaction that immediate action was necessary.
• Union Cabinet: Granted the requisite approval for the proposal prior to the President's action.
• Chief Justice of India (Surya Kant): Heads the institution whose capacity is being expanded.
• Ministry of Law and Justice: The nodal administrative ministry responsible for drafting and executing judicial appointments and structural changes.

How It Works

• Step 1: The Union Cabinet assesses judicial pendency and recommends an increase in judge strength.
• Step 2: Because Parliament is not in session, the President invokes Article 123 to promulgate an ordinance.
• Step 3: The ordinance amends Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, legally changing the maximum number of non-CJI judges from 33 to 37.
• Step 4: Once Parliament reassembles, the ordinance must be tabled in both Houses. It will cease to operate if six weeks expire without parliamentary approval or if disapproved earlier.

Why It Matters

This development is directly relevant to UPSC GS Paper 2 (Structure, organization, and functioning of the Judiciary). Constitutionally, it highlights the intersection of executive ordinance powers and parliamentary supremacy over court composition. Socially and economically, reducing the 93,000-case backlog is vital for upholding the fundamental right to speedy justice and maintaining corporate confidence in India's contract enforcement mechanisms.

Historical Background

The Constitution's framers initially provided for a CJI and "not more than seven judges" in 1950. As the nation grew, Parliament continuously expanded this limit:

• 1956: Increased to 10 judges (excluding CJI) via the original Act.
• 1986: Augmented significantly from 17 to 25 judges.
• 2009: Raised to 30 judges to manage the growing appellate burden.
• 2019: The most recent prior amendment brought the strength to 33 judges, excluding the CJI.

Previous Related Events

• August 2019: Parliament amended the 1956 Act to increase the judge strength from 31 to 34 (including CJI).
• November 2025: Justice B.R. Gavai retired, creating a vacancy that highlighted the need for more judicial hands.
• April 2026: Justice Rajesh Bindal completed his term, adding to the vacant seats just before the Cabinet's approval of the expansion.

Static GK Connection

• Article 124(1): Explicitly grants Parliament the power to prescribe a larger number of Supreme Court judges by law. No constitutional amendment is required.
• Article 123: Empowers the President to promulgate ordinances with the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament, subject to specific temporal limitations.

India & World Comparison

India’s Supreme Court, now with 38 judges, is exceptionally large by global standards. The United States Supreme Court has functioned with exactly 9 justices since 1869. The UK Supreme Court operates with 12 justices. India's higher numbers reflect its broad jurisdiction, particularly the massive influx of Special Leave Petitions (Article 136) that other apex courts do not entertain.

Future Impact

In the immediate future, Parliament will need to pass an Act to replace this ordinance during the upcoming Monsoon Session. Procedurally, the Supreme Court Collegium will now have to recommend multiple names simultaneously to fill the newly created vacancies alongside the upcoming retirements of Justices J.K. Maheshwari, Pankaj Mithal, and Sanjay Karol later in 2026. This could reshape the ideological balance and subject-matter expertise of the court.

---

🔑 Key Points for Revision

• The current total sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is 38 (37 judges + 1 CJI).
• Implemented via the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026.
• The ordinance amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
• Promulgated by President Murmu under Article 123 of the Constitution.
• Article 124(1) originally set the maximum judge limit to 7 (excluding CJI).
• Increasing Supreme Court judges requires an ordinary parliamentary law, not a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
• India's current judicial backlog in the Supreme Court exceeds 93,000 cases.
• The last structural increase occurred in 2019 (raising the limit from 31 to 34).
• The US Supreme Court limit is fixed at 9 judges, highlighting India's unique expanding model.
• An ordinance lapses six weeks after the reassembly of Parliament if not approved.
• The Union Cabinet must approve the expansion proposal before Presidential promulgation.
• E-filing post-pandemic drastically increased the rate of case intake.
• The President can withdraw the promulgated ordinance at any time.
• Current CJI Surya Kant will preside over the expanded Collegium to fill these seats.
• Three major retirements in mid-2026 will create further vacancies to be filled.

