Supreme Court gets three new judges, strength goes up to 37

1. At a Glance

• On 6 October 2026, three new judges took oath in the Supreme Court: Justices Sunita Agarwal, Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Aparesh Kumar Singh. This took the working strength to 37, one short of the sanctioned strength of 38 (including the CJI) [1][4].
• The sanctioned strength had just gone up through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026. It amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 and raises the number of judges other than the CJI from 33 to 37 [2][3].
• The appointments come while pendency in the Supreme Court is close to one lakh cases [1][7].
• UPSC relevance: Article 124, the Collegium system, the Parliament–Executive–Judiciary link in setting judge strength, and judicial pendency (GS-II).

2. Why in the News

• 28 Sept 2026: The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the three names to the Union government [1].
• 5 Oct 2026 (Monday): The Centre notified the appointments [1][4].
• 6 Oct 2026 (Tuesday): CJI Surya Kant administered the oath of office to the three judges in the Supreme Court [1].
• Before the oaths, the working strength was 34. After them it became 37, against a sanctioned strength of 38 [4].

3. Background & Evolution

• Constitutional basis (static; no source retrieved): Article 124(1) sets up the Supreme Court with a CJI and other judges. It lets Parliament fix the number of judges by law. The original 1950 Constitution provided for a CJI plus 7 judges.
• 1956: Parliament enacted the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. This Act is the statute that later amendments change [2][3].
• 2008: The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2008 was introduced (it raised the number to 30 + CJI; that figure is static knowledge) [9].
• 2019: President Kovind approved a bill increasing the number of Supreme Court judges (to 33 + CJI; that figure is static knowledge) [10].
• May 2026:
• The Union Cabinet cleared a plan to raise strength to 38 [6].

• A Business Standard headline reports that President Murmu approved raising strength "from 34 to 38" [5]. The search snippet does not say how this was done. Verify before relying on it.

• 2026 Bill passage:

• Introduced in Lok Sabha on 20 July 2026 [3].
• Passed Lok Sabha on 3 August 2026 [3].

• Passed Rajya Sabha on 5 August 2026 [3].

• Earlier pattern: Each revision of the Act has been justified by mounting pendency [2][7].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Enabling Article	Art. 124(1): Parliament fixes the number of SC judges by law (static)
Parent statute	Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 [2]
Amending law	Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 [2][3]
Change	Judges excluding CJI: 33 → 37 (+4) [2]
Sanctioned strength (incl. CJI)	34 → 38 [2][5]
Working strength after 6 Oct 2026	37 [1][4]
Expenditure charged on	Consolidated Fund of India: salaries of judges and staff, other facilities [2]
Nodal ministry	Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Justice (static)
Appointment route	Collegium recommendation, then Centre notification, then oath before CJI [1]
Current CJI	Surya Kant [1]
Pendency	Close to 1 lakh cases [1]

The three new judges [1]:

Judge	Parent High Court	Post held before elevation
Sunita Agarwal	Allahabad	Chief Justice, Gujarat HC
Devendra Kumar Upadhyay	Allahabad	Chief Justice, Delhi HC
Aparesh Kumar Singh	Jharkhand	Chief Justice, Telangana HC

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Parliament controls judge strength through an ordinary law under Art. 124(1). It does not need a constitutional amendment [2][3].
• Appointments follow the Collegium route: the Collegium recommends on 28 Sept, the Centre notifies on 5 Oct, and judges take oath on 6 Oct [1].
• The government's case is that more judges let the CJI set up Constitution Benches more regularly [2].

Governance / Judicial Efficiency

• The Cabinet called a higher judge strength "one of the most exigent and viable solutions" to the backlog [2].
• Business Standard's data analysis warns that a small increase may not fix the deepening judge shortage. It also says the backlog keeps mounting despite more judges [7][8].
• The appointments came only 8 days after the Collegium's recommendation (28 Sept to 6 Oct), which is quick [1].

Administrative / Federal (representation)

• Two of the three judges come from the Allahabad HC. This revives the debate on regional representation in the Supreme Court [1].
• All three were serving HC Chief Justices, following the convention of elevating Chief Justices [1].
• Sunita Agarwal joins the Supreme Court. Her elevation is relevant to the gender diversity discussion on the Bench [1].

