Parliament Monsoon Session 2026 Day 10 LIVE: Bill to increase Supreme Court judges likely to be discussed in Lok Sabha today
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 was listed for discussion in the Lok Sabha on Day 10 of Parliament's Monsoon Session, 2026.
The Bill seeks to raise the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges (excluding the Chief Justice of India) from 33 to 37, taking the Court's total sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges.
The Bill is intended to replace the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, which had already raised the sanctioned strength on an interim basis before Parliament reconvened.
The Ordinance route was used because the increase was considered urgent while Parliament was not in session; the Bill now seeks Parliament's approval to make the change permanent.
Article 124(1) — Constitutional Basis for Supreme Court Strength
Article 124(1) establishes the Supreme Court of India, consisting of the Chief Justice of India and, "until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number," not more than seven other judges. This drafting choice means the Constitution itself fixes only a floor (CJI + 7), while the actual working strength is left to ordinary parliamentary legislation — making it one of the few core features of the highest judiciary that can be altered by a simple Act of Parliament rather than a constitutional amendment.
Key Details
- Sanctioned strength is fixed through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, amended periodically by Parliament
- Progression of sanctioned strength: 8 judges (1950, original) → 14 (1960) → 18 (1978) → 26 (1986) → 31 (2009) → 34 (2019)
- The 2026 Amendment Bill proposes raising this to 38 (37 judges + CJI)
- Because Article 124(1) itself contemplates a "larger number" fixed by ordinary law, such increases require only a simple majority, not a special majority under Article 368
The Bill being debated is the latest instance of Parliament exercising this ordinary law-making power under Article 124(1) to expand the Court beyond its 2019-fixed strength of 34.
Article 123 — Ordinance Route Preceding the Bill
Article 123 empowers the President to promulgate an Ordinance when either House of Parliament is not in session and immediate action is considered necessary. An Ordinance has the same force as an Act of Parliament but is temporary — it must be laid before both Houses on reassembly and ceases to operate six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless replaced by an Act or disapproved earlier by resolutions of both Houses.
Key Details
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 was promulgated in mid-2026, before the Monsoon Session began, to increase the sanctioned strength on an interim footing
- An Ordinance automatically lapses six weeks after Parliament's reassembly unless Parliament enacts a corresponding Bill before that deadline
- If an Ordinance provision is something Parliament itself would be constitutionally incompetent to enact, the Ordinance is void to that extent
- This is a distinct mechanism from a Money Bill or Ordinary Bill introduced directly in a sitting House
The Bill under debate is the parliamentary Act meant to replace and permanently ratify the interim Ordinance before the six-week lapse period runs out, illustrating the constitutional relationship between Articles 123 and the ordinary legislative process.
Rationale — Judicial Pendency and Judge-Strength Ratios
UPSC frequently tests the policy rationale behind institutional expansion, distinct from the legal mechanism itself. The recurring justification for raising Supreme Court strength is rising case pendency relative to sanctioned judicial capacity.
Key Details
- Supreme Court pendency has been on a rising trend through the 2020s, crossing roughly 90,000-plus pending cases by 2026
- The Law Commission of India's 120th Report (1987) recommended a target judge-to-population ratio; India's actual ratio across all courts remains well below internationally referenced benchmarks
- Vacancies frequently run ahead of appointments — working strength has, at various points, trailed sanctioned strength even before an increase is enacted
- Comparable expansions have also occurred at the High Court level under Article 216, which similarly leaves High Court strength to be fixed "from time to time" by the President rather than a rigid constitutional number
The Bill's stated purpose is to align sanctioned capacity with the Supreme Court's actual caseload, continuing the historical pattern in which every increase in judge strength (1960, 1978, 1986, 2009, 2019, and now 2026) has followed a period of rising pendency.
- Proposed sanctioned strength: 33 to 37 judges excluding CJI (34 to 38 including CJI)
- Current strength prior to the Bill (post-2019 amendment): 34 judges including CJI
- Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026: promulgated ahead of the Monsoon Session to raise strength on an interim basis
- Article 123 Ordinance validity: lapses six weeks from Parliament's reassembly unless replaced by an Act
- Historical sanctioned-strength milestones: 8 (1950) → 14 (1960) → 18 (1978) → 26 (1986) → 31 (2009) → 34 (2019) → 38 (proposed, 2026)
- Law Commission's 120th Report: recommended a higher judge-to-population ratio as the policy basis for periodic strength increases