Ordinance to up SC judges from 33 to 37 promulgated

The President promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, notified in the Gazette of India on May 16, 2026. The ordinance ame...

What Happened

The President promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, notified in the Gazette of India on May 16, 2026.
The ordinance amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 by substituting "thirty-three" with "thirty-seven" — raising the sanctioned strength of puisne judges from 33 to 37.
Total judicial strength of the Supreme Court now stands at 38 (37 puisne judges + 1 Chief Justice of India).
The move is aimed at addressing the Supreme Court's mounting case backlog, which stands at approximately 95,000 pending cases.
The Union Cabinet had cleared a corresponding bill on May 5, 2026; the ordinance was promulgated because Parliament was not in session. The bill is to be placed before Parliament in the upcoming monsoon session.

Static Topic Bridges

Article 123 — President's Ordinance-Making Power

Article 123 of the Constitution empowers the President to promulgate ordinances when Parliament (or at least one House) is not in session and the President is satisfied that circumstances exist which render immediate action necessary. An ordinance has the same force as an act of Parliament, but it is a temporary measure — it must be laid before both Houses upon reassembly and ceases to operate six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless approved by a resolution. Notably, the six-week clock starts from the later date if the two Houses reassemble on different dates.

Ordinance-making power is co-extensive with Parliament's legislative competence — the President cannot ordinance on matters beyond Parliament's domain.
An ordinance cannot be used to amend the Constitution; it cannot abridge Fundamental Rights (limited by Article 13).
Re-promulgation of ordinances was declared unconstitutional by a seven-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) — calling it "fraud on the Constitution."
The parallel power for state governors is under Article 213.
The Supreme Court can examine whether the President's satisfaction was mala fide (held in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 1987).

Connection to this news: Parliament was not in session when urgency arose to add judges; the President therefore exercised ordinance power under Article 123, amending the 1956 Act. A replacement bill is constitutionally mandatory within six weeks of Parliament's reassembly.

Article 124 — Establishment and Constitution of the Supreme Court

Article 124(1) of the Constitution provides that there shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and such number of other judges as Parliament may by law prescribe. This means the sanctioned strength of the Court is not fixed in the Constitution itself — it is left to Parliament (or, via ordinance, the President) to determine by ordinary legislation.

Original Constitution (1950): sanctioned strength was 8 (CJI + 7).
Progressive increases: 11 (1956 Act), 14, 18, 26, and 31 over the decades — now 38 with this ordinance.
Article 124(2): Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President after consultation with such judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts as the President may deem necessary — the basis on which the Collegium system evolved.
Article 124(3): Qualifications for appointment (must be citizen of India; and either an HC judge for 5 years, or advocate of HC for 10 years, or a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion).
Article 124(4): Removal only by an address of both Houses of Parliament (special majority) on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity — the impeachment process.

Connection to this news: The ordinance directly amends the 1956 statute made under Article 124(1). The number 38 is not in the Constitution — it is now in the amended Act.

Collegium System and Judicial Appointments

The Collegium system — India's mechanism for appointing and transferring superior court judges — evolved through judicial interpretation rather than a constitutional text. The three "Judges Cases" (1981, 1993, 1998) progressively transferred primacy in appointments from the executive to a collegium of senior judges. The 1993 second Judges Case established that the Chief Justice of India's recommendation, made in consultation with the two senior-most judges, is binding on the executive.

The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), created by the 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014) and the NJAC Act, sought to replace the collegium with a six-member body including the Law Minister and two eminent persons.
The Supreme Court struck down the NJAC in Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) as violating the basic structure doctrine (judicial independence).
Article 124A (inserted by the 99th Amendment) is now effectively dormant following this ruling.
Vacancies remain a chronic problem: as of 2024, High Courts had ~30% of seats vacant, contributing directly to pendency.

Connection to this news: Increasing sanctioned strength is necessary but not sufficient — actual strength depends on vacancies being filled through the collegium process. The ordinance adds 4 sanctioned posts; filling them requires collegium recommendations and presidential appointment.

Judicial Pendency Crisis

India faces one of the world's largest judicial backlogs. The Supreme Court alone has approximately 95,000 pending cases; District Courts hold over 4 crore pending cases nationally. Pendency arises from a combination of judge vacancies, infrastructure shortfalls, high litigation rates, and procedural delays.

India has roughly 21 judges per 10 lakh population — far below the Law Commission's recommendation of 50 per 10 lakh (14th Law Commission Report, 1958).
The Supreme Court currently operates multiple benches simultaneously (Constitution benches, regular benches, vacation benches) to manage load.
Increasing bench strength enables formation of additional benches across constitutional, civil, and criminal jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 is the primary statute governing sanctioned strength.

Connection to this news: The stated rationale for this ordinance is directly the pendency crisis at the apex court level — 4 additional judges can constitute 2 additional benches, significantly increasing hearing capacity.

Key Facts & Data

Ordinance: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 — gazetted May 16, 2026.
Amendment to: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
Change: Sanctioned puisne judges: 33 → 37; Total (including CJI): 34 → 38.
Constitutional authority: Article 123 (President's ordinance power).
Constitutional basis for judge strength: Article 124(1) — "as Parliament may by law prescribe."
Pending cases (Supreme Court): ~95,000 as of May 2026.
Original (1950) Supreme Court strength: 8 judges (CJI + 7).
Re-promulgation bar: Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) — seven-judge bench.
NJAC struck down: SC Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — 99th Amendment declared unconstitutional.
Replacement bill: To be introduced in the Monsoon Session, 2026.