An ordinance is a temporary law with the force of a Parliamentary Act, promulgated by the President under Article 123 when Parliament is not in session. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 amends Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, replacing the word "thirty-three" with "thirty-seven" to increase the number of SC judges (excluding CJI) from 33 to 37 — bringing the total sanctioned strength (including CJI) from 34 to 38.
| Term | Meaning | 2026 Figure |
|---|---|---|
| Sanctioned Strength | Maximum number of judges Parliament has authorised by law | 38 (37 + CJI) |
| Working Strength | Actual number of judges currently serving | 32 (incl. CJI) as of May 2026 |
| Vacancies | Gap between sanctioned and working strength | 6 existing + 4 new posts = 10 to fill |
| Puisne Judges | SC judges other than the CJI | Now up to 37 (previously 33) |
| CJI | Chief Justice of India — always counted separately | Not included in the "33→37" count |
The word substituted in Section 2 of the 1956 Act: "thirty-three" → "thirty-seven". The CJI is always excluded from this count. Total strength = CJI + 37 = 38.
| Parameter | Before (Pre-May 17, 2026) | After (Post-Ordinance) |
|---|---|---|
| Judges excl. CJI (law) | 33 | 37 |
| Total sanctioned (incl. CJI) | 34 | 38 |
| New posts created | — | +4 |
| Governing provision | SC (NoJ) Act 1956, Section 2 | Same — amended by Ordinance |
| Ordinance under | — | Article 123 |
| Gazette notification | — | May 16, 2026 |
UPSC loves asking about the number excluding CJI vs the total including CJI. Always remember: the Act says "33" (now "37") excluding CJI. Add 1 for total = 34 (now 38). A question may give you 37 and ask for total — answer: 38.
| Article | Provision | Relevance to Ordinance 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 124(1) | SC shall consist of CJI + such other judges as Parliament may by law prescribe; originally "not more than 7 other judges" | Foundation — Parliament (or via Ordinance) sets the number; currently now 37 + CJI |
| Art. 124(2) | Every SC judge appointed by the President on recommendation of the collegium; holds office till age 65 | The 4 new posts will be filled through collegium recommendations |
| Art. 124(3) | Qualifications: Indian citizen; HC judge for 5 yrs OR HC advocate for 10 yrs OR distinguished jurist | Qualifications for the 4 new appointees |
| Art. 124(4) | Removal only by President after address by both Houses (special majority: majority of total membership + 2/3 present & voting) | Security of tenure applies to all new judges |
| Art. 123(1) | President may promulgate ordinances when Parliament not in session & immediate action required | Direct authority for the 2026 Ordinance |
| Art. 123(2) | Ordinance must be laid before both Houses; ceases after 6 weeks of reassembly unless approved; can be withdrawn by President | Ordinance must be replaced by SC (NoJ) Amendment Bill 2026 when Parliament reconvenes |
| Art. 123(3) | Ordinance void if it makes provision Parliament cannot enact | No bar here — Parliament can set SC strength (Art. 124(1)) |
| Art. 125 | Parliament determines salary, allowances, privileges of SC judges | Salaries of 4 new judges from Consolidated Fund of India |
An Act of Parliament enacted in 1956 under Article 124(1) to fix the maximum number of SC judges (excluding CJI). Initially set at 10. Has been amended 6 times (1960, 1977, 1986, 2009, 2019, 2026-Ordinance). Contains only one operative section (Section 2) which specifies the maximum number.
