- Why in news
- On 5 May 2026 the Union Cabinet approved introducing the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Parliament. It would raise the Supreme Court's judge strength from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India.
- What it is
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 fixes the maximum number of Supreme Court judges other than the Chief Justice. It is made under Article 124(1), which lets Parliament raise the number above the constitutional figure. Each increase needs an amendment passed by Parliament.
- Constitutional basis
- Article 124(1) set the original limit at the CJI plus seven other judges, until Parliament prescribes a larger number by law.
- Proposed change
- The 2026 Bill raises the number from 33 to 37, excluding the CJI.
- Expenditure
- Judges' salaries and related costs are met from the Consolidated Fund of India.
Don’t confuse with Sanctioned vs working strength: Sanctioned strength is the legal maximum set by Parliament. Working strength is the number actually in office, which depends on appointments and vacancies.
Don’t confuse with High Court judge strength: The number of High Court judges is not fixed by an Act of Parliament. The President fixes it, so it is a different process from the Supreme Court's.
Laws, judgments and statutory bodies: 30 Prelims questions since 2013 (what the law says, who chairs, legal basis). In Mains, 44 news-triggered questions, most in GS2, asking for provisions and challenges.
Why it matters
- More judges can help the Court hear more cases and cut pendency, supporting speedy justice.
- It allows more Constitution Benches alongside regular benches.
Problems
- Vacancies and slow appointments can leave the added posts unfilled, so more posts do not by themselves reduce pendency.
- Most case backlog sits in district courts and High Courts, so a larger Supreme Court only partly fixes delay.
Way forward
- Fill vacancies quickly through a clear and timely collegium and government process.
- Reform case management and filtering of admissions, and strengthen lower-court capacity.
Put in your answer
Article 124(1): Parliament's power to set the number by law is the constitutional basis for each amendment.
UPSC’s own questions that come close to this issue, from our Prelims and Mains banks.
Prelims practice · Single answer
Ours, not from a UPSC paper
Consider the following statements about the strength of the Supreme Court of India:
Which one of the following is correct?
True or false?
1 of 5
Statements the way Prelims prints them. Say first, then see the fact.
1.Article 124(1) of the Constitution originally provided for a Chief Justice and not more than seven other judges, until Parliament prescribes a larger number.
True. The original limit was seven other judges plus the CJI.
2.The 2008 amendment raised the Supreme Court's judge strength from 25 to 30.
True. 2008 raised it from 25 to 30.
3.The proposed strength of 37 judges includes the Chief Justice of India.
False. The figure of 37 excludes the CJI.
4.The salaries of Supreme Court judges are charged to the Consolidated Fund of India.
True. Judges' salary and facilities are met from the Consolidated Fund of India.
5.Increasing the number of Supreme Court judges beyond the figure in Article 124(1) needs a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
False. Parliament can raise the number by ordinary law under Article 124(1).
Written by us from the release, not by UPSC; checked by a second model.
Mains practice
15 marks · 250 words
The Union Cabinet has approved a Bill to raise the Supreme Court's strength from 33 to 37 judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India. Examine the constitutional basis for fixing the Court's strength and discuss whether increasing the number of judges alone can address the problem of pendency and delay in the Supreme Court.
Worth revising until Prelims 2027: most news questions come within two years of the event.