Govt. introduces Bill in Lok Sabha to raise strength of judges in SC to 38

Now I have enough grounded facts (PIB, legislative.gov.in, and the article) to write the note.

1. At a Glance

• Parliament is enacting the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the SC's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges (including CJI) to tackle rising pendency [S1][S3].
• The Bill replaces an Ordinance promulgated earlier under Article 123 by the President [S2][S3].
• Tests static knowledge (Article 124, judge-strength history) fused with a live current-affairs trigger — a classic UPSC crossover topic.
• Highlights the executive–legislature–judiciary interplay via the ordinance-to-bill route.

2. Why in the News

• On 20 July 2026 (Monday), Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal introduced the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha, amid Opposition protests over NEET paper leak allegations and Ram Temple donation "theft" claims [S3].
• The Bill replaces the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, promulgated by the President on 16 May 2026 under Article 123 [S1][S2][S3].

3. Background & Evolution

• Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 is the parent statute governing sanctioned judge strength, amended periodically as pendency rises [S1].
• Judge strength history: last raised in 2019, from 30 to 33 (excluding CJI) [S1][S3].
• Court has functioned near its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges (including CJI) since 2019 [S3].
• 16 May 2026: President promulgates Ordinance raising strength from 33 to 37 (excluding CJI), i.e., 34 to 38 including CJI [S2][S3].
• 20 July 2026: Bill introduced in Lok Sabha to replace/ratify the Ordinance [S3].

4. Core Static Facts

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

• Legal/Constitutional: Uses Article 123 ordinance-making power pending Bill's passage; amends a plenary statute (not the Constitution itself) since Article 124 permits Parliament to fix SC strength "by law" [S2].
• Administrative/Governance: Addresses docket management difficulty, especially for larger Constitution Benches and older pending matters [S3]; raises questions on Collegium's capacity to recommend that many appointments swiftly.
• Political: Passed amid Opposition disruption over unrelated issues (NEET leak, Ram Temple donations), reflecting adversarial floor dynamics rather than opposition to the Bill's substance [S3].
• Institutional/Judicial Efficiency: Persistent gap between institution (filing) and disposal of cases is the core rationale — filings (75,410) outpacing disposals (65,615) in 2025 [S3].
• Historical/Comparative: Third major expansion of SC judge strength in decades (progression 1956 original strength → increases over time → 30→33 in 2019 → 34→38 in 2026), showing incremental judicial capacity-building tied to caseload [S1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 16 May 2026: President promulgates Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 raising strength 33→37 (excl. CJI) [S2][S3].
• 2026 (mid-year, Cabinet approval): Union Cabinet chaired by PM Narendra Modi approves the Bill for introduction in Parliament [S1].
• 20 July 2026: Bill formally introduced in Lok Sabha by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal [S3].
• Collegium reportedly expected to begin deliberations on filling the expanded vacancies following the Ordinance [S2 domain reference, scobserver.in].

7. Prelims Hooks

• New sanctioned SC strength: 38 judges including CJI (37 excluding CJI) [S1][S3].
• Previous sanctioned strength: 34 including CJI (33 excluding CJI), in place since 2019 [S1][S3].
• The Bill amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 [S1].
• Ordinance promulgated under Article 123 on 16 May 2026 [S2].
• Bill introduced in Lok Sabha (not Rajya Sabha) on 20 July 2026 by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal [S3].
• Pending SC cases as of 1 January 2026: 92,101, cited in the Bill's Statement of Objects and Reasons [S3].
• In 2025, SC registered 75,410 new cases vs. 65,615 disposed [S3].
• Last increase in SC judge strength before this was in 2019 (30→33, excl. CJI) [S1][S3].
• Article 124(1) empowers Parliament to increase SC judge strength "by law."
• Ordinance route (Article 123) used first because Parliament was not in session; Bill now seeks to replace/ratify it.

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity & Governance — Structure, organization and functioning of the Judiciary; separation of powers; ordinance-making power (Article 123) vs. legislative process.
• GS-II: Issues relating to appointment to statutory/constitutional bodies — links to Collegium system and judicial vacancies.
• Possible question stems: 1. "Discuss the constitutional and administrative rationale behind periodically increasing the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court of India. Does merely adding judges address the root causes of case pendency?" 2. "Examine the appropriateness of using the ordinance route (Article 123) to increase the Supreme Court's judge strength ahead of a full parliamentary session. What safeguards exist against misuse of this power?" 3. "The gap between institution and disposal of cases is the primary driver of judicial pendency in India. Critically analyze with reference to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026."

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Collegium system of judicial appointments — expanded vacancies will need to be filled via Collegium recommendations.
• National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) — source for pendency statistics across courts.
• Article 123 vs Article 213 — Presidential and Gubernatorial ordinance-making powers, judicial review (Krishna Kumar Singh case).
• Article 124 & 217 — appointment and strength of judges in SC and High Courts.
• All India Judicial Services proposal — another pendency-reduction measure under discussion.
• National Court of Appeal proposal — debate on reducing SC's original/appellate burden.
• Fast Track Courts / Commercial Courts Act — complementary pendency-reduction mechanisms at subordinate levels.
• 245th Law Commission Report — on arrears and backlog of cases, useful backdrop for judge-strength debates.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing sanctioned strength including CJI (38) with excluding CJI (37) — the Ordinance figures (33→37) and Bill's popularly cited figures (34→38) refer to excl./incl. CJI respectively [S1][S3].
• Assuming this is a constitutional amendment — it is actually a statutory amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, since Article 124 permits Parliament to alter judge strength "by law" [S1].
• Mixing up the 2019 increase (30→33) with the 2026 increase (33→37/34→38) — do not conflate the two figures [S1][S3].
• Assuming the Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha; it was introduced in the Lok Sabha [S3].
• Misremembering the ordinance date — it was promulgated in May 2026, not at the time of Bill introduction (July 2026) [S2][S3].

11. Sources

• [S1] The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill — PIB Press Release — https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2258131&reg=3&lang=1 — (tier: 1)
• [S2] Central Ordinance 2026 — The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 — Legislative Department (legislative.gov.in) — https://www.legislative.gov.in/static/uploads/2026/05/43403bd5a664399763a253a82fdc9377.pdf — (tier: 1)
• [S3] Govt. introduces Bill in Lok Sabha to raise strength of judges in SC to 38 — The Hindu — https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/2026-07-21/th_chennai/articleGDJG9FS6R-15550680.ece — (tier: 4)