Cabinet clears bill to add four SC judges

The sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is set to rise from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India.

What happened

• The Union Cabinet approved the introduction in Parliament of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026.
• The Bill amends the parent Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, the law that fixes how many judges the apex court may have.
• It raises the sanctioned strength of judges by four, from 33 to 37 — a figure that is counted excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
• Including the CJI, the full working strength of the Court therefore moves towards 38 once the Bill is enacted and the new posts are filled.
• The expenditure on the additional judges — salaries, allowances and pensions — is to be met from the Consolidated Fund of India.
• As a money-and-establishment measure tied to the judiciary, the Bill is an ordinary piece of legislation that Parliament passes by simple majority; it does not require a constitutional amendment.

Background & context

The number of judges who sit on the Supreme Court is not frozen in the Constitution. Article 124(1) establishes a Supreme Court consisting of a Chief Justice of India and — until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number — not more than seven other judges. The framers deliberately set only a floor (a CJI plus seven) and left the ceiling to be raised by ordinary law as the Court's workload grew. The instrument Parliament uses for that purpose is the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, and every subsequent increase has been carried out by amending that single Act rather than by touching the Constitution.

That design has produced a steady, demand-driven climb in the sanctioned bench over seven decades. When the 1956 Act was first passed it fixed the number of puisne (other) judges at 10. It was raised to 13 in 1960, to 17 in 1977, to 25 in 1986, to 30 in 2008, and to 33 in 2019 — each step a response to a swelling docket of pending appeals and constitutional matters. The 2026 Bill is the latest link in that chain, taking the figure to 37. In every one of these counts, the stated number refers to the puisne judges and is read excluding the CJI, so the Court's total ceiling is always the cited number plus one.

The driver behind each enlargement is the same structural problem: the Supreme Court is simultaneously the country's final court of appeal and its principal constitutional court, and the volume of cases reaching it has consistently outpaced the number of judges available to hear them. Adding judges allows more benches to sit in parallel, lets the Court constitute larger Constitution Benches without paralysing routine work, and is the only lever — short of structural reform such as regional benches or a national court of appeal — that the Union government can pull quickly through Parliament.

This Bill should be distinguished from the parallel arrangements for the High Courts, since the two are frequently confused in objective questions. The strength of each High Court is not fixed by a single all-India statute; instead, the number of judges in a High Court is determined by the President from time to time under Article 216 of the Constitution, which provides that every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may appoint. The apex court is the only court whose sanctioned number is set by a dedicated central Act — the 1956 Act now being amended — and that is precisely why an increase requires a Bill in Parliament rather than a mere executive order. The administering authority for the change is therefore the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice), which pilots the Bill, while the appointments that follow are made by the President on the recommendation of the Collegium.

The regulatory chain for this measure runs in a clear sequence: the Cabinet approves the Bill (the step taken here) → the Bill is introduced and passed by both Houses of Parliament by simple majority → it receives the President's assent and becomes an Act amending the 1956 statute → the higher sanctioned strength then exists on paper → and only thereafter can the additional judges be appointed under Article 124(2) through the Collegium and warrants issued by the President. The Cabinet's approval is thus the first link, not the final one; the new seats do not exist as filled posts until each of these later stages is completed.

For Prelims

• Entity: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 — a Cabinet-cleared Bill, not yet an enacted law on the date of approval.
• Amends: the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 — the standing statute that prescribes the sanctioned judge strength.
• Change: puisne judge strength up by 4, from 33 to 37, excluding the CJI; total ceiling effectively 38 with the CJI.
• Constitutional anchor: Article 124(1) — a CJI plus not more than seven other judges until Parliament prescribes a larger number. The power to set the number lies with Parliament, not the executive or the collegium.
• Money: salaries, allowances and pensions of Supreme Court judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India — meaning they are non-votable and not subject to the annual vote of Parliament, a deliberate guarantee of judicial independence.
• Strength history (the full set): 1956 = 10 · 1960 = 13 · 1977 = 17 · 1986 = 25 · 2008 = 30 · 2019 = 33 · 2026 (Bill) = 37 — all figures excluding the CJI.
• Appointment route: judges are appointed by the President under Article 124(2) through the Collegium system; this Bill only changes how many may be appointed, not who appoints.
• Retirement age: a Supreme Court judge holds office until the age of 65 (Article 124(2)); High Court judges retire at 62. The Bill does not alter these ages.

Why it matters

The increase speaks directly to the chronic problem of judicial pendency. The Supreme Court carries a backlog running into tens of thousands of matters, and the gap between cases filed and cases disposed has widened as appeals, special leave petitions and constitutional challenges have multiplied. More sanctioned judges mean more division benches can sit each day and more Constitution Benches can be convened without stalling regular work — the most direct administrative response available to the government.

It also reflects the constitutional choice to keep the apex court's size flexible and statutory rather than rigid. Because the framers left the ceiling to ordinary law, the institution can scale with the country's litigation load without the heavier process of a constitutional amendment. At the same time, the measure highlights the limits of simply adding seats: a larger bench raises questions about consistency of precedent, the difficulty of assembling the full court, and whether deeper reform — regional benches, a separate constitutional court, or filtering of appeals — is the more durable fix. The Bill thus sits at the intersection of judicial efficiency, access to justice, and the independence of the judiciary, the last of which is reinforced by charging judges' emoluments on the Consolidated Fund so they fall outside the annual political vote.

For Mains