Economic / Fiscal

• The extra cost is charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. It is not voted by Parliament [2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• May 2026: The Union Cabinet approved the proposal to raise strength to 38 [2][6].
• May 2026: Business Standard reported Presidential approval of raising strength from 34 to 38 [5].
• 20 Jul 2026: Bill introduced in Lok Sabha [3].
• 3 Aug 2026: Bill passed by Lok Sabha [3].
• 5 Aug 2026: Bill passed by Rajya Sabha [3].
• Aug 2026: Data analysis flagged that the increase may not close the shortage of judges [8].
• 28 Sep 2026: Collegium recommended Justices Agarwal, Upadhyay and Singh [1].
• 5 Oct 2026: Centre notified the appointments [1][4].
• 6 Oct 2026: Oath before CJI Surya Kant; working strength reached 37 of 38 [1].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The number of SC judges is fixed by Parliament by law under Art. 124(1). A constitutional amendment is not needed (static).
• Parent law: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 [2].
• The 2026 Amendment raised the number of judges excluding the CJI from 33 to 37 [2].
• Sanctioned strength including the CJI is now 38 [1][5].
• Working strength reached 37 after the oaths on 6 Oct 2026 [1].
• The 2026 Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 20 July 2026, passed by LS on 3 Aug and by RS on 5 Aug 2026 [3].
• Salaries of SC judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India [2].
• The oath was administered by CJI Surya Kant [1].
• Sunita Agarwal was Chief Justice of the Gujarat HC; her parent HC is Allahabad [1].
• Devendra Kumar Upadhyay was Chief Justice of the Delhi HC; his parent HC is Allahabad [1].
• Aparesh Kumar Singh was Chief Justice of the Telangana HC; his parent HC is Jharkhand [1].
• Collegium recommendation date: 28 Sept 2026 [1].
• Pendency in the Supreme Court is close to 1 lakh cases [1].
• An earlier increase came through the 2019 amendment, approved by President Kovind [10].

8. Why Four More Judges May Not Shrink the Backlog

• Adding judges has been tried before, and the pile still grew
• In 2019, Parliament raised the strength to 33 judges plus the CJI [10].
• Seven years later, pendency (cases filed but not yet decided) is close to one lakh [1].

• Business Standard's data shows the backlog kept rising even as judge numbers went up [7].

• Four judges do not mean four times more hearings

• The Supreme Court hears most cases in benches (groups of judges sitting together) of two or three judges.
• So four new judges add only one or two extra benches a day.
• A Constitution Bench needs at least five judges under Article 145(3) (static). Each one takes five judges away from regular hearings.

• The government says the extra judges will be used for more regular Constitution Benches [2]. If that happens, very few of them will be left for clearing ordinary appeals.

• The increase is small next to the need

• Business Standard's analysis warns that such a small rise may not fix a shortage of judges that keeps getting worse [8].
• The Cabinet calls more judges "one of the most exigent and viable solutions" [2]. That claim assumes more judges is the main answer. The data in [7] does not back it up.

9. Urgent Enough for an Ordinance, Yet the Seats Waited Five Months

• Why the May 2026 'approval' and the August Bill both exist
• The 2026 Bill replaced an ordinance issued on 16 May 2026 [3].
• An ordinance is a temporary law made by the President under Article 123 (static), used when Parliament is not sitting and quick action is needed.

• This explains the President's May approval [5] and the Bill passed in August [3]. The two facts do not conflict, so the note's sourcing caveat can be cleared.

• The urgency did not show up in actual appointments

• The sanctioned strength went to 38 in May, but working strength stayed at 34 until October [4].
• The Collegium recommended names only on 28 September [1].

• So the urgency used to justify an ordinance was not matched by speed in filling the posts. The quick 8 days from recommendation to oath came only at the very end.

• Why this matters for Mains

• Using ordinances for routine structural changes lets the Executive act first and seek Parliament's approval later.
• In this case Parliament approved it within three months [3]. Still, the delay in filling the posts weakens the case that an ordinance was needed.

10. The Backlog Fix the Supreme Court Itself Turned Down

• The Law Commission proposed splitting the Court's work, not just adding judges
• Its 229th Report (2009) said to keep one Constitution Bench at Delhi for constitutional questions [12].
• It also said to set up four Cassation Benches (regional benches that hear only appeals) at Delhi, Chennai/Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai [12].

• The idea: ordinary appeals from High Courts would stay in their region. The Delhi bench would be free for big constitutional cases.

• The Court said no

• The Supreme Court's Full Court (all judges meeting together) unanimously rejected the proposal on 18 February 2010 [12].

