Increasing Supreme Court strength: more judges need better judicial process
- The Lok Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the sanctioned strength from 34 to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
- The Bill replaced an ordinance and was passed by voice vote without discussion amid Opposition protests.
- The government's stated objective is to address mounting pendency.
- Article 124 establishes the Supreme Court and allows Parliament to prescribe the number of judges by law.
- The sanctioned strength is different from the working strength; vacancies can persist even after Parliament creates posts.
- Article 145 allows the Court to frame rules regarding practice and procedure, while constitutional cases require benches of at least five judges.
- Additional judges help only if appointments are timely and supporting registries, courtrooms, research staff and digital systems expand with them.
- Repeated adjournments, government litigation, fragmented hearings and weak case management generate pendency independent of judge strength.
- A larger court may increase the number of benches and inconsistent rulings unless important questions are referred efficiently to larger benches.
- Passing an institutional reform without debate weakens legislative scrutiny of cost, infrastructure, appointment timelines and expected impact.
- Fill vacancies against a published calendar and disclose average appointment time.
- Use differentiated case management, strict adjournment rules and pre-hearing issue framing.
- Strengthen research assistance and authoritative precedent tracking.
- Reduce avoidable government appeals through departmental litigation accountability.
- Consider a more stable constitutional-division arrangement for cases involving substantial questions of constitutional law.
GyanGram