Parliament was not in session when the Cabinet approved the proposal on May 5, 2026. Ordinance ensures immediate effect. The SC (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 will still need to be introduced and passed when Parliament reconvenes, to convert the Ordinance into a permanent Act.
| Parameter | Rule |
|---|---|
| When applicable | When either House of Parliament is not in session |
| President's satisfaction | Must be satisfied that immediate action is necessary |
| Force & effect | Same as an Act of Parliament |
| Validity period | Ceases after 6 weeks of Parliament's reassembly (max: 6 months 6 weeks from promulgation) |
| Disapproval | Both Houses pass disapproval resolution → Ordinance ceases |
| Withdrawal | President may withdraw at any time |
| Limits | Cannot amend Constitution; cannot violate Fundamental Rights; subject to same limits as Parliament |
| Judicial review | Yes — Ordinances are subject to judicial review |
| Re-promulgation | Without legislative intent = unconstitutional (DC Wadhwa, 1987) |
Unlike Constitutional Amendments (Art. 368), an Ordinance cannot amend the Constitution. The 2026 Ordinance amends a statute (SC (NoJ) Act), not the Constitution itself. Article 124(1) already empowers Parliament to prescribe the number by law — the Ordinance exercises that power temporarily.
Note the comparison: Art. 213 gives Governors the same ordinance power at State level. SC strength change requires an Act/Ordinance at Union level; HC strength (Art. 216) can be changed by the President's order alone — no Act of Parliament needed.
| Year | Total Strength (incl. CJI) | Judges excl. CJI | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1950 | 8 | 7 | Original Constitution, Art. 124(1) |
| 1956 | 11 | 10 | SC (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 |
| 1960 | 14 | 13 | Amendment to 1956 Act |
| 1977/78 | 18 | 17 | Amendment to 1956 Act |
| 1986 | 26 | 25 | Amendment to 1956 Act |
| 2009 | 31 | 30 | Amendment to 1956 Act |
| 2019 | 34 | 33 | SC (NoJ) Amendment Act, 2019 |
| 2026 | 38 | 37 | SC (NoJ) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 |
Gap between 2019 and 2026 revision: 7 years. The gap between 2009 and 2019 was also approximately 10 years. In contrast, the earliest revisions (1956, 1960, 1977) were more frequent.
UPSC often asks: "SC was established with how many judges?" Answer: 8 (CJI + 7) — directly from Art. 124(1) as originally worded. Also remember: 1956 is when Parliament first legislated the number (Act, not Constitution amendment). The Constitution only mentions "not more than 7 other judges" until Parliament prescribes otherwise.
| Year | Pending Cases (SC) | Key Event |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 61,142 | Pre-COVID baseline |
| 2021 | Sharp rise | COVID-19 court closures |
| 2024 | ~82,500 | CJI Chandrachud — new counting methodology |
| Dec 2025 | 92,101 | Arjun Ram Meghwal — Parliament data (NJDG) |
| Nov 2025 | 90,225 | Highest at that point — CJI Surya Kant's priority |
| Mar 2026 | 93,143 | All-time record — Ordinance trigger |
| Court Level | Sanctioned | Working | Vacancies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | 34 (pre-ordinance) | 33 | 1 |
| High Courts (25 HCs) | 1,122 | 813 | 309 |
| Subordinate Courts | 25,895 | 21,028 | 4,867 |
SC pendency: 92,101 cases (Dec 31, 2025) — an 11.40% rise from 82,674 cases as of December 2023. Of SC cases: 79% civil, 21% criminal — opposite of subordinate courts (77% criminal).
Total pendency across all courts end-2025: 54 million cases — an 80% rise over the last decade. Subordinate courts: 48 million (85% increase). Between 2018–2025, new filings exceeded disposals in most years.
| Parameter | Figure |
|---|---|
| Current ratio (2025) | 22 judges per 10 lakh population |
| Law Commission recommendation (1987) | 50 judges per 10 lakh population |
| Ratio in 2014 | 17.48 per 10 lakh |
| Allahabad HC pendency (Dec 2025) | 12.07 lakh cases (highest HC) |
Each SC judge delivers judgements in 1,000–1,500 cases per year (as per Justice Chelameswar). By contrast, US Supreme Court decides only ~120 cases per year (all 9 justices together). India's apex court simultaneously functions as a constitutional court AND a high-volume appellate forum.
UPSC may test: "What is the primary driver cited for the 2026 Ordinance?" — Answer: Record pendency of 93,143 cases as of March 31, 2026 (NJDG data). Also note: 18th Law Commission (229th Report, 2009) recommended regional cassation benches rather than simply adding more judges — this critique is relevant for Prelims statement-based questions.
