The Supreme Court (Number Of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026: An Analysis

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance was promulgated by the President of India on 16th May 2026, increasing the total sanctioned strength of the apex court from 33+1 (including the CJI) to 37+1^[1]. This comes at a time when Parliament is just weeks away from its monsoon session. Through this ordinance, Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956^[2], perhaps the shortest piece of legislation in India, stands amended^[3].

This move comes against the backdrop of mounting pendency in the Supreme Court (which, as of the writing of this, stands at 93,554 cases). The last such increase was made through a parliamentary amendment in 2019, after the then CJI, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, formally recommended it, thus raising the bench strength from 30+1 to 33+1^[4].

The 2026 ordinance continues this pattern of periodically expanding the court’s sanctioned strength in response to changing institutional requirements.

The Judges, Bench Strength, And The Question Of Productivity

The sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court has evolved through multiple amendments to the legislation throughout the decades, each driven by what the government, along with the bar and bench, believed was necessary to curb the growing pendency in the apex court. The Constitution of India, through Article 124(1)^[5], fixes the strength of the Supreme Court at the CJI and 7 other puisne judges, leaving it to Parliament to prescribe a larger number when required. Interestingly, until 1956, all 8 judges of the SC sat en banc (together) to hear matters that came before the court.

As the workload increased, Parliament enacted legislation raising the number of puisne judges from 7 to 10, bringing the total bench strength from 8 to 11. With this expansion, separate benches were formed to hear specific cases, enabling faster disposal of matters. The table below illustrates how the sanctioned strength of the apex court has changed over time.

The historical record demonstrates that increases in the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court have occurred at different intervals and under varying circumstances. These amendments have generally been introduced in response to the Court’s changing workload and institutional requirements. The 2026 Ordinance follows this established legislative practice and represents the sixth occasion on which Parliament or the executive, through an ordinance, has expanded the Court’s sanctioned strength since 1956.

The relationship between judicial strength and case disposal continues to be an important area of study within judicial administration. While increases in the number of judges are often associated with efforts to enhance institutional capacity, several factors, including case inflow, procedural requirements, and the nature of litigation, also influence the functioning of the Court.

The issue of judicial strength has been examined by various commissions, committees, and judicial bodies over the years. Discussions have often focused on methods for assessing the appropriate number of judges required to meet the Court’s workload and responsibilities. The 2026 Ordinance forms part of this continuing institutional evolution and reflects the ongoing engagement of the legislature and judiciary with questions relating to judicial capacity.

The first is by comparative analysis. The Indian Supreme Court sits for more days compared to other First World countries’ supreme courts. Even in the neighboring region where the situation of pendency is much alike, our SC has considerably more working days than comparable apex courts.

The second angle is what happens outside courtroom hours. Even during vacations, SC judges remain occupied with administrative work, meetings connected to the various ex officio positions they hold across institutions, writing and finalizing reserved judgments, and fulfilling other judicial obligations. The SC, to address the public perception around vacations, has progressively made vacation benches more active, with senior judges sitting in, departing from the convention of assigning such vacation benches only to junior judges during these periods.

Over the years, the Supreme Court’s Case Clearance Rate has consistently hovered around 90%. This means the Court disposes of nearly as many cases as are filed each year. Yet the pendency is growing day by day. The reasons for this mammoth pendency are beyond the simple arithmetic of the ratio of judges per million people. The system, from within, houses several fault lines that must be looked after to truly transform the nation’s apex court.

A Solution From The High Court

It is important to highlight the method adopted by various High Courts of the country for revising the strength of their bench. For the HC, no centralized or state law exists that facilitates the increase in its required strength. Article 216 of the Constitution vests this power with the President^[9]. The increase in such cases happens after a periodic assessment due in uniform intervals of time.

This mechanism allows for assessing and proactively increasing the sanctioned strength through an ex-ante approach, which would help later to curb the increasing pendency or workload. This idea was also suggested by the 14^th Law Commission of India Report (1958).^[10]Such a mechanism can also be adopted by the apex court. Instead of multiple irregular amendments in the legislation, one system, through another legislation to be enacted by Parliament, mandating such revisions periodically without causing much delay, could ensure a better response to this problem.

As we say for health, “Prevention is always better than Cure”, similarly, here anticipation of a storm must be given primacy over waiting and then reacting towards it.

Suggestions

Here, two things can be done. First, the law can statutorily stipulate that if the Supreme Court’s pending caseload objectively exceeds a predefined, highly critical limit (for example, 20,000 pending cases) for two or three consecutive, full calendar years, the officially sanctioned strength of the Court will automatically increase by a predefined increment in percentage terms. Through this, there would be no need to take the executive into confidence as the statutory threshold mandates such an increment, and at the same time, if pendency remains in control, the status quo would be maintained.

