On August 12, 2026, President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026, raising the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. It is the first change to the Court’s sanctioned strength since 2019, and it arrives at a moment when the Court is sitting on its largest pending docket in years. The law amends Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to raise the number of puisne judges from 33 to 37, and it takes retrospective effect from May 16, 2026 — the date an ordinance covering the same ground was first notified.

For a court that decides everything from constitutional disputes over federalism to routine special leave petitions, four additional seats sound like a modest administrative tweak. But the debate around this amendment — inside Parliament and among legal commentators — is really a debate about whether India’s pendency crisis is a numbers problem at all, or something structural that more judges alone cannot fix.

Why Parliament Acted: The Numbers Behind the Amendment

The trigger for this amendment was a letter. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal told the Rajya Sabha that the government moved after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on May 11, 2026, seeking an increase in the Court’s sanctioned strength. The CJI’s letter pointed to two linked pressures: a rising volume of litigation reaching the Supreme Court, and the difficulty of maintaining disposal rates when several judges are simultaneously drawn away to sit on Constitution Benches for major constitutional questions.

The government’s own figures back up the urgency. As of January 1, 2026, more than 92,800 cases were pending before the Supreme Court. During 2025 alone, the Court received 75,410 fresh matters but disposed of just over 65,000 — meaning the backlog grew by roughly 10,000 cases in a single year even as the Court worked through its existing docket.

Rather than wait for Parliament’s monsoon session, the government first moved by ordinance — the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 — to bring the change into immediate effect, then followed up with the Bill to formally replace it in law.

From Ordinance to Act: How the Amendment Moved Through Parliament

The legislative sequence ran as follows:

The Bill amends a short but consequential provision. Article 124(1) of the Constitution provides for a Supreme Court “consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges” — meaning the ceiling of seven puisne judges applies only “until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number.” The 1956 Act, and now this amendment, is exactly that exercise of Parliament’s power. Since the Court’s founding, Parliament has invoked it repeatedly: the sanctioned strength rose from 8 judges (including the CJI) in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, and 34 in 2019 — before this year’s jump to 38.

The Skeptics’ Case: Does Adding Judges Actually Reduce Pendency?

Not everyone treats a larger bench as a self-evident fix. As the Supreme Court Observer has pointed out, the Law Commission’s 229th Report, back in 2009, argued that the better structural answer was not simply more Supreme Court judges but a separate Constitution Bench and regional Courts of Appeal to handle ordinary appellate work — freeing the apex court to focus on constitutional adjudication. The Supreme Court itself declined to adopt that recommendation when it came up in 2010, and successive governments have instead chosen the simpler route of periodically expanding sanctioned strength.

Critics note two recurring problems with that approach. First, strength alone does not dictate pendency trends — the volume of special leave petitions the Court chooses to admit, and the scope of its own appellate jurisdiction, have expanded over the decades even as sanctioned strength has grown, so the backlog keeps pace. Second, and more immediately, sanctioned strength is not the same as working strength: as of the Act’s passage, the Court was reportedly functioning with around 32 judges in office against the previous ceiling of 34, meaning two seats already stood vacant before this amendment added four more. New seats only help if the Collegium recommends names and the government clears them promptly; vacancies have persisted after past expansions, and the same risk now applies to the four new seats created by this Act, which effectively widens the sanctioned-versus-working gap to six. Even former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, defending the case for expansion, has been candid that the Court “simply need[s] more judges” — a position critics read as necessary but not sufficient without matching attention to appointment speed and case-management reform.

What Happens Next, and Why It Matters for Lawyers and Litigants

With the Act now in force, the practical next step is filling the four new seats. That depends on the Supreme Court Collegium recommending names and the Union government processing those recommendations — a process that, in recent years, has itself been a recurring flashpoint over delays. Whether the expansion translates into faster disposal will depend less on the number “38” and more on how quickly working strength actually catches up to sanctioned strength, and on whether the Court uses the additional capacity to run more Constitution Benches concurrently, as the CJI’s original letter to the Prime Minister envisaged.

For practitioners, the amendment carries a few concrete signals. Litigants with matters pending before the Supreme Court should not expect an immediate change in listing or disposal timelines — the new judges must first be appointed and take oath before any capacity increase is realised. For lawyers tracking constitutional litigation, an expanded bench raises the possibility of more Constitution Benches sitting in parallel, which could shorten the wait for rulings on pending constitutional references. And because the Act operates retrospectively from May 16, 2026, any appointments or administrative actions already taken under the ordinance stand validated, so there is no ground to challenge interim appointments merely because the ordinance has since lapsed.

More broadly, the episode is a reminder that “pendency reform” in India tends to arrive first as an ordinance, then as a numbers-based fix, rather than through the structural changes — regional benches, specialised tribunals, tighter limits on admission of special leave petitions — that reports going back to 2009 have recommended. Whether the Supreme Court of 38 judges disposes of cases meaningfully faster than the Supreme Court of 34 did is a question this year’s litigants, and next year’s pendency statistics, will answer.

Frequently Asked Questions

How many judges does the Supreme Court of India now have?

The Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength is now 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India — up from 34. Excluding the CJI, the number of puisne judges rises from 33 to 37.

When did this change take effect?

President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2026 on August 12, 2026, but the Act operates retrospectively from May 16, 2026, the date the preceding ordinance took effect.

Why did the government increase the Supreme Court’s strength?

The government cited a growing backlog — over 92,800 pending cases as of early 2026 — and a request from Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who wrote to the Prime Minister seeking more judges to ease pressure on Constitution Bench sittings and improve disposal rates.

Does this mean the Supreme Court will immediately have 38 sitting judges?

No. Sanctioned strength is the legal ceiling on how many judges can be appointed, not the number currently in office. The Court’s working strength was reported at around 32 judges when the Bill was passed, so the four new seats — plus existing vacancies — still need to be filled through the collegium process.

Is this the first time the Supreme Court’s strength has been increased?

No. Parliament has periodically increased sanctioned strength since 1950, when the Court began with 8 judges: to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, and 34 in 2019, before this year’s increase to 38.

Will more judges actually reduce the Supreme Court’s pendency?

That is contested. Critics, including analysis from the Supreme Court Observer, point to the Law Commission’s 2009 recommendation for regional appellate courts as a more structural fix, and note that past strength increases have not always translated into filled vacancies or faster disposal. Whether this expansion works depends heavily on how quickly the new seats are actually filled.

Sources