Why in News?

• The President of India has promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 to increase the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
• Consequently, the total strength of the apex court, including the CJI, will rise from 34 to 38 judges.
• The ordinance amends Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, and was issued under Article 123 of the Constitution after the Union Cabinet approved the proposal earlier this month.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Ordinance-Making Power of the President
• Need to Increase the Strength of the SC
• Other Reforms Needed in the Judiciary
• Conclusion

Ordinance-Making Power of the President:

• Constitutional provision: Article 123 empowers the President to promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session and immediate legislative action is required.
• Features:
  • Ordinances have the same force and effect as a law passed by Parliament.
  • They are executive-legislative instruments meant for temporary and urgent circumstances, not routine governance.
  • They are subject to Parliamentary approval; judicial review; and Constitutional limitations.
• Temporary nature:
  • The ordinance must be laid before both Houses of Parliament when they reconvene.
  • Will cease to operate if not approved within six weeks of reassembly.
  • Can also lapse if both Houses disapprove it, or may be withdrawn earlier by the President.
• Judicial position:
  • The SC established that ordinances are open to judicial review in the landmark cases of R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970), A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982), and Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017).
  • In cases such as D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987), it criticised repeated re-promulgation of ordinances, calling it a misuse of constitutional power.
• Real power: The Union Cabinet is the driving force behind this legislative process.

Need to Increase the Strength of the SC:

• Rising pendency: The judge-to-case ratio has become unsustainable, especially with rapidly rising appeals and special leave petitions (SLPs). For example,
  • Pendency has crossed 93,000 cases;
  • Post-COVID surge in e-filing has significantly increased case inflow;
  • Increasing constitutional litigation, PILs, commercial disputes, and service matters have added to the burden.
• Need for faster justice delivery:
  • Judicial delays weaken rule of law, hinder enforcement of Fundamental Rights, and reduce public trust in institutions.
  • The expansion aims to reduce delays in hearings and judgments; improve disposal rates; enable more Constitution and specialised benches; and strengthen citizens’ access to timely justice.
• Complexity in governance: Modern governance has expanded the Court’s responsibilities as a result of -
  • Federal disputes;
  • Electoral matters;
  • Digital privacy and technology-related litigation;
  • Environmental and climate justice cases; and
  • Economic and regulatory disputes.

Other Reforms Needed in the Judiciary:

• Strengthening the entire judicial pyramid: Merely increasing SC judges is insufficient unless subordinate courts and High Courts are also strengthened.
• Key reforms needed:
  • Fill vacancies promptly: Large vacancies persist in High Courts and subordinate judiciary. Timely appointments through the collegium and government coordination are essential.
  • Establish an All India Judicial Service (Article 312): This could improve recruitment quality and uniformity in lower judiciary.
  • Limit routine appeals to the SC: The SC should increasingly focus on constitutional and national importance cases rather than functioning as a regular appellate court.
  • Strengthen Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Promote mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats to reduce litigation pressure.
  • Expand judicial infrastructure: More courtrooms, staff, digital infrastructure, and research assistance are needed.
  • Institutionalise technology: AI-assisted case management; e-courts; virtual hearings; and intelligent scheduling systems.
  • National court management systems: Scientific case allocation and timeline-based disposal mechanisms can improve efficiency.
  • Separate constitution benches: Permanent Constitution Benches could ensure quicker resolution of major constitutional matters.

Conclusion:

• The decision to increase the sanctioned strength of the SC marks an important institutional response to India’s deepening judicial pendency crisis.
• While adding judges may provide immediate relief and improve disposal capacity, the larger challenge lies in comprehensive judicial reforms across all levels of the justice delivery system.