The Supreme Court of India is the apex judicial body in the country and serves as highest court of appeal in the country. The Supreme Court serves as the final interpreter of the Constitution which plays a pivotal role in a democracy country like India. The total number of judges of Supreme Court, its strength including the Chief Justice of India (CJI), is an important aspect of judicial governance because it directly affects quality, speed and efficacy of justice.
As there are over 50 million pending cases in India and 93,000 cases (as of March 2026) pending in the Supreme court, the increasing of strength of judges is always a necessity in India. Over the years, the Sanctioned strength of Supreme court has gradually increased to reduce the burden of judiciary to solve the pendency of cases. But the real question is..
Are the judges’ appointments to the Supreme Court sufficient? Can it meet the growing needs of litigation in India?
Recently, the Union Cabinet has approved the proposal to increase the strength of judges from 33 to 37 judges excluding the Chief Justice of India. This proposal intends the constant effort of the judiciary and the government to reduce pendency and improve the access to justice.
Constitutional Basis of Supreme Court Judges’ Strength
The Indian Constitution laid down the composition of Supreme Court is found in Article 124 of the Constitution of India. Article 124(1) of the Indian Constitution originally provided that the Supreme Court should consist of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and not more than seven other judges. However, the constitution also authorized the Parliament to increase the number of judges through legislation whenever necessary.
- Constitutional Provision: Article 124(1) of the Constitution stipulated that
“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.”
- Statutory Authority: The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 authorizes Parliament to regulate the strength of judges.
As the litigation and the population of India expanded, Parliament repeatedly amended the strength of the court through various enactments to meet the judicial needs of the country under the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
Thus, the Constitution did not limit the permanent strength of the judges of the Supreme Court, but it can be altered by the Parliament according to the judicial and administrative requirements.
Historical Growth in Judicial Strength
At the time of its establishment in 1950, the Apex Court of India consisted of the Chief Justice and Seven other judges. Over time, this number has been revised multiple times to meet the dynamic needs of the country by expanding constitutional responsibilities.
Key revisions include:
- 1956 – Increased from 8 to 11 Judges
- 1960 – Increased from 11 to 14 Judges
- 1977 – Increased from 14 to 18 Judges
- 1986 – Increased from 18 to 26 Judges
- 2009 – Increased from 26 to 31 Judges
- 2019 – Increased from 31 to 34 Judges including the Chief Justice of India.
- 2026- Cabinet proposal to increase from 33 to 37 Judges plus CJI
The recent Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi got approval to increase the strength of Judges further to 37 plus the CJI, thereby making the strength to 38 Judges when the Bill gets passed by the Parliament and receives Presidential assent.
Need for Increasing the Number of Judges
India has one of the largest judicial workloads in the world. The proposal to increase the number of judges is mainly driven the growing pendency of cases before the Supreme court nearly 93,000 cases (as of March 2026) pending in the Supreme Court,
Thousands of constitutional, criminal, tax, civil and public interest matters reach the supreme court every year.
The Courts Performs several functions including Protection of Fundamental rights, Appellate Jurisdiction, Constitutional Interpretation, Advisory Jurisdiction, Judicial Review against legislative and executive actions, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) adjudication and many others.
The Apex Court often faces an enormous backlog of cases because of this vast jurisdiction. Due to this vast jurisdiction, the Court often faces an enormous backlog of cases. According to recent judicial statistics, 93,000 cases (as of March 2026) are pending before the Supreme Court, which takes many years to be finally decided.
Increasing the number of judges is a practical measure to:
- Ensure speedy disposal of cases
- Allow Constitution benches to function more often
- Reduce Pendency
- Strength access to Justice
- Improve Judicial Efficacy
Judicial Delay and Pendency
Pendency of cases has become a major problem for the Indian legal system. The famous legal maxim “Justice delayed is Justice denied”. Delay in justice affects the litigants socially, economically and psychologically.
The Supreme Court often deals with Election disputes, Constitutional matters, Appeals from High Courts, Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 and Criminal Appeals involving Life and Liberty under Article 21.
Because of increase of litigation, judges often face excessive workloads. Reviewing and increasing the sanctioned strength allows the Judiciary to constitute more benches simultaneously thereby disposing of more matters within a shorter period of time.
As the Supreme court is handling important constitutional matters that require larger benches, the increase of judges help the judges to occupy the larger benches and other judges to deal with the appellate and routine admission work.
Advantages of the Proposed Increase in Supreme Court Strength
The Cabinet’s proposal to increase the number of judges from 33 to 37 judges offers several advantages.
1. Quick Disposal of Cases
More Judges mean more benches results in quicker hearings. This can notably reduce delays in both pending and fresh matters.
2. Reduce Workload on Judges
Supreme court judges often hear hundreds of matters daily. Increasing judicial strength can improve the quality of judgements by reducing stress.
3. Better Adjudication of Constitutional Matters
The Supreme court often hears cases involving Privacy, election, freedom of speech, Federalism and Constitutional amendments. Increasing the number of judges will enable the court to allocate more time to such important issues.
4. Functioning of Constitutional Benches
Significant constitutional cases often require benches of five, seven or nine judges. Increasing the strength of judges will make it easier to constitute more benches without disrupting the regular work of the work.
5. Access to Justice
Citizens approaching the Supreme court may receive quicker remedies and faster hearings, thereby strengthening faith in the judiciary.
Criticism and Challenges
Although the increasing of judges is beneficial it cannot aloe solve the problem of pendency and quality of judgements. Structural reforms are necessary to tackle this issue.
Certain challenges include:
- Excessive Adjournments
- Delay in Judicial Appointments
- Lack of Proper Training
- Frequent vacancies
- Increasing the number of appeals reaching the Apex Court unnecessarily
- Infrastructural Limitations
- Criticism and Challenges
Some experts also argue that Supreme court should focus more on Constitutional matters rather than functioning primarily as a routine appellate court.
Therefore, Judicial reforms must support the increasing the judges of the supreme court.
These reforms may include:
- Filling the Vacancies properly
- Strengthening the Lower Courts
- Improving digitization and technology
- Streamlining the Procedural laws
- Encouraging ADR Mechanism
Conclusion
The strength of Judges in the Supreme Court is a crucial aspect of India’s Judicial system because it affects the administration of justice. From the original strength of 8 Judges in 1950, the Court has gradually expanded in response to the dynamics and increasing demands of the country.
The recent Cabinet approval to increase the strength from 33 to 37 judges makes another path towards the judicial efficiency. While, increasing the number of judges is not a complete solution, it has to combine with broader judicial reforms to promote the public confidence on judiciary and promoting the timely and effective justice for all the people.
