INTRODUCTION
Parliament has completed the passage of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The Lok Sabha passed the Bill by voice vote without debate, amid opposition sloganeering over unrelated issues, before the Rajya Sabha completed its passage days later. The legislation replaces an ordinance the government had promulgated in May 2026, and is intended to address a mounting backlog of pending cases before the apex court.
BACKGROUND
Under Article 124 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of India and such a number of judges as Parliament may prescribe by law. Because the number is fixed by ordinary statute, an increase requires only a simple parliamentary majority. The Court’s sanctioned strength has been revised periodically since it began functioning in 1950, having been raised to 31 judges in 2008 and to 34 in 2019.
The government had promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 while Parliament was not in session, immediately increasing the sanctioned strength; five judges were appointed under the revised strength before Parliament reconvened. Since an ordinance must receive parliamentary approval within six weeks of Parliament reassembling, failing which it lapses, the government moved the present Bill to replace it with permanent legislation. The amendment revises the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, substituting the existing strength of 33 judges (excluding the CJI) with 37, taking the total sanctioned strength to 38.
KEY POINTS
- As on 1 January 2026, 92,101 (Ninety two thousand one hundred and one) cases were pending before the Supreme Court; a separate written parliamentary reply by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal put current pendency at over 96,000 cases, including 26 matters unresolved for more than 30 years and 558 pending for over two decades.
- During 2025, the Court received 75,410 fresh matters while disposing of only 65,615, widening the gap between institution and disposal even while operating near its earlier sanctioned strength of 34.
- The Bill’s statement of objects describes the increase as “one of the most exigent and viable solutions” for the backlog, and states it will allow the CJI to constitute Constitution Benches “for a required period of days on a regular basis.”
- As of June 2026, 22 five-judge, five seven-judge and two nine-judge Constitution Bench matters remained undecided, a pendency the government hopes additional judges will help clear.
- The Lok Sabha rejected, by voice vote, a statutory resolution moved by opposition members seeking to disapprove the ordinance, before passing the Bill itself without discussion.
- Piloting the Bill, Meghwal told the House the additional judges would help the Court “function more efficiently and ensure speedier justice.”
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 20 July 2026 and passed it amid continuing disruptions before the House was adjourned for the day. The Rajya Sabha approved it subsequently, completing Parliament’s passage. The government has pointed to data showing disposals outpaced fresh filings in February, April and May 2026, while maintaining that overall pendency continues to rise as more litigants approach the Court. Separately, the 18th Law Commission’s 229th report had recommended establishing a Constitution Bench in Delhi along with regional benches, arguing that appointment delays rather than sanctioned strength have historically driven vacancies and backlog.
CONCLUSION
The amendment looks to tackle the issue of the Supreme Court’s caseload with increased capacity as opposed to increased efficiency, and the almost unanimous, unargued passage of the bill in Parliament is indicative of an agreement about the need for more judges. Whether this move will help reduce the pendency backlog, though, will depend on how quickly vacancies that have been authorized get filled, as there has been a history of the former falling behind the latter, according to the findings of the Law Commission previously.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: DRISHTITA BANIK
