Five new judges join SC following increase in sanctioned strength

1. At a Glance

• The Supreme Court of India received five new judges on 3 June 2026, raising its working strength to 37 out of a newly sanctioned 38 (including CJI). [1]
• The expansion was enabled by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, promulgated by President Droupadi Murmu on 18 May 2026 under Article 123 of the Constitution. [2]
• The ordinance amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, increasing the number of judges (excluding CJI) from 33 to 37. [2]
• Critical for UPSC: sits at the intersection of constitutional law (Art. 124, Art. 123), judicial appointments (collegium), and judicial pendency — a recurring Prelims + Mains theme.

2. Why in the News

• 3 June 2026: CJI Surya Kant administered the oath of office to five judges simultaneously — the largest single-day oath ceremony in recent memory. [1]
• 18 May 2026: President Murmu promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, the proximate trigger. [2]
• Primary stated reason: address mounting case backlog and rising workload of the apex court, worsened by pandemic-era pendency. [2]
• One vacancy remains post-swearing-in (total sanctioned = 38; working strength = 37). [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• Constitutional basis: Article 124(1) — "There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges." Parliament routinely amends the 1956 Act to expand strength.
• Judicial appointments: Governed by the Collegium system, evolved through the Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998); the NJAC (99th Constitutional Amendment) was struck down in 2015. [3]

4. Core Static Facts

The Ordinance

• Full title: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026
• Promulgated by: President of India under Article 123
• Date of promulgation: 18 May 2026 [2]
• Amends: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956
• Change: Judges (excl. CJI): 33 → 37; Total (incl. CJI): 34 → 38

The Five New Judges (sworn in 3 June 2026) [1] | Judge | Previous Position | |-------|-------------------| | Justice Sheel Nagu | Former CJ, Punjab & Haryana HC | | Justice Shree Chandrashekhar | Former CJ, Bombay HC | | Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva | Former CJ, Madhya Pradesh HC | | Justice Arun Palli | Former CJ, J&K and Ladakh HC | | V.S. Mohana | Senior Advocate (Bar direct elevation) |

Key Constitutional Provisions

• Article 124(1): Establishes the Supreme Court; Parliament may prescribe number of judges.
• Article 124(2): Appointment by President after consultation with CJI (and other judges as deemed fit).
• Article 123: President's ordinance-making power during recess of Parliament.
• Article 124(4): Removal of SC judge — only by impeachment (address by both Houses, special majority).

Collegium System

• Not in the Constitution; judicially created.
• SC collegium = CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges.
• Government cannot override collegium's reiterated recommendations (post-2015 NJAC judgment).

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• The use of an ordinance (rather than an Act of Parliament) to expand SC strength is constitutionally valid under Art. 123 but raises separation of powers questions — executive unilaterally reshaping the judiciary's composition. [4]
• The ordinance must be placed before Parliament within six weeks of reassembly; lapses if not ratified. [2]
• Bar-direct elevation (V.S. Mohana as senior advocate) is constitutionally permitted under Art. 124(3)(b) but rarer than HC judge elevation.

Administrative / Governance

• India's SC pendency exceeds 80,000+ cases; expansion aims to reduce per-judge load.
• More judges → more benches → faster disposal, especially of Constitution Bench matters.
• SC judge strength has historically lagged behind workload; each expansion is reactive, not anticipatory.

Ethical / Governance

• Collegium opacity: criteria for recommending the five names remain unpublished; civil-society demands for transparent merit-based appointments persist.
• Using an ordinance bypasses parliamentary debate — executive influence optics in judicial appointments.
• Reiterated SC view (Second Judges Case, 1993): executive cannot have primacy in judicial appointments; yet the ordinance expanding "seats" is squarely executive action.

Historical

• Every increase in SC strength has followed the same statutory route (amending the 1956 Act); the ordinance route is unusual — normally done via a Bill, making 2026 a notable precedent.
• Comparison: US Supreme Court has a fixed strength of 9 (no expansion since 1869), making "court packing" politically charged there; India's expansions are routine statutory exercises.

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 18 May 2026: President Murmu promulgates the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 — sanctioned strength 33 → 37 (excl. CJI). [2]
• 3 June 2026: CJI Surya Kant administers oath to five new judges (Sheel Nagu, Shree Chandrashekhar, Sanjeev Sachdeva, Arun Palli, V.S. Mohana); SC working strength reaches 37 of 38. [1]
• One vacancy remains post-induction as of June 2026. [1]
• The collegium was expected to begin deliberations on further appointments post-ordinance. [4]

7. Prelims Hooks

1. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act was originally enacted in 1956.
2. As of June 2026, the sanctioned strength of the SC (including CJI) is 38 judges.
3. The 2026 ordinance increased the number of SC judges (excluding CJI) from 33 to 37.
4. The ordinance was promulgated under Article 123 of the Constitution (not Art. 124 or Art. 370).
5. Article 124(1) permits Parliament — not the executive — to prescribe the number of SC judges.
6. CJI Surya Kant administered the oath to the five new judges on 3 June 2026.
7. One of the five newly sworn judges — V.S. Mohana — was elevated directly from the Bar (senior advocate), not from a High Court.
8. The SC collegium comprises the CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges.
9. The NJAC (National Judicial Appointments Commission) was declared unconstitutional by the SC in 2015, restoring the collegium system.
10. An ordinance must be placed before Parliament within six weeks of reassembly or it lapses (Art. 123(2)).
11. SC judge removal requires an address by both Houses of Parliament with a special majority — never happened in India's history.
12. The Second Judges Case (1993) established that the collegium's collective opinion has primacy over the executive in judicial appointments.
13. Prior to the 2026 ordinance, the last increase in SC strength was in 2019 (from 31 to 34 including CJI).
14. Justice Sheel Nagu was the former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court before elevation to SC.

8. Mains Relevance

GS Paper II — Indian Polity and Governance

• Syllabus: Structure, organisation and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary; appointment to various Constitutional posts

GS Paper II also:

• Syllabus: Separation of powers between various organs; dispute redressal mechanisms

Plausible Mains Questions

1. "The use of the ordinance route to expand the Supreme Court's sanctioned strength raises concerns about executive encroachment on judicial independence. Critically examine." (GS-II, 250 words)
2. "Despite successive increases in the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court, pendency of cases remains alarmingly high. Examine the structural reasons and suggest systemic reforms." (GS-II, 250 words)
3. "The collegium system, while protecting judicial independence, suffers from a lack of transparency and accountability. Discuss in the context of recent appointments to the Supreme Court." (GS-II, 150 words)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

1. Wrong total strength: Aspirants confuse "37 excluding CJI" with "37 total." The total sanctioned strength is 38 (37 + CJI). Working strength as of June 2026 = 37 (one vacancy).
2. Wrong article for promulgation: The ordinance is under Article 123 (President, Parliament recess), not Article 124 (which governs appointments) or Article 213 (Governor's ordinance).
3. Confusing the 1956 Act with the Constitution: Parliament sets the number via a statute (the 1956 Act), not a constitutional amendment — so no special majority is needed, just a simple Bill (or here, an ordinance).
4. NJAC confusion: Students sometimes think NJAC is still operative. It was struck down in 2015; collegium system remains in force.
5. Bar elevation rarity: Assuming all SC judges come from HCs — Art. 124(3)(b) allows elevation of senior advocates with 10+ years' practice in a HC; V.S. Mohana's appointment is a reminder of this often-missed provision.