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) · Supreme Court of India
Held that re-promulgation of ordinances without any genuine intent to pass them as permanent legislation is unconstitutional — it amounts to a fraud on the Constitution and subverts the democratic process. Bihar had re-promulgated the same ordinances 256 times between 1967–1981. Courts can strike down re-promulgated ordinances.
R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1981) · Supreme Court of India
Held that the President's satisfaction in promulgating an ordinance is justiciable — courts can examine it if challenged on grounds of mala fide or being contrary to the Constitution. The President's satisfaction is not absolute and immune from review.
A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982) · Supreme Court of India (National Security Ordinance, 1980)
Upheld the validity of the ordinance but observed that an ordinance should NOT be used as a substitute for parliamentary legislation and should be resorted to only in cases of extreme urgency or unforeseen emergency. Laid down safeguards for preventive detention ordinances.
Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) · Seven-Judge Constitution Bench
Held that the satisfaction of the President/Governor in promulgating an ordinance is subject to judicial review. Re-promulgation without the legislature's approval violates the Constitution. Ordinances cannot be used as a legislative tool to bypass Parliament perpetually.
| Case | Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| R.K. Garg v. Union of India | 1981 | President's satisfaction is justiciable; not immune from judicial review |
| A.K. Roy v. Union of India | 1982 | Ordinance not a substitute for legislation; extreme urgency required |
| D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar | 1987 | Re-promulgation = fraud on Constitution; courts can strike down |
| Krishna Kumar Singh v. Bihar | 2017 | 7-judge bench: re-promulgation unconstitutional; judicial review confirmed |
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India (1970) — established that the motive behind an ordinance can be scrutinised. The Bank Nationalisation Ordinance was challenged; SC held courts could examine whether satisfaction was real or pretextual.
The most tested case in Prelims on Ordinance power is D.C. Wadhwa (1987) — always remember: Bihar + 256 ordinances re-promulgated + fraud on Constitution. Also note that Krishna Kumar Singh (2017) is a 7-judge Constitution Bench verdict — highest authority on ordinance power.
The Ordinance creates 4 new sanctioned posts, but appointments are separate. They will follow the Collegium system — CJI Surya Kant-led collegium will recommend names to the Union Law Ministry → Prime Minister → President for formal appointment. This process has no fixed timeline, which is why historical expansions have been "marred by persistent vacancies."
| Case | Year | Bench | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta v. UoI) | 1981 | 7-judge | "Consultation" in Art. 124(2) does NOT mean concurrence. Executive primacy in appointments. HC judge can be transferred without consent. |
| Second Judges Case (SCARA v. UoI) | 1993 | 9-judge | Overruled First Judges Case. "Consultation" = concurrence. CJI's recommendation is binding on President. Collegium system born — CJI + 2 senior judges. |
| Third Judges Case (Presidential Reference) | 1998 | 9-judge | Collegium expanded: CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges. If 2 of 4 give adverse opinion, CJI cannot recommend. Primacy of collegium reinforced. |
| Fourth Judges Case (SCARA v. UoI — NJAC) | 2015 | 5-judge | 99th Constitutional Amendment & NJAC Act struck down as unconstitutional. NJAC violated judicial independence (basic structure). Collegium system reinstated. |
| Feature | Collegium System | NJAC (struck down 2015) |
|---|---|---|
| Constitutional basis | Judicial interpretation of Art. 124(2) | 99th Amendment + NJAC Act, 2014 |
| Composition | CJI + 4 senior SC judges | CJI + 2 senior SC judges + Law Minister + 2 eminent persons |
| Executive role | Minimal — can raise objections; if Collegium reiterates, binding | Equal voice — Law Minister + eminent persons could veto |
| Status | Current system | Struck down — unconstitutional (basic structure violation) |
| Article | Subject | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 126 | Acting CJI | President appoints senior-most SC judge as Acting CJI during vacancy/absence |
| Art. 127 | Ad hoc judges | CJI (with President's consent) may request HC judge to sit in SC temporarily |
| Art. 128 | Retired SC judges | CJI (with President's consent) may request retired SC judge to act as SC judge |
| Art. 217 | HC judges | Appointed by President after consulting CJI, Governor, HC Chief Justice |
As of May 2026, 4 SC judges are due to retire later in 2026. Combined with 6 existing vacancies and 4 new posts, the CJI-led collegium will need to recommend up to 14 names to bring the court to full sanctioned strength of 38.
