Introduction

• Approval of Strength Expansion: The Union Cabinet approved the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges (including the CJI).
• Backlog and Digital Surge Catalyst: The move addresses a backlog exceeding 92,000 cases and a post-pandemic surge in digital e-filings, ending a six-year hiatus since 2019.
• Parliamentary Mandate and Constitutional Basis: Under Article 124(1), expanding the Supreme Court requires an Act of Parliament, unlike High Courts where the President adjusts strength via executive orders.

Legislative Steps

• Initiation by the CJI: The Chief Justice of India submits a proposal to the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, outlining the necessity for more judges based on rising case backlogs or the demand for additional Constitution Benches.
• Cabinet Review: The Law Ministry consults with the Finance Ministry regarding budgetary implications and submits a draft bill to the Union Cabinet.
• Introduction of the Bill: Upon Cabinet approval, the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill is formally introduced in Parliament.
• Parliamentary Passage: The legislation must be approved by both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha through a simple majority.
• Presidential Assent: Once passed by both Houses, the Bill is sent to the President. Upon receiving assent, it officially becomes an Act, raising the sanctioned strength.
• Implementation and Appointments: Operating on recommendations from the Collegium, the President appoints new judges up to the newly established limit.

Concerns

• Longstanding Vacancy Concerns: Historical expansions have consistently been undermined by persistent judicial vacancies. Simply raising the sanctioned limit accelerates nothing unless the Collegium and the Union government proactively fill empty seats.
• Disregard for Law Commission Recommendations: The Bill overlooks core proposals from the 18th Law Commission’s 229th Report (2009), chaired by Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, which argued that numerical expansion alone cannot fix pendency or access to justice.
• Omission of Regional Benches: The legislation ignores the Law Commission’s specific structural proposal to establish a central Constitution Bench in Delhi alongside four regional Cassation Benches in Chennai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai.
• Unaddressed National Court of Appeal: The legislation fails to resolve ongoing debates highlighted by a 2016 writ petition, which advocates for a National Court of Appeal to overhaul the country’s accessibility and judicial structure.