"Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is a necessary but insufficient answer to judicial pendency." Critically examine.

Under Article 124(1), Parliament fixes the Supreme Court's strength by ordinary law. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 replaced an ordinance of 16 May 2026 and raised the number of judges other than the CJI from 33 to 37 [1][2]. With pendency close to one lakh cases [3], more judges are needed, but they will not clear the backlog alone.

Why the increase is necessary

• Capacity: the Cabinet called a higher strength "one of the most exigent and viable solutions" to the backlog [2].
• Constitution Benches: more judges let the CJI set up five-judge benches (Art. 145(3)) more regularly [2].
• Quick legal tool: it needs only an ordinary Act, and the cost is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India [2].
• Posts now filled: working strength reached 37 of 38 after three judges took oath on 6 October 2026 [3].

Why it is insufficient

• Past increases did not reverse the trend: strength rose to 33 + CJI in 2019, yet pendency is now close to one lakh [2][3].
• Bench arithmetic: four judges add only one or two division benches a day, and each Constitution Bench takes five judges away from regular hearings.
• Appointment delays: strength was raised by ordinance in May, but the posts were filled only in October [1][3].
• Problem pushed downward: all three appointees were serving High Court Chief Justices (Gujarat, Delhi, Telangana), so those courts now run under acting Chief Justices [3].
• Structural overload: the Court hears routine appeals alongside constitutional cases. The Law Commission's 229th Report (2009) proposed a Constitution Bench at Delhi plus four regional Cassation Benches, but the Full Court rejected it in February 2010 [4].

Way forward

• Time-bound appointments through a finalised Memorandum of Procedure between the Collegium and the Executive.
• Split appellate work from constitutional work, revisiting the 229th Report [4].
• Screen special leave petitions more strictly, limit adjournments, and use digital case management.

In short, expanding the Bench is a needed first step, but its gains depend on timely appointments and structural reform. Combining more judges with fewer routine appeals and better procedure would deliver the speedy justice that Article 21 guarantees and that SDG 16.3 calls for.