Alternatively, on similar lines to the HC, periodic review can be mandated to assess the overall needs of the court. This could be done by taking representatives across the board into confidence, the CJI from the bench, the Attorney General of India from the bar, and other distinguished legal luminaries from the general public, who can consultatively decide on such reforms. Though this too can be termed as much nearer to an ex-post approach, it still provides a better mechanism than the current one.

The Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction And Workload

The workload of the Supreme Court of India is influenced by the broad jurisdiction vested in it under the Constitution and various statutes. Unlike the apex courts of certain jurisdictions, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the Indian Supreme Court performs a wide range of functions extending beyond constitutional adjudication. In addition to deciding substantial questions of constitutional law, the Court hears civil and criminal appeals from High Courts, challenges arising from specialized tribunals, petitions under its writ jurisdiction, public interest litigations, and matters brought before it through its special leave jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s role as both a constitutional court and the final appellate court contributes significantly to the volume and diversity of cases that come before it. Matters ranging from personal liberty and criminal appeals to commercial disputes, service matters, taxation, and constitutional challenges are routinely heard by the court. This broad jurisdiction distinguishes the Indian Supreme Court from many other apex courts and forms an important aspect of discussions concerning judicial capacity and institutional functioning.

Several studies and reports on judicial administration have noted that the nature and volume of cases reaching the Supreme Court are among the factors that shape its overall workload. The use of constitutional remedies, public interest litigation, and special leave petitions has also expanded the range of matters brought before the court over the decades. Consequently, discussions regarding the sanctioned strength of judges are often examined alongside the Court’s jurisdictional responsibilities and the increasing complexity of litigation before the institution.

In recent years, attention has also been drawn to the functioning of Constitution Benches, which are constituted to decide substantial questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution. The formation of such benches remains an important feature of the Court’s constitutional role and reflects its responsibility as the final interpreter of the Constitution of India.

Judicial Appointments Following The Increase In Strength

The increase in the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges also brings attention to the process of judicial appointments to the apex court. Under the existing constitutional framework, appointments to the Supreme Court are made by the President of India following recommendations of the Supreme Court Collegium.

At the time of the promulgation of the Ordinance, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the elevation of four Chief Justices of High CourtsJustice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court), Justice Shree Chandrashekhar (Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court), Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva (Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court) and Justice Arun Palli (Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh). The Collegium also recommended the appointment of Senior Advocate V. Mohana to the Supreme Court.

The recommendation of Senior Advocate V. Mohana is particularly significant as it marks the first recommendation of a woman for appointment to the Supreme Court since 2021. The appointments recommended by the Collegium are expected to contribute towards filling existing and anticipated vacancies and ensuring that the Court functions closer to its full sanctioned strength.

The distinction between sanctioned strength and actual working strength remains important in understanding the composition of the Court. While Parliament may increase the number of judges through legislation, the effective utilization of that strength depends upon the timely appointment of judges to available positions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 marks the latest development in the evolution of the institutional framework of the Supreme Court of India. By increasing the sanctioned strength of the Court from 34 to 38 judges, the Ordinance seeks to expand the Court’s judicial capacity in light of its growing responsibilities and caseload.

The amendment continues a historical trend of periodically revising the strength of the Supreme Court through legislative action. At the same time, the distinction between sanctioned strength and actual working strength remains significant, as the effective functioning of the Court depends upon the timely appointment of judges to available vacancies.

Viewed in its broader context, the Ordinance represents an important step in the continuing development of the Supreme Court as an institution. Together with the process of judicial appointments and the Court’s evolving workload, the increase in sanctioned strength forms part of the ongoing efforts to ensure that the apex court is equipped to discharge its constitutional and appellate functions effectively.

Note*: -At the time of publication, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of four High Court Chief Justices and one woman senior advocate to the Supreme Court.

Author Details: –Ojas Rai, Year I student of B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) at National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru

References:- 

[1]:- https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2026/272639.pdf

[2]:-Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance 2026 | SCC Times

[3]:-Cabinet approves increasing strength of Supreme Court judges from 31 to 34 – The Hindu

[4]: – ibid

[5]:- Article 124 in Constitution of India

[6]:- Does increasing number of Supreme Court judges impact pendency? What trends have shown over the years

[7]:-Doubling court strength won’t end pendency: Supreme Court – The Hindu

[8]:- Supreme Court will work 190 days in 2025 – Supreme Court Observer

[9]:-Article 216 in Constitution of India

[10]:Microsoft Word – IJR_Recommendation_for_Judiciary_Reforms_in_India, See Page.15