Cabinet Approves Proposal to Increase Supreme Court Judge Strength

General Studies Paper II: Judiciary, Government Policies & Interventions

Why in News?

Recently, the Union Cabinet approved the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 to raise judge strength from 34 to 37, aiming to reduce pendency and ensure faster justice delivery.

Highlights of Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026

Statutory Framework: The bill seeks to amend Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, which is the primary statute governing the size of the Supreme Court bench.
Sanctioned Strength Increase: The primary provision of the bill is to increase the number of Supreme Court judges by 4, raising the sanctioned strength from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Total Judicial Capacity: Including the Chief Justice of India, the total sanctioned strength of the apex court will rise to 38 judges.
- This is the first increase in judge strength since 2019, when the number was raised from 31 to 34 (including the CJI).
Financial Allocations: All expenditures related to the additional judges, including salaries, supporting staff, and infrastructure, will be charged to the Consolidated Fund of India.
Implementation: Following Cabinet approval, the bill is slated for introduction in the Monsoon Session of Parliament in mid-2026.
- Once passed, the Supreme Court Collegium will recommend names for the four newly created positions.

Constitutional Framework Governing Supreme Court Judge Strength

Parliamentary Authority: Under Article 124(1), the Constitution established the Court with 8 judges in 1950, while explicitly granting Parliament the exclusive power to increase this limit by law.
- This allows for statutory updates like the 2026 increase without needing a formal Constitutional Amendment.
Legislative Subject: Entry 77 of the Union List (List I) in the Seventh Schedule, read with Article 246, empowers Parliament to make laws regarding the “constitution and organisation” of the Supreme Court, which encompasses the determination of the total number of serving judges.
Appointment Process: Once new positions are legislated, Article 124(2) mandates that every judge be appointed by the President of India. This process follows the Collegium System (based on the Third Judges Case, 1998) to recommend candidates for the 37 newly sanctioned puisne seats.
Administrative Expenditures: Article 146(3) stipulates that the administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, including all salaries and allowances for the increased strength, are charged to the Consolidated Fund of India.
Ad Hoc Appointments: To manage quorums during the expansion transition, Article 127 allows the Chief Justice of India, with the President’s consent, to appoint High Court judges as ad hoc judges if the current strength falls short of the required sessions.
Retired Judicial Aid: Article 128 provides a secondary mechanism to increase effective strength by allowing the CJI to request retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts to sit and act as judges.
Quorum Regulation: Article 145(3) is critical for bench formation after a strength increase, mandating that cases involving substantial questions of law as to constitutional interpretation be heard by a bench of at least five judges.

Rationale Behind Increasing Judicial Capacity

Mounting Case Backlog: As of late 2025, India faces a staggering 53 million pending cases across all court levels.
- In the Supreme Court alone, pendency reached a record 93,000 cases by March 2026, marking a 30% increase over the last four years.
Low Judge-to-Population Ratio: India currently operates with only 21 to 22 judges per million people, significantly lower than the 50 per million recommended by the Law Commission in 1987.
- This disparity is stark compared to the US, which maintains 150 judges per million.
Severe Vacancy Rates: Systemic delays are exacerbated by a 33% vacancy rate in High Courts and over 5,600 unfilled posts in the subordinate judiciary as of 2025.
- These vacancies force existing judges to handle an unmanageable average of 2,200 matters per officer in district courts.
Economic Growth Impact: Judicial delays are estimated to cost India approximately 1.5% to 2% of its annual GDP.
- Each additional month of average disposal time is linked to a reduction in GDP growth by roughly 1.31 percentage points due to stalled projects and capital lockups.
Contract Enforcement Crisis Inefficiency in commercial adjudication has left India ranked 163rd globally in enforcing contracts, with standard disputes taking nearly 1,500 days to resolve. This hinders investor confidence and the success of “Make in India” initiatives.
Human Rights and Undertrials: Under-capacity leads to a humanitarian crisis where 76% of India’s prison population consists of undertrials, many of whom remain incarcerated without conviction longer than their potential sentences.
Massive Government Litigation: The government is the largest litigant, responsible for nearly 50% of all pending cases.
- Increasing capacity is essential to handle this volume of specialized regulatory and administrative litigation without paralyzing the regular civil and criminal justice streams.
Constitutional Mandate Fulfillment: Timely justice is a fundamental right under Article 21. Increased capacity is essential to ensure that constitutionally mandated rights are not violated by multi-decade delays in courts.7.
Modernization & Digital Transition: Upgrading infrastructure to support e-Courts, video conferencing, and digital case management systems requires increased, well-equipped personnel.
- Proper capacity expansion facilitates the transition from manual, slow paper-based systems to, efficient, tech-driven justice delivery

Strengthening India’s Judicial System Through Comprehensive Reforms

Digital Transformation Strategy: The e-Courts Project Phase III, launched with an outlay of ₹7,210 crore, marks a shift toward a paperless ecosystem.
- By May 2026, the judiciary has digitized over 637 crore pages of records, while 29 virtual courts have successfully adjudicated over 8.9 crore cases, realizing fines exceeding ₹895 crore through streamlined, technology-driven processes.
Infrastructure Modernization: Under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, cumulative funding has crossed ₹12,000 crore as of late 2025.
- This investment expanded court halls from 15,818 in 2014 to over 22,372 by 2025, providing essential facilities like digital computer rooms and solar power in 1,471 court complexes.
Alternative Dispute Expansion: The Mediation Act 2023 and frequent National Lok Adalats have created a vital pressure valve for the 5.6 crore pending cases.
- In single-day sessions, Lok Adalats have settled nearly 12.76 lakh disputes, providing a faster, non-adversarial mechanism that bypasses years of formal litigation for motor accident and utility claims.
Specialized Case Fast-Tracking: The Fast Track Special Courts (FTSC) scheme, extended to March 2026, operates 774 dedicated courts, including 398 exclusive POCSO courts.
- These specialized bodies maintain a higher disposal rate of 7.41 cases monthly compared to 3.18 in regular courts, ensuring swift justice for heinous crimes and vulnerable groups.
Data-Driven Accountability Systems: The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) provides real-time monitoring of pendency and disposal rates across 18,000+ courts.
- Combined with Justice Clocks installed in 37 High Courts, these analytics-led tools enhance transparency and allow for better resource allocation.