President Droupadi Murmu clears ordinance increasing Supreme Court strength to 38

In a move that marks a significant milestone in the history of the Indian legal system, President Droupadi Murmu has promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026. This legislative action effectively increases the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India from 34 to 38 judges, a figure that includes the Chief Justice of India (CJI). This development, notified in the Gazette of India on May 16, 2026, comes at a time when the highest court of the land is grappling with an unprecedented volume of litigation and a mounting backlog of cases that threatens the very core of our “Access to Justice” mandate.

As a senior practitioner before the Bar, one views this expansion not merely as a numerical adjustment but as a structural necessity. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, which provides the legislative framework for the composition of the court, has undergone several amendments over the decades to keep pace with the growing legal needs of a developing nation. This latest ordinance is a testament to the executive’s recognition of the judicial burden and the urgent need for systemic relief.

Understanding the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026

The Ordinance specifically amends Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. Originally, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court consisting of a Chief Justice and seven other judges, leaving it to Parliament to increase this number as required. Over the last 75 years, we have seen the strength grow from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1977, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009, and most recently to 34 in 2019.

By invoking the power under Article 123 of the Constitution, the President has exercised her legislative authority to address a situation that requires immediate attention while Parliament may not be in session. The transition from 34 to 38 judges signifies an 11.7% increase in judicial manpower, which is intended to facilitate the formation of more benches, thereby expediting the disposal of both civil and criminal matters that have been languishing for years.

The Constitutional Basis: Article 123 and Judicial Strength

Article 123 of the Constitution of India empowers the President to promulgate ordinances during the recess of Parliament. Such ordinances have the same force and effect as an Act of Parliament. The decision to use this route highlights the urgency felt by the Union Cabinet and the Judiciary to address the vacancy and pendency crisis. In the hierarchy of legal reforms, increasing judge strength is often the first and most vital step toward ensuring that the “sentinel on the qui vive” remains effective.

From a legal perspective, the power of Parliament (and by extension the President through an Ordinance) to determine the number of judges is found in Entry 77 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. This ensures that the structure of the apex court is always subject to the evolving needs of the citizenry, managed through a collaborative effort between the Executive and the Judiciary.

The Crisis of Pendency: Why 38 Judges are Necessary

The primary driver behind this expansion is the staggering number of pending cases. According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), the Supreme Court has over 80,000 cases pending. While the court has made strides in adopting technology and streamlining listing procedures, the sheer volume of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) and Constitutional matters requires more physical “court hours.”

With a strength of 34, the court typically operates in Division Benches of two or three judges. A significant portion of judicial time is consumed by “miscellaneous days”—Mondays and Fridays—where fresh matters are heard. This leaves limited time for “regular hearing matters” which involve deep questions of law, complex evidence, and long-standing disputes. By increasing the strength to 38, the CJI will have the flexibility to constitute more benches, potentially allowing for more dedicated days for final hearings.

Constitution Benches and Article 145(3)

One of the most critical aspects of the Supreme Court’s function is the adjudication of matters involving “a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution,” which requires a minimum of five judges under Article 145(3). In recent years, we have seen a commendable effort to list and hear long-pending Constitution Bench matters. However, setting aside five or seven judges for a single case often depletes the other benches, causing a slowdown in the disposal of routine commercial, matrimonial, and criminal appeals.

An expanded strength of 38 ensures that the court can simultaneously run multiple Constitution Benches without paralyzing the regular appellate work of the court. This is vital for the development of Indian jurisprudence, as many fundamental questions regarding privacy, federalism, and civil liberties await definitive rulings from larger benches.

The Impact on Special Leave Petitions (SLPs)

India’s Supreme Court is unique in that it functions both as a Constitutional Court and as a final Court of Appeal. Under Article 136, the court has the discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment or order from any court or tribunal in the country. This has led to the “SLP-ization” of the Supreme Court, where it is often treated as a court of error correction rather than a court of last resort for significant legal principles.

The increase to 38 judges allows for a better distribution of this workload. When the judiciary is understaffed, the pressure to dispose of cases quickly can sometimes affect the depth of hearings. With more judges, the time allocated per case can theoretically increase, leading to better-reasoned judgments and a more thorough examination of the records from the High Courts.

Alleviating Judicial Stress and Burnout

It is often overlooked that the judges of the Supreme Court work under immense pressure. The reading requirement for a single miscellaneous day can run into thousands of pages. By increasing the number of judges, the institutional burden is shared more broadly. This not only aids in the mental well-being of the bench but also ensures that the quality of justice is not compromised by the quantity of cases. A well-rested and focused judiciary is essential for the rule of law.