UPSC PYQ (2021): "Any retired judge of the SC can be called back to sit as SC judge by the CJI with prior permission of the President." → True (Art. 128). Also know: SC collegium = CJI + 4 senior-most judges (not 2 as in Second Judges Case — that changed in Third Judges Case 1998).
| Country | Apex Court | Number of Judges | Appointment | Annual Cases Decided |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| India | Supreme Court | 38 (post-2026 Ordinance) | Collegium → President | ~65,000–80,000+ disposals/year |
| USA | Supreme Court | 9 (fixed by statute) | President + Senate confirmation | ~120 (highly selective docket) |
| UK | Supreme Court (est. 2009) | 12 | Judicial Appointments Commission | ~90–100 (arguable points of law only) |
| Germany | Federal Constitutional Court | 16 | Bundestag + Bundesrat (2/3 majority) | ~6,000/year (but mostly inadmissible) |
| Australia | High Court | 7 | Governor-General on AG advice | ~70 special leave applications heard |
| Canada | Supreme Court | 9 | PM recommendation + Parliamentary scrutiny | ~70/year |
India's Supreme Court (38 judges) is the largest apex court in the world by sanctioned strength. Yet it handles the most cases — each Indian SC judge decides ~1,000–1,500 cases/year vs US Supreme Court's ~120 total. The contrast highlights India's unique dual role: constitutional court + mass appellate forum.
| Linked Concept | Article/Act | Connection |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinance Power (State) | Art. 213 | Governor's ordinance power; mirrors Art. 123; needs Presidential instruction in 3 cases |
| HC Strength | Art. 216 | President can increase HC judges without Parliament; contrast with SC (needs Act/Ordinance) |
| Ad hoc SC Judges | Art. 127 | CJI can request HC judge to sit in SC — alternative to increasing sanctioned strength |
| Retired SC Judges | Art. 128 | CJI + Presidential consent to recall retired SC judges |
| NJAC | 99th Amendment + NJAC Act 2014 | Attempt to replace collegium; struck down 2015 — appointments remain with collegium |
| National Judicial Data Grid | eCourts Project (Phase III) | Source of pendency data; ₹7,210 cr scheme for FY23–27 for digital courts |
| Judicial Appointments Commission | Law Commission 18th (2009) | Recommended regional cassation benches — alternative to adding SC judges |
| Consolidated Fund of India | Art. 266 | Salaries of new SC judges charged to CFI — no Parliamentary vote needed per year |
| Impeachment of SC Judge | Art. 124(4) | Removal: both Houses + majority of total membership + 2/3 present & voting |
President Droupadi Murmu promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, notified in the Gazette of India on May 16, 2026. The Ordinance amends Section 2 of the SC (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 — substituting "thirty-three" with "thirty-seven" (excluding CJI). Total sanctioned strength now: 38 (CJI + 37). The Ordinance was issued under Article 123, as Parliament was not in session.
Working strength of SC as of May 2026: 32 judges (including CJI). Four judges are due to retire later in 2026. The CJI Surya Kant-led collegium is expected to recommend names to fill the vacancies (6 existing + 4 new = 10 posts to fill). Current pendency as of March 31, 2026: 93,143 cases — the all-time record high.
