Back
Arjun Ram Meghwal Introduces Bill to Increase Judge Strength to 37, Excluding CJI
In a decisive move aimed at tackling an ever-expanding docket, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on Monday introduced the (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the . The legislation proposes to amend the (Number of Judges) Act, , raising the number of apex court judges from 33 to 37—excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI). With the CJI included, the total sanctioned strength of the country’s highest judicial forum would climb to 38, marking the first expansion since .
The Bill, tabled during the tumultuous Monsoon Session of , comes on the heels of an promulgated by President Droupadi Murmu in , which had already given effect to the increase. The government’s stated intent is clear: to enhance the court’s adjudicatory muscle in the face of a staggering 92,385 pending cases. “The move is aimed at improving the ’s efficiency and reducing the growing by allowing more benches to function simultaneously,” the asserted as the Bill was introduced.
A Court Under Strain: The Calculus Behind the Expansion
The of India has long operated under a crushing caseload. Despite its sanctioned strength, the actual working strength often lags due to vacancies. As of the Bill’s introduction, the court functioned with 32 judges (including the CJI) against the newly sanctioned 38. The gap between sanction and reality underscores the urgency of not merely expanding the bench but ensuring timely appointments.
The last increase came in , when hiked the number from 30 to 33, excluding the CJI. Prior milestones include 30 in , 25 in , and a modest 10 when the original Act was passed in . The progressive enlargement mirrors the exponential growth in litigation and the corresponding need for to hear diverse matters ranging from to routine appeals.
Legal experts have largely welcomed the Bill’s intent, while cautioning that numbers alone won’t suffice. “Additional judges could help speed up case disposal,” one source noted, “but broader judicial reforms and timely appointments will be necessary to significantly reduce .” That sentiment echoes a widening consensus: infrastructure, digitisation, and systemic reforms must accompany any numerical increase to achieve meaningful dent on the backlog.
From to Statute: Navigating Parliamentary Procedure
The legislative journey of the Bill is inseparable from the peculiar dynamics of -making under . On , the cleared the proposal, and shortly thereafter, President Murmu promulgated the (Number of Judges) Amendment 2026. That executive instrument tweaked by substituting “thirty-three” with “thirty-seven.”
However, an is inherently transient. As former Union Law Secretary P K Malhotra explained, “an has a maximum duration of six months, but once a legislative session commences, it must be passed into law within six weeks, or 42 days, to prevent it from lapsing.” With the Monsoon Session beginning on , the clock started ticking on the government to convert the into a permanent Act before it expires. The Bill is the vehicle for that conversion, and its passage requires only a in both Houses—no is needed, because (1) of the expressly empowers to “by law” prescribe the number of judges.
This procedural detail has not shielded the Bill from political friction. The has already admitted a from the Opposition disapproving of the May , signalling a potential floor battle. Even as Meghwal rose to introduce the Bill, the House reverberated with sloganeering over the alleged NEET-UG paper leak and the Ram Mandir donation embezzlement row. proceedings, meanwhile, were disrupted when Leader of Opposition Mallikarjun Kharge drew attention to student protests at Jantar Mantar, accusing the government of using force to suppress voices. The government, however, pressed ahead, emphasizing the urgency of judicial reinforcement.
Constitutional Anchors and Historical Footprints
The power to enlarge the ’s bench is not a novel legislative exercise; it is an established tool rooted in the ’s architecture. (1) reads: “There shall be a of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges.” That numerical cap was quickly overtaken, and has periodically exercised its authority, culminating in the current Bill.
The Act originally set the maximum at 10 judges. Successive amendments in (to 13), (to 17), (to 25), (to 30), and (to 33) demonstrate a responsive legislature. The present proposal continues that tradition, while also serving as a reminder that the envisages a flexible, -driven mechanism for judicial staffing.
Notably, the Bill does not disturb the appointment procedure. Eligibility for judgeship remains governed by (3): a candidate must be an Indian citizen and either have served as a High Court judge for at least five years, practiced as an advocate for ten years, or be a distinguished jurist. The expansion simply increases the number of chairs at the bench, leaving the ’s role and the appointment process untouched—at least for now.
The Opposition’s Double-Barrel: Disapproval Resolution and Disruptions
The parliamentary saga is layered with political subplots. Alongside the Bill, the government is set to introduce the , in the , which seeks to criminalise obstruction or insult to the national song Vande Mataram. But the immediate hurdle for the judicial strength Bill is the opposition’s disapproval resolution against the —an unusual parliamentary gambit. Under the legislative procedure, when a bill seeks to replace an , opposition members can move such a resolution to express dissent. While the government’s numerical strength in the makes defeat unlikely, the debate promises to be heated, potentially entangling the judicial expansion with unrelated controversies like the NEET paper leak.
The disruptions have already taken a toll. On the opening day, the was adjourned till 12:30 pm after opposition members persisted with their slogans. The Monsoon Session, scheduled to run until , is expected to be punctuated with similar scenes. Yet, the government remains confident that the Bill’s intrinsic merit—addressing the palpable burden on the justice delivery system—will secure its passage.
What the Expansion Means for Litigants and Lawyers
For the legal fraternity, the immediate consequence of the Bill, once enacted, will be the potential for more benches to sit concurrently. Currently, the court typically runs 12–15 benches on any given day, with each bench handling a specific category of cases. An additional four judges could translate into at least two more benches, accelerating the hearing of , , and that have been languishing for years.
The court’s registry may also see a revamp of listing priorities, as the newly available judicial hands allow for dedicated benches for old matters or regional appeals. However, the real game-changer will be how swiftly the fills the enhanced sanctioned strength. Vacancies have persistently plagued the ; the present working strength of 32 against a sanctioned 38 means that even before the Bill passes, the court is operating below capacity. Without expeditious appointments, the legislative expansion risks becoming a paper exercise.
Moreover, the expansion could reinvigorate the debate on the necessity of a or of the —a proposal that has surfaced periodically to decentralise access to justice. While the current Bill is a more immediate intervention, it may fuel those longer-term structural conversations among jurists and policymakers.
Looking Ahead: Passage and Implementation
The legislative road ahead appears smooth in terms of compliance with , but the political turbulence could protract the process. Once the Bill is voted on—likely within the session—it will require the to become law, formally replacing the May . Legal observers are also watching whether the government, in the wake of the expansion, will introduce complementary measures such as enhanced infrastructure, law clerk hiring, and technology upgrades to maximise the utility of the larger bench.
As the braces for its new strength, the message from is unequivocal: the justice system’s capacity must keep pace with litigants’ expectations. Whether the numerical bump alone suffices, or whether it becomes the opening chapter of a larger reform saga, will unfold in the coming months.
In the words of the government, the Bill “does not require an amendment to the and requires a for passage.” That procedural simplicity belies the complex interplay of law, politics, and judicial administration that the initiative has unleashed—a reminder that in the world of legal reform, the path from statute to courtroom is often longer than the text of the Bill itself.