---

🧠 Concept Link (Static GK Deep Dive)

Core Concept: Article 124 and Parliamentary Power Over the Judiciary

• Definition: The constitutional framework that establishes the Supreme Court and dictates how its size, composition, and appointments are managed.
• Constitutional / Legal Basis: Article 124(1) of the Indian Constitution.
• Organizational Mechanism: The Constitution deliberately left the size of the Supreme Court flexible, assigning Parliament the authority to expand it via ordinary legislation as needs grow.
• How it connects to this event: The President used ordinance powers to bypass a waiting Parliament and act on Article 124(1) immediately to address pendency.
• Origin & History: Enacted with the Constitution in 1950, originally setting the benchmark at 1 CJI + 7 Judges.
• Key milestone 1: Enactment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act in 1956, marking the first time Parliament exercised this power.
• Key milestone 2: The 2019 Amendment which pushed the strength beyond 30 for the first time.
• Related Acts / Schemes / Treaties: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act 1956; Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
• Nodal Ministry / Body: Ministry of Law and Justice.
• India-specific relevance: Due to an automatic right of appeal in many cases and the broad use of Article 136, India's apex court functions unlike any other, demanding constant numerical expansion.
• Global comparison: Most major constitutional courts (US, Australia, Canada) have fixed, single-digit or low double-digit bench strengths and hear cases en banc (all together), unlike India's division benches.
• Data point: Despite previous expansions, pendency has grown from around 55,000 cases a decade ago to over 93,000 today.
• Common exam angle: Examiners frequently test whether increasing judges requires a constitutional amendment (it does not).
• Easy memory hook: "Article 1-2-4 opens the Supreme Court door" (1 CJI + initially up to 7, expandable by law).

---

❓ Practice MCQs

Q1. What is the newly sanctioned total strength of the Supreme Court of India, including the Chief Justice, following the May 2026 ordinance?

A) 33

B) 34

C) 37

D) 38

Answer: D

Explanation: The ordinance increased the number of judges from 34 to 38, which comprises the Chief Justice of India and 37 other judges.

Q2. Under which Article of the Constitution did the President promulgate the ordinance to increase the number of Supreme Court judges?

A) Article 123

B) Article 124

C) Article 143

D) Article 213

Answer: A

Explanation: Article 123 grants the President of India the power to promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session.

Q3. Which specific law is amended to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court?

A) The Constitution of India (Amendment) Act

B) The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956

C) The Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014

D) The Representation of the People Act, 1951

Answer: B

Explanation: The numerical strength of the court is governed by Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, which requires a simple amendment.

Q4. What was the maximum number of judges (excluding the Chief Justice) prescribed originally by the Constitution of India in 1950?

A) 5

B) 7

C) 10

D) 12

Answer: B

Explanation: Article 124(1) originally stated that the Supreme Court would consist of a Chief Justice and "not more than seven other Judges" until Parliament prescribed otherwise.

Q5. According to the Constitution, an ordinance promulgated by the President ceases to operate how long after the reassembly of Parliament?

A) 14 days

B) 4 weeks

C) 6 weeks

D) 6 months

Answer: C

Explanation: Article 123 mandates that an ordinance must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of its reassembly, failing which it lapses.

Q6. Which of the following bodies gave the prior approval for the promulgation of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026?

A) The Supreme Court Collegium

B) The Union Cabinet

C) The Law Commission of India

D) The Bar Council of India

Answer: B

Explanation: The Union Cabinet approved the proposal to increase the judicial strength before the President promulgated the ordinance.

Q7. How is the strength of the Supreme Court of India legally increased?

A) By a Constitutional Amendment under Article 368

B) By a resolution passed by the Supreme Court Collegium

C) By an ordinary law passed by Parliament

D) By an executive order of the Ministry of Law and Justice

Answer: C

Explanation: Article 124(1) explicitly allows Parliament to increase the number of judges by law, meaning an ordinary legislative act is sufficient without amending the Constitution.

Q8. If the Parliament does not pass a resolution approving the 2026 ordinance, what is the maximum potential lifespan of the ordinance assuming a maximum gap between two parliamentary sessions?

A) 6 weeks

B) 6 months

C) 6 months and 6 weeks

D) 1 year

Answer: C

Explanation: The maximum gap between two sessions of Parliament is six months, and the ordinance lasts for six weeks after reassembly, making the maximum lifespan six months and six weeks.

---

📜 Previous Year Question Style (PYQ)

PYQ 1:

Who among the following holds the authority to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India?

A) The President of India

B) The Chief Justice of India

C) The Parliament of India

D) The Law Commission of India

Answer: C

Explanation: Article 124(1) vests the power to prescribe a larger number of judges exclusively in the Parliament by law.

