Cabinet clears Bill to expand Supreme Court strength to 38 judges

On 5 May, the Union cabinet approved the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 to raise the sanctioned strength of the top court from 34 to 38 judges. The Bill will be tabled in the next session of Parliament. Information and Broadcasting Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said the legislation would amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to add four puisne judges. 

The official release stated that the increase would enable the Supreme Court to function “more efficiently and effectively” and reduce pendency. As of 30 April, total pendency in the top court stood at 92,823 cases, per data on the National Judicial Data Grid.

This is the first expansion of the sanctioned strength since 2019, when the strength was increased to 34 judges from 31 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019. The Court began with eight judges in 1950. Successive amendments raised the strength to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986 and 31 in 2009. The working strength on 5 May is 32 judges, with two existing vacancies. No recommendations have been made to fill these vacancies so far.

Does strength have an impact on pendency?

The Bill revives a question pressed by the Eighteenth Law Commission of India in 2009. The 229th Report, authored under Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, argued that adding judges alone was insufficient to address pendency or access. Instead, it recommended a Constitution Bench at Delhi for constitutional matters, with four regional cassation benches at Delhi, Chennai or Hyderabad, Kolkata and Mumbai to dispose of appellate matters from the High Courts. This proposal was rejected by a Full Court of the Supreme Court on 18 February 2010. The Court found “no justification” for sittings outside Delhi. A writ petition seeking a National Court of Appeal, referred to a Constitution Bench in 2016, remains pending.

Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud had observed in 2024 that “we simply need more judges” and was engaging with the government on the question. Critics have asked whether numbers alone will help. Strength alone does not dictate pendency trends as the docket also changes due to the ever-expanding jurisdiction of the Court and the consistent filing of special leave petitions.

The Bill leaves untouched the appointments process, the listing practices and the volume of special leave petitions that drive the docket. Whether the four additional seats translate into faster disposal will depend on how quickly the Collegium recommends names and the Union clears them. Vacancies have persisted at every previous expansion.