The Selection Process: The Role of the Collegium

With the sanctioned strength now at 38, the focus shifts to the Supreme Court Collegium. The task of identifying four new eminent jurists—either from the various High Courts or from the Bar—is a monumental responsibility. The Collegium, comprising the CJI and the four senior-most judges, must ensure that these vacancies are filled promptly to make the 2026 Ordinance meaningful.

Criteria such as seniority, merit, integrity, and diversity are paramount. As a Senior Advocate, I believe that this expansion provides a golden opportunity to further diversify the bench. Ensuring representation from different High Courts, including those that are often under-represented, as well as increasing the number of women on the bench, will strengthen the democratic character of the institution.

The Executive-Judiciary Interface

The promulgation of this Ordinance also signals a level of cooperation between the Executive and the Judiciary. While there have been historical tensions regarding judicial appointments and the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the act of increasing sanctioned strength is a clear policy signal that the government is committed to providing the necessary resources for judicial efficiency. It is now up to the Collegium to recommend names and the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to process them with the required alacrity.

Infrastructure and Technological Requirements

Increasing the number of judges is not a solitary solution. It must be accompanied by a robust increase in physical and digital infrastructure. A judge of the Supreme Court requires a full administrative staff, law clerks, and a courtroom. With the current infrastructure at Tilak Marg already strained, the expansion necessitates the completion of newer judicial wings and the modernization of existing ones.

Furthermore, the “Integrated Case Management Information System” (ICMIS) and the “e-Courts” project must be scaled up to handle the increased flow of data that four additional benches will generate. Virtual hearing capabilities, which became a staple during the pandemic, must also be optimized to ensure that these new benches can operate effectively in a hybrid environment.

Regional Benches: An Ongoing Debate

With the strength increasing to 38, the perennial debate regarding the establishment of regional benches of the Supreme Court might gain fresh momentum. Proponents argue that a larger court should be decentralized to ensure that litigants from South or North-East India do not have to travel to Delhi for every hearing. While this remains a controversial topic involving constitutional amendments to Article 130, the increase in judicial strength provides the logistical room to at least consider “Circuit Benches” or specialized divisions for certain types of law.

Economic Implications of Judicial Efficiency

From an SEO and macroeconomic perspective, “judicial delay” is often cited as a major hurdle for Ease of Doing Business in India. When commercial disputes are tied up in the Supreme Court for decades, it locks up capital and deters foreign investment. By increasing the court’s capacity to 38 judges, the government is sending a positive signal to the global economic community.

Faster disposal of cases in the apex court trickles down as a precedent for High Courts and Trial Courts. When the Supreme Court settles a law quickly, thousands of similar cases in lower courts can be disposed of based on that precedent. Therefore, the “multiplier effect” of adding four judges to the Supreme Court is significantly higher than it appears on paper.

Legal Certainty and Market Stability

In fields like Taxation, Intellectual Property, and Insolvency and Bankruptcy (IBC), legal certainty is paramount. The current backlog often means that conflicting judgments from different High Courts remain in force for years before the Supreme Court can provide a definitive ruling. An expanded bench allows for quicker resolution of such conflicts, providing the legal certainty that markets crave.

Comparative Global Perspective

When compared to other apex courts globally, the Indian Supreme Court is unique. The U.S. Supreme Court has 9 judges and hears roughly 80 cases a year. The UK Supreme Court has 12 judges. However, these courts are strictly constitutional or discretionary in a way the Indian Supreme Court is not. Given our population and the nature of our Constitution, which allows direct access to the SC under Article 32, a strength of 38 is actually quite modest.

In many ways, the Indian Supreme Court functions as a “super-appellate court,” and to fulfill that role for 1.4 billion people, 38 judges is a necessary minimum. It reflects the “Indian model” of judicial administration—one that prioritizes reach and remedial justice over exclusivity.

Conclusion: A Step Toward a More Responsive Judiciary

The promulgation of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, by President Droupadi Murmu is a welcome and much-needed intervention. As we move toward a “Viksit Bharat” (Developed India), the judicial pillar of our democracy must be robust enough to handle the complexities of a modern, litigious society.

However, as members of the legal fraternity, we must remember that numbers alone do not guarantee justice. The success of this move will depend on three factors: the quality of the appointments made to these new posts, the efficiency with which the CJI utilizes the increased bench strength, and the continued modernization of judicial procedures. For the common litigant, the hope is that this ordinance translates into shorter wait times, more thorough hearings, and ultimately, the timely delivery of justice. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, and with 38 judges, the Indian Supreme Court is now better equipped to ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied in the years to come.

This development will likely be followed by a formal Bill in the next session of Parliament to replace the Ordinance, as per the requirements of Article 123. Until then, the legal community looks forward to the notification of new appointments that will bring the court to its full, newly expanded strength.