President Approves Increase in Sanctioned Strength of Judges in SC

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• President approved an increase in the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India, through the promulgation of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026.
  • The proposal will be implemented through an amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 in the upcoming session of Parliament.

Constitutional Provisions

• Article 124(1) of the Constitution empowers Parliament to determine and increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court.
• The Constitution originally provided for a Chief Justice of India and not more than seven judges, thereby allowing flexibility for future expansion.
• This constitutional design reflects the need to adapt judicial capacity to changing socio-economic and legal demands.

Evolution of Supreme Court Strength

• The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 initially fixed the strength at 10 judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India.
• The strength was increased to 13 judges through the 1960 amendment and 17 through the 1977 amendment. 
• The strength was increased through subsequent amendments and was last increased to 33 (excluding the Chief Justice of India) by 2019 amendment.

Rationale for Increasing Strength

• Rising Pendency of Cases: The Supreme Court is currently dealing with more than 92,000 pending cases, indicating a significant backlog.
  • The introduction of e-filing and digital mechanisms after the pandemic has increased the inflow of cases.
• Judicial Vacancies and Retirements: Existing vacancies in the Supreme Court have reduced the effective working strength of judges.
  • Several judges are scheduled to retire in 2026, which will further strain judicial capacity if not addressed.
• Expanding Jurisdiction and Workload: The Supreme Court deals with constitutional matters, appellate jurisdiction, and public interest litigations.
  • The increasing complexity of governance and legal disputes has significantly expanded the Court’s workload.
• Reform Drive: The need to increase judicial strength has been emphasised by the Law Commission (120th and 245th Reports) and reinforced by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges Association vs Union of India which recommended higher judge-to-population ratios.

What are the Concerns?

• Increasing No. of Judges is not Sufficient: Increasing the number of judges alone may not be sufficient to address the problem of pendency.
• Structural Constraints: Structural constraints such as limited courtroom infrastructure and administrative capacity continue to affect efficiency.
• Case Management Issues: Procedural delays, including frequent adjournments, contribute significantly to case backlog.
• Centralisation of Cases: The large number of appeals reaching the Supreme Court diverts its focus from core constitutional functions.

Way Ahead

• Strengthening case management systems through the use of technology can improve efficiency in case disposal.
• Promoting Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration can reduce the burden on courts.
• Rationalising the inflow of cases, especially Special Leave Petitions, can help the Supreme Court focus on constitutional issues.
• Enhancing the capacity of the lower judiciary and High Courts is essential to address pendency at all levels.

Source: AIR