Union Cabinet chaired by PM Narendra Modi approved the proposal for introducing the SC (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Parliament — to increase judges from 33 to 37 (excl. CJI). Cabinet approved: May 5, 2026. The Ordinance route was chosen to give immediate effect as Parliament was not in session. Expenditure (salaries, support staff, infrastructure) to be met from the Consolidated Fund of India. Announced by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal.
Pendency has grown significantly over the years: 61,142 cases (March 2020) → 93,143 (March 2026). The highest single-year jump was between March 2025 and March 2026: over 12,000 cases added in one year. The sharp increase in 2021 was due to COVID-19 court closures. An 8,000-case jump in 2024 was linked to a change in counting methodology introduced by then-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud.
India's total judicial pendency (end-2025): 54 million cases — an 80% rise over the last decade. SC pendency (Dec 2025): 92,101 cases — 11.4% jump from 82,674 (Dec 2023). Allahabad HC: highest HC pendency at 12.07 lakh cases. Delhi: 15.87 lakh; UP subordinate courts: 1.13 crore cases (highest state). Phase III of the eCourts project approved at ₹7,210 crore (FY23–27) for digital justice delivery.
This event is extremely likely to appear in UPSC Prelims 2026 (exam scheduled May 24, 2026 — just 7 days after the Ordinance). Expect statement-based questions testing: (a) the Article under which the Ordinance was issued, (b) what Section 2 of SC (NoJ) Act 1956 now reads, (c) the new total strength, (d) why the Ordinance route (Parliament not in session), and (e) what happens to the Ordinance when Parliament reconvenes (must be laid before both Houses; ceases after 6 weeks if not approved).
| Statement | True/False | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| The SC (NoJ) Amendment Ordinance 2026 increases judges from 33 to 37, excluding CJI. | ✅ True | Section 2 now reads "thirty-seven" — always excluding CJI |
| After the 2026 Ordinance, the total number of SC judges including CJI is 37. | ❌ False | Total is 38 (37 puisne + 1 CJI) |
| The President can promulgate an ordinance only when both Houses of Parliament are not in session. | ❌ False | Ordinance can be promulgated when either House is not in session |
| An ordinance has the same force as an Act of Parliament. | ✅ True | Art. 123(2) explicitly states this |
| An ordinance can be used to amend the Constitution. | ❌ False | Constitutional amendments require Art. 368 process; ordinances cannot amend Constitution |
| The SC collegium consists of CJI and 2 senior-most SC judges. | ❌ False | CJI + 4 senior-most judges (since Third Judges Case, 1998) |
| NJAC was struck down in 2015 as violating the basic structure of the Constitution. | ✅ True | Fourth Judges Case 2015 — NJAC = unconstitutional; collegium reinstated |
| High Court judges' strength can be changed by President alone without Parliament. | ✅ True | Art. 216 — President increases HC strength by order; contrast with SC (needs Act/Ordinance) |
| An ordinance automatically expires if Parliament passes a disapproval resolution. | ✅ True | Art. 123(2)(a) — ceases on passing the second (later) disapproval resolution by both Houses |
| The SC (NoJ) Act 1956 was last amended before 2026 in 2009. | ❌ False | Last formal amendment was 2019 (30→33 excl. CJI); 2009 was the previous one |
Students confuse: 33 (old number excl. CJI) · 34 (old total incl. CJI) · 37 (new number excl. CJI) · 38 (new total incl. CJI). The Act always mentions the number excluding CJI. Add 1 for the total. Never mix these up.
Art. 123(1) says "except when both Houses of Parliament are in session" — meaning the President can issue an ordinance when either one or both Houses are not in session. It does NOT require both Houses to be adjourned. This is one of the most commonly tested and misunderstood points.
Many students say collegium = CJI + 2 senior judges (Second Judges Case 1993). That is WRONG for the current system. Since Third Judges Case 1998, collegium = CJI + 4 senior-most SC judges. The 1993 formulation was superseded.
Ordinance does NOT expire in "6 months." It expires 6 weeks from Parliament's reassembly. The maximum possible validity (if Parliament doesn't reassemble immediately) is approximately 6 months + 6 weeks from the date of promulