Centre elevates three HC Chief Justices to top court

1. At a Glance

• On 5 October 2026 the Centre appointed the Chief Justices of the Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana High Courts as judges of the Supreme Court of India [1].
• These appointments raise the SC's working strength to 37, against a sanctioned strength of 38, so one post stays vacant [1].
• The sanctioned strength is 38 because Parliament raised it in 2026, through an Ordinance in May followed by an Amending Act passed in August. The number of puisne judges went from 33 to 37, plus the CJI [5][3].
• Why it matters for UPSC: it covers Art. 124, the Collegium system, how Parliament changes the number of judges, the NJAC debate, judicial pendency and diversity on the Bench. These are all recurring GS-II themes.

2. Why in the News

• 5 Oct 2026: Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal announced on X that these three judges had been appointed to the SC [1]:
• Justice Sunita Agarwal, CJ, Gujarat HC
• Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ, Delhi HC

• Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, Telangana HC

• The SC Collegium had recommended the three names on 28 September 2026 [7].

• They are due to be sworn in on 6 October 2026 [1].
• Result: working strength rises to 37 of 38, leaving one vacancy [1][7].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1950: Art. 124(1) originally provided for a CJI and "not more than seven other Judges", so the total strength was 8 [6][2].
• Parliament has raised the number of judges by law under Art. 124(1), which allows it to "prescribe a larger number" [6]. The total strength (including the CJI) has changed as follows [2]:

• Appointments: from consultation to the Collegium. Under the Collegium system, the CJI and the 4 senior-most SC judges recommend people for appointment as SC/HC judges to the President [4]. "Consultation" with the CJI is read as consultation with the Collegium of the CJI plus two or four judges, depending on the case [4].
• NJAC attempt: the Constitution (120th Amendment) Bill, 2013 proposed a commission-based system for appointments, which became the Collegium-vs-Commission debate [4][11].
• 2026 expansion:
• The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 was issued on 16 May 2026 [5].
• It was replaced by the Amendment Bill, 2026, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 20 July 2026, passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 Aug 2026 and passed by the Rajya Sabha on 5 Aug 2026 [5].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Art. 124(1) lets Parliament change the SC's size by ordinary law, with no constitutional amendment needed. This is why the strength could rise by Ordinance and then by Amending Act in 2026 [6][5].
• The Collegium model rests on the Supreme Court reading "consultation" as consultation with a collegium of judges. That reading keeps the judiciary's primacy in appointments [4].
• Using an Ordinance (Art. 123) to raise the strength shows that the executive treated the matter as urgent before Parliament met [5].

Governance / Administrative

• The expansion targets pendency of more than 93,000 cases and is meant to allow more frequent Constitution Bench sittings [10].
• Raising the sanctioned strength helps only if vacancies are filled quickly. In 2026, five judges were appointed in June and three in October, yet one post is still vacant [9][1].
• The gap between the Collegium recommendation (28 Sept) and the appointment (5 Oct) was about one week. This is useful evidence when discussing delays under the Memorandum of Procedure [7][1].

Federal / Representational

• The three judges come from HCs in three regions: Gujarat (West), Delhi (North) and Telangana (South). This reflects the Collegium's stated aim of regional representation [1].
• Elevating sitting HC Chief Justices follows the usual "seniority plus HC CJ" route to the SC [1].

Social / Diversity

• Justice Sunita Agarwal is among those elevated, which ties into the debate on gender diversity in the higher judiciary [1].