• In 2020 the government again told Parliament that the Court did not favour a bench outside Delhi [13].

• Why this matters

• The Court keeps taking ordinary appeals and Constitution Bench matters at the same place.
• So every new judge is split between both kinds of work. The note's question stem 1 ("necessary but insufficient") is best answered with this point.

11. What Supreme Court Gains, Three High Courts Lose

• Three High Courts lost their Chief Justices on the same day
• All three new judges were sitting Chief Justices: Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana [1].
• Under Article 223 (static), each of these High Courts now runs under an acting Chief Justice until a new one is appointed through the Collegium.

• An acting Chief Justice controls the roster (who hears which case), but is seen as a stop-gap. Long-term administrative decisions often wait.

• The pendency problem moves down, not away

• The Supreme Court's backlog is what drives the expansion [2].
• Taking the top judges out of High Courts shrinks capacity in the courts where most appeals start. Business Standard's analysis describes a judge shortage across the system, not just at the top [8].

12. Anchors for Answers

• Data: Supreme Court pendency close to 1 lakh cases even after the 2019 increase to 33 + CJI [1][10]
• Data: Working strength stayed at 34 from May to October 2026, though sanctioned strength was already 38 [4][3]
• Report/Committee: Law Commission 229th Report (2009): a Constitution Bench at Delhi plus four regional Cassation Benches; the Full Court rejected it in February 2010 [12]
• Law/Case: Art. 124(1) (Parliament fixes strength); Art. 123 (ordinance of 16 May 2026, replaced by the 2026 Act) [3]; Art. 145(3) (Constitution Bench of at least five judges); Art. 223 (acting HC Chief Justice)

13. Mains Relevance

• GS-II:
• Structure, organisation and functioning of the Judiciary.
• Appointments to constitutional posts.

• Separation of powers.

• GS-II: Governance, including delays in justice delivery.

• GS-IV (marginal): Transparency in judicial appointments.
• Possible question stems: 1. "Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is a necessary but insufficient answer to judicial pendency." Critically examine. 2. Discuss whether the Collegium system ensures diversity (regional, gender, social) in the Supreme Court, with reference to recent appointments. 3. Examine how Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary each share in determining the strength and composition of the Supreme Court.

14. Related Topics to Study Next

• Collegium system and the Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998): these cases define how SC and HC judges are appointed today.
• NJAC (99th Amendment) and its striking down in 2015: the failed alternative to the Collegium.
• Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): the stalled Executive–Judiciary framework for appointments.
• Judicial pendency and the National Judicial Data Grid: the backlog is the stated reason for the increase [2].
• High Court vacancies and Art. 217/224: the three new judges were all HC Chief Justices [1].
• Constitution Benches under Art. 145(3): the government says more judges means more Constitution Benches [2].
• Charged vs voted expenditure under Art. 112(3): judges' salaries are charged expenditure [2].
• Regional benches / Court of Appeal debate (Law Commission): an alternative way to reduce the backlog.

15. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Supreme Court of India (Polity): The article is about its strength rising to 37 of a sanctioned 38 judges.
• Collegium system (Polity): The three judges were recommended by the Collegium, then notified by the Centre.
• Judicial pendency (Polity): Nearly one lakh pending cases are the stated reason for adding judges, though critics doubt it will help.
• Charged expenditure (Polity): Judges' salaries are charged on the Consolidated Fund, so Parliament discusses but does not vote on them.
• Separation of powers (Polity): Parliament, Executive and Judiciary each play a part in deciding the Court's size and composition.
• Third Schedule (Polity): It contains the oath judges take, which the CJI administered to the three new judges.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• 33/37 vs 34/38: 33 → 37 counts judges excluding the CJI. 34 → 38 includes the CJI [2][5]. Read the MCQ wording carefully.
• Sanctioned vs working strength: sanctioned is 38; working is 37 as of 6 Oct 2026 [1].
• Ordinary law vs constitutional amendment: judge strength changes through an ordinary Act of Parliament under Art. 124(1), not under Art. 368 (static).
• Parent HC vs serving HC: Agarwal is from Allahabad but was serving in Gujarat. Upadhyay is from Allahabad but was serving in Delhi. Singh is from Jharkhand but was serving in Telangana [1].
• Who administers the oath: under the Third Schedule, an SC judge takes the oath before the President or a person appointed by the President. In practice that is the CJI [1]. Not "the President in person."