Cabinet approves four more judges for Supreme Court

The Union Cabinet approved a proposal to introduce legislation in Parliament to increase the Supreme Court's sanctioned judge strength from 34 to 38 — an add...

What Happened

The Union Cabinet approved a proposal to introduce legislation in Parliament to increase the Supreme Court's sanctioned judge strength from 34 to 38 — an addition of four judges.
The move is explicitly aimed at addressing the "continuing crisis of pendency" in the Supreme Court, which recorded over 92,800 pending cases as of January 2026, its highest-ever backlog.
The amendment will be effected through The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, which amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 — the parent statute that Parliament uses to set the court's size under the authority of Article 124(1) of the Constitution.
This is the seventh amendment to the 1956 Act; the most recent prior increase was in 2019, when the strength was raised from 31 to 34.
Additional bench capacity will enable the court to constitute more simultaneous division benches, directly expanding its daily case-disposal throughput.

Static Topic Bridges

Judicial Pendency in India: Causes, Scale, and Constitutional Stakes

Pendency — the accumulation of undecided cases in the judicial system — is one of India's most persistent governance challenges. It has multiple structural causes: a low judge-to-population ratio, high government litigation, delays in filling vacancies, and the absence of robust alternative dispute resolution infrastructure. At the Supreme Court level, pendency has grown year-on-year despite periodic expansions, because new filings consistently outpace disposals.

Supreme Court pendency (January 2026): 92,828 cases — all-time high
Supreme Court pendency (November 2025): 90,694 cases
Total judicial backlog across all courts (March 2026): over 55.8 million cases
District courts account for 85%+ of total pendency (49 million+ cases)
India's judge-to-population ratio: ~15 per million (vs. 150 per million in USA)
Over 1.8 lakh cases in district/high courts pending for more than 30 years
The Government of India (central + state) is the largest litigant — approximately 50% of pending cases

Connection to this news: The expansion from 34 to 38 judges is the central government's legislative response to the pendency crisis. More judges allow more benches to sit simultaneously, increasing the number of cases listed and disposed per working day.

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956: Purpose and Amendment Mechanism

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 is the statutory instrument through which Parliament exercises its power under Article 124(1) of the Constitution to prescribe the court's size. The Act is a two-section statute: Section 2 states the maximum number of judges (other than the Chief Justice). Parliament amends Section 2 whenever an expansion is warranted. Crucially, this is ordinary legislation — no constitutional amendment is required.

The Act was enacted after the Constituent Assembly's original provision of seven other judges proved inadequate within a few years
Amendment history: 11 (1956) → 14 (1960) → 18 (1978) → 26 (1986) → 31 (2009) → 34 (2019) → 38 (proposed 2026, excluding CJI for all except first figure)
Each amendment requires a simple majority in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha — not a special majority or constitutional amendment under Article 368
Presidential assent is required after both Houses pass the bill
The 2019 amendment was passed within two days of introduction following a recommendation from then-CJI Ranjan Gogoi

Connection to this news: The 2026 Amendment Bill is the latest in this series of ordinary legislative corrections, directly triggered by the pendency crisis and enabled by Parliament's delegated power under Article 124(1).

Article 124: The Constitutional Architecture of the Supreme Court

Article 124 of the Constitution is the foundational provision governing the establishment, composition, and appointment of judges of the Supreme Court. Its deliberate open-endedness on judge numbers reflects the Constituent Assembly's pragmatic foresight — recognizing that a growing nation's judicial needs could not be fixed in stone.

Article 124(1): SC shall consist of CJI and "such number of other judges as Parliament may by law prescribe"
Article 124(2): Judges appointed by President on the recommendation of the collegium; High Court judges also consulted
Article 124(3): Eligibility — citizen of India, served as HC judge for 5 years or advocate for 10 years, or distinguished jurist
Article 124(4): Removal of a SC judge — only by Presidential order, on an address by both Houses with a special majority (2/3 of members present and voting AND majority of total membership of each House)
Article 124(5): Parliament may regulate the procedure for removal (Judges Inquiry Act, 1968)
Judges hold office until the age of 65

Connection to this news: The entire legislative initiative — Cabinet approval, Parliament bill, Presidential assent — flows from the authority Parliament holds under Article 124(1) to prescribe the court's size. The substantive decision to appoint the four new judges will then operate under Article 124(2) through the collegium.

Landmark Cases on Judicial Independence and Composition

Several Supreme Court judgments have shaped the understanding of the court's independence and the limits of executive control over its composition. These are high-yield topics for UPSC Mains GS Paper 2 and Essay.

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (First Judges Case, 1981): "consultation" ≠ "concurrence"; executive had primacy in judicial appointments
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Second Judges Case, 1993): overruled First Judges Case; CJI's recommendation is binding; collegium system born
In re: Special Reference 1 of 1998 (Third Judges Case): collegium expanded to CJI + 4 senior judges
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (Fourth Judges Case / NJAC, 2015): 99th Constitutional Amendment struck down; National Judicial Appointments Commission declared unconstitutional; collegium system reaffirmed as safeguard of judicial independence
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): right to speedy trial held to be part of Article 21 (Right to Life)

Connection to this news: While the bill increases the court's sanctioned strength, filling the four new posts will go through the collegium process reaffirmed in the NJAC case — keeping the executive at arm's length from the selection of individual judges.

Key Facts & Data

Bill: The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026
Act being amended: The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956
Constitutional authority: Article 124(1), Constitution of India
Current sanctioned bench strength: 34 (CJI + 33)
Proposed bench strength: 38 (CJI + 37)
Majority required: Simple majority in both Houses (ordinary legislation)
SC pending cases (January 2026): 92,828 — all-time high
India's total judicial backlog (March 2026): 55.8 million+ cases
Previous amendment to the 1956 Act: 2019 (31 → 34)
Number of amendments to the 1956 Act including the 2026 bill: 7
Landmark pendency case: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), Article 21
Landmark appointment cases: Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998); NJAC Case (2015)
Judges' retirement age: 65 years (Article 124(2))