Ethical / Transparency

• Critics say the Collegium is opaque, meeting behind closed doors without published criteria. This criticism drove the NJAC proposal [4][11].
• Supporters say judicial primacy protects judicial independence, which is part of the basic structure [4].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 16 May 2026: the SC (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 was promulgated, raising puisne judges from 33 to 37 [5].
• May 2026: news reports said President Droupadi Murmu approved raising the SC's judge strength from 34 to 38 [8].
• Cabinet: approved increasing the SC's judge strength "by Four to 37 from 33" [3].
• 1–2 June 2026: five new judges were appointed and sworn in, taking the strength to 37 [9].
• 20 July 2026: the Amendment Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha [5].
• 3 Aug and 5 Aug 2026: the Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha respectively [5].
• 28 Sept 2026: the Collegium recommended the CJs of the Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana HCs [7].
• 5 Oct 2026: the Centre notified their appointments. Swearing-in is scheduled for 6 Oct 2026 [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The SC's sanctioned strength is now 38 (CJI + 37). Before the 2026 change it was 34 (CJI + 33) [5][8].
• The 2026 increase was made by Ordinance (16 May 2026) and then by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 [5].
• The Amendment Bill passed the Lok Sabha on 3 Aug 2026 and the Rajya Sabha on 5 Aug 2026 [5].
• Original 1950 strength: CJI + 7 = 8 judges [2][6].
• The strength was raised to 31 in 2009 and to 34 in 2019 [2].
• Under Art. 124(1), Parliament can increase the number of SC judges by ordinary law [6].
• The SC Collegium is the CJI plus the 4 senior-most judges [4].
• Justice Sunita Agarwal was CJ of the Gujarat HC when elevated (Oct 2026) [1].
• Justice D.K. Upadhyaya was CJ of the Delhi HC when elevated [1].
• Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh was CJ of the Telangana HC when elevated [1].
• The appointments were announced by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal [1].
• SC pendency at the time of the 2026 expansion: over 93,000 cases [10].

8. Why More Seats Have Not Meant a Smaller Backlog

• The Court has grown three times in 17 years, yet the pile of cases keeps growing
• Total strength went from 31 (2009) to 34 (2019) to 38 (2026) [2][3].
• Pending cases still stood at over 93,000 when the 2026 increase was made [10].

• Business Standard's data analysis said it directly: more judges, "but backlog mounting" [10].

• Why adding judges does not clear cases on its own

• New judges mostly sit as extra small benches of two or three judges. Each new bench also takes in new appeals, so the cases coming in grow along with the capacity to decide them.
• The Government also wants more Constitution Bench sittings [10]. A Constitution Bench is a large bench that decides big questions about the Constitution. Every such sitting takes several judges away from regular benches for weeks, so the daily disposal rate (cases decided per day) can drop while it runs.

• So the gain is real but smaller than the headline "+4 judges" suggests.

• What this means for your answer

• The Cabinet said the reason for the increase was "speedy justice" [3]. Test that claim by asking two things: did yearly disposals rise after 2019, and did pendency fall? The 2026 data says pendency did not fall [10].
• This is the evidence for Mains stem 1 in the note ("necessary but not sufficient").

9. Filling Seats While Others Fall Empty

• Eight new judges in 2026, yet working strength is the same as in June
• After five judges were sworn in on 1–2 June 2026, working strength reached 37 [9].
• Three more were appointed in October, and working strength is again 37 [7][1].

• So about three seats fell empty between June and October. The new appointments only replaced them.

• Why this keeps happening

• A Supreme Court judge retires at 65 [6]. This means every retirement date is known years ahead.

• Yet names are usually sent only after a seat is already empty. The sanctioned strength (the number of posts allowed by law) goes up on paper, but the working strength (judges actually sitting) stays behind it.

• The Collegium and the Centre should move before seats fall empty, not after

• The Collegium could recommend names before a judge's known retirement date, so the next judge is ready on the day the seat empties.
• In this case the Centre notified the names about one week after the Collegium recommended them (28 Sept to 5 Oct) [7][1]. This shows quick clearance is possible when both sides want it. The Memorandum of Procedure (the agreed step-by-step rulebook for appointments) could make such timelines binding.

10. The Three High Courts Left Without Chief Justices

• One decision removed the top judge of three High Courts at the same time
• The Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana High Courts all lose their Chief Justices on the same day [1].

• A High Court Chief Justice controls the roster (which judge hears which case) and runs the court's administration. Until a new Chief Justice is appointed, an acting Chief Justice does this work.

• Why this matters for pendency

• The Supreme Court draws most of its judges from the High Courts (note, section 9).
• Filling a seat at the top can open a gap one level below, and most of India's appeals are decided at that level.
• So the Collegium's work is not finished on 6 October. A full answer must check how fast the three High Courts get permanent Chief Justices.

11. Was the Ordinance Route Justified?

• The strongest case for using an Ordinance
• Parliament was not sitting in May 2026. The Ordinance (16 May) allowed five judges to be sworn in on 1–2 June [5][9]. Waiting for the Monsoon Session would have kept those seats empty for about two more months while over 93,000 cases were pending [10].
• Parliament later approved the change. The Bill passed both Houses by 5 August [5].

• This argument is partly correct. The delay would have had a real cost, and Parliament did approve the change in the end.