PYQ 2:

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court of India:

1. The original Constitution fixed the maximum strength of the Supreme Court at 8, including the Chief Justice of India.
2. A Constitutional Amendment Act passed with a special majority is required to increase the number of Supreme Court judges.
3. The United States Supreme Court has a permanently higher number of sitting judges than the Indian Supreme Court.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

A) 1 only

B) 1 and 2 only

C) 2 and 3 only

D) 1, 2, and 3

Answer: A

Explanation: Statement 1 is correct (1 CJI + 7 judges). Statement 2 is incorrect as it only requires an ordinary law. Statement 3 is incorrect because the US Supreme Court has only 9 judges, much lower than India.

PYQ 3:

Assertion (A): The President of India can increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court by promulgating an ordinance when Parliament is not in session.

Reason (R): The Constitution mandates that the strength of the Supreme Court can only be altered through an amendment under Article 368.

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 a correct explanation of A

C) A is true but R is false

D) A is false but R is true

Answer: C

Explanation: The Assertion is true as seen in the 2026 event under Article 123. The Reason is false because increasing judges does not require a constitutional amendment under Article 368; ordinary law suffices.

---

✍️ Mains Answer Pointers

Question 1 (150 words): Discuss the constitutional provisions that govern the expansion of the Supreme Court's judicial strength. Why was the ordinance route chosen in 2026?

• Introduction: Briefly define Article 124(1) and the recent 2026 ordinance increasing the SC strength to 38.
• Body Point 1: [Constitutional Authority] Highlight that Parliament has the power to increase judges via ordinary law under the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
• Body Point 2: [Ordinance Route] Explain Article 123. The ordinance route was chosen because Parliament was not in session and immediate intervention was needed.
• Body Point 3: [The Pendency Crisis] Connect the urgency to the massive backlog of over 93,000 cases caused by post-pandemic e-filing surges.
• Conclusion: Conclude that while expanding the bench is a necessary stop-gap, long-term case management reforms are essential.
• Data/Diagram to include: Mention the specific jump from 34 to 38 and the 93,000 case backlog.

Question 2 (250 words): "Merely increasing the number of judges is an administrative band-aid, not a systemic cure for the Indian judiciary's pendency crisis." Analyze this statement in the context of the recent ordinance expanding the Supreme Court's strength.

• Introduction: Introduce the recent expansion from 34 to 38 judges and state that despite continuous expansions since 1950, pendency has only grown.
• Body Point 1: [Historical Pattern] Trace the expansions (1956, 1986, 2019, 2026) and correlate them with concurrently rising backlogs.
• Body Point 2: [Systemic Bottlenecks] Discuss the root causes of pendency: frequent adjournments, massive inflow of Special Leave Petitions (Article 136), and government litigation.
• Body Point 3: [Quality vs Quantity] Argue that more judges mean more division benches, which can lead to conflicting judgments and larger constitution benches to resolve them.
• Body Point 4: [Technological Dimension] Note how e-filing increased case intake, showing that technology without process reform worsens bottlenecks.
• Body Point 5: [International Comparison] Compare with the US (9 judges) or UK (12 judges) which restrict case intake to only matters of deep constitutional importance.
• Body Point 6: [Reforms Needed] Suggest establishing a National Court of Appeal or enforcing strict penalties for frivolous litigation.
• Conclusion: Conclude that judicial capacity must be paired with rigorous case-management protocols and infrastructural upgrades to truly deliver speedy justice.
• Data/Diagram to include: A small flowchart showing: High Intake (Art 136) -> Low Disposal Rate -> Expanding Judges -> Conflicting Judgments -> More Appeals.

---

⚠️ Examiner Trap

• Trap 1: Students often confuse the process of increasing Supreme Court judges with a Constitutional Amendment. The correct fact is it requires only an ordinary legislative Act by Parliament.
• Trap 2: A common wrong assumption is that the sanctioned strength number excludes the Chief Justice of India by default. The reality is recent figures (like 34 and 38) typically represent the total strength including the CJI. Always read carefully whether a question specifies "excluding CJI".
• Trap 3: Many students miss the exact timeline of an ordinance lapsing when answering questions. Always remember an ordinance lapses six weeks after the reassembly of Parliament, not six weeks from the date of promulgation.

---

🧭 Exam Tip

For Prelims, examiners love testing the exact wording of Article 124(1) and the maximum lifespan of an ordinance (6 months + 6 weeks). Be crystal clear on the numbers (38 total judges). For Mains, expect questions linking judicial pendency with the right to speedy justice under Article 21, challenging the effectiveness of merely adding judges. In Interviews, be prepared to defend or critique the National Court of Appeal concept. Prediction: A direct MCQ on the exact current sanctioned strength of the SC is highly probable in upcoming State PSCs and SSC CGL exams.