Why in News?
- President of India promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 under Article 123, increasing the number of Supreme Court judges from 33 to 37 (excluding the Chief Justice of India).
- With the ordinance, the total sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India rises from 34 to 38, including the Chief Justice of India. The move aims to address mounting pendency, which currently exceeds 93,000 cases.
Relevance
- GS Paper 2: Judiciary, Article 123, ordinance-making power, judicial reforms, and access to justice.
Practice Question
“Increasing the sanctioned strength of judges is necessary but not sufficient to address judicial pendency in India. Examine in the context of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026.” (15 Marks, 250 Words)
Static Background
Evolution of Supreme Court Strength
- The Supreme Court of India began in 1950 with a Chief Justice and 7 puisne judges. Parliament has periodically expanded the strength in response to rising litigation, constitutional complexity, and growing public reliance on judicial remedies.
- Before this ordinance, the sanctioned strength was 33 judges plus the Chief Justice under the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, as amended from time to time.
What the Ordinance Does
- The ordinance amends Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 by replacing the word “thirty-three” with “thirty-seven”, thereby authorizing four additional judges.
- The ordinance will be laid before Parliament and will cease to operate unless approved within six weeks of reassembly, as required under Article 123.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
Article 124
- Article 124(1) provides that the Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice of India and such number of judges as Parliament may by law prescribe.
Article 123
- Article 123 empowers the President to promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session and immediate legislative action is considered necessary.
Doctrine on Ordinances
- In D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that ordinance-making is an exceptional power and cannot substitute for regular legislation.
Need for Increasing Judicial Strength
Rising Pendency
- The Supreme Court currently has a backlog of over 93,000 cases, reflecting increased filings related to constitutional disputes, civil appeals, criminal matters, and special leave petitions.
Expansion of Jurisdiction
- The Court performs constitutional adjudication, appellate review, public interest litigation, and advisory functions, substantially increasing its workload.
Post-Pandemic Filing Surge
- Digital filing and virtual access introduced during the pandemic improved accessibility, leading to a sustained increase in case institution.
Vacancies and Workload
- Even brief vacancies in sanctioned positions increase pressure on existing judges and reduce time available for detailed hearings and reserved judgments.
Significance of the Ordinance
Improved Disposal Capacity
- Four additional judges can increase the number of benches, expand hearing capacity, and accelerate disposal of admission, miscellaneous, and final hearing matters.
Strengthening Access to Justice
- Faster adjudication reduces litigation costs, uncertainty, and hardship for citizens, businesses, and governments awaiting final judicial decisions.
Institutional Adaptation
- The amendment reflects the State’s recognition that judicial institutions require periodic capacity expansion to keep pace with socio-economic and legal complexity.
Governance and Economic Significance
Rule of Law
- Timely justice strengthens legal certainty, contract enforcement, and public confidence in constitutional governance.
Ease of Doing Business
- Speedier resolution of commercial and regulatory disputes improves investor confidence and lowers transaction costs.
Federal Governance
- Quicker adjudication of Centre–State disputes and constitutional questions enhances cooperative federalism.
Limitations of Judge Strength Expansion
Structural Nature of Pendency
- Pendency arises not only from insufficient judges but also from procedural delays, frequent adjournments, and excessive reliance on special leave petitions.
Infrastructure Constraints
- Additional judges require courtrooms, research support, technology, and administrative staff to function effectively.
Appointment Delays
- Sanctioned positions are useful only when appointments are made promptly through a coordinated and transparent process.
Docket Burden
- The Supreme Court handles thousands of routine appeals, reducing time available for core constitutional adjudication.
Related Reform Proposals
National Court of Appeal
- The Law Commission of India has suggested regional appellate benches or a National Court of Appeal to reduce the Supreme Court’s routine appellate burden.
Technology-Enabled Courts
- E-filing, AI-assisted cause-list management, and digital records can improve scheduling and reduce administrative inefficiencies.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Greater use of mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats can reduce pressure on formal courts.
Challenges and Criticisms
- Ordinances are constitutionally valid but are intended for urgent situations and should not replace legislative deliberation where time permits.
- Without complementary reforms, increasing judge strength may yield only incremental improvements in disposal rates.
- Persistent vacancies in High Courts continue to affect the broader justice delivery system, where most litigation originates.
Prelims Pointers
- Article 123: Ordinance-making power of the President.
- Article 124: Composition of the Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court strength after ordinance: 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India.
- Ordinances must be approved within six weeks of Parliament’s reassembly.
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act was enacted in 1956.