• What the argument leaves out: Parliament was left with no real choice

• An Ordinance is temporary. It lapses if Parliament does not approve it.
• But the five June judges were already sitting in posts that existed only because of the Ordinance. A Supreme Court judge can be removed only through the address-and-proof process (impeachment) in Art. 124(4) [6].
• So if Parliament had rejected the Bill, the posts would have ended but the judges would still have been in office. Saying "no" was not a practical option for Parliament.

• The PRS record of the Bill does not mention a referral to a Standing Committee [5]. If it was never referred, MPs did not examine whether four was the right number.

• A fair conclusion

• The urgency was real. But changing the size of the Supreme Court should go through a Bill first. That keeps the size of the Court a decision Parliament makes before the posts are filled, not one it can only approve afterwards.

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Supreme Court pendency of over 93,000 cases at the time of the 2026 expansion [10]; total strength rose 31 → 34 → 38 between 2009 and 2026 [2][3]
• Data: Working strength was 37 after June 2026 and is again 37 after October 2026, so new appointments are only replacing judges who retired [9][7]
• Report/Committee: Constitution (120th Amendment) Bill, 2013. This was the first attempt to replace the Collegium with a commission [11]
• Law/Case: Art. 124(1) (Parliament fixes the size by ordinary law), Art. 124(2) (retirement at 65), Art. 124(4) (removal only by impeachment) [6]; Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, as amended in 2026 [5]; Art. 123 (Ordinance power)
• Scheme: National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). Use it to check whether the 2026 expansion actually reduces pendency, not just how many judges were added

13. Mains Relevance

• Main paper: GS-II. Relevant syllabus headings:
• Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
• Appointment to various constitutional posts

• Separation of powers

• Also GS-II (secondary): Ordinance-making power of the President.

• GS-IV (secondary): Transparency and accountability in public institutions.
• Possible question stems: 1. "Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is necessary but not sufficient to address judicial pendency." Critically examine in the light of the 2026 expansion. 2. The Collegium system has survived the NJAC challenge, but its legitimacy deficit persists. Discuss reforms that would improve transparency without compromising judicial independence. 3. Examine the constitutional propriety of using the Ordinance route to change the composition of the Supreme Court.

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998): the doctrinal origin of the Collegium.
• NJAC (99th Amendment) and the 2015 Fourth Judges Case: the failed alternative to the Collegium [4][11].
• Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): the executive–judiciary protocol for appointments and the delays it causes.
• Art. 123 Ordinance power: the 2026 strength increase began as an Ordinance [5].
• Art. 127 (ad hoc judges) and Art. 128 (retired judges): other ways to add judicial capacity.
• HC appointments (Art. 217) and HC vacancies: the main pool from which SC judges are drawn.
• Judicial pendency and the National Judicial Data Grid: the problem the expansion is meant to address [10].
• Diversity in the higher judiciary: gender, social and regional representation.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Collegium system (Polity): The CJI and four senior-most judges recommended these three names; it is the core of how SC judges are appointed.
• Judicial pendency (Polity): Over 93,000 pending cases are the stated reason for raising the SC's strength to 38.
• Ordinance-making power of the President (Polity): The first increase in judges came by an Ordinance in May 2026, before Parliament passed the Amending Act.
• National Judicial Appointments Commission (Polity): The NJAC was the proposed alternative to the Collegium, and the note's transparency debate draws on it.
• Memorandum of Procedure (Polity): It sets the steps and timelines for judicial appointments, so it explains delays between recommendation and appointment.
• Supreme Court of India (Polity): The article is about the Supreme Court's size, composition and Article 124 provisions.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• 37 vs 38: 37 is the number of judges other than the CJI (puisne judges) and also the working strength after October 2026. 38 is the total sanctioned strength including the CJI [5][1].
• Constitutional amendment vs ordinary law: the SC's strength is changed by an ordinary Act (the Number of Judges Act) under Art. 124(1). No Art. 368 amendment is needed [6][5].
• The bare text of Art. 124 still says "thirty-three": it remains "until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number", so the statute overrides the text in practice [6].
• Collegium composition: for SC appointments it is the CJI plus 4 senior-most judges, not CJI plus 2. CJI plus 2 is used for HC matters [4].
• Timeline of increases: 2009 took the strength to 31 and 2019 to 34. Do not confuse these with the 2026 increase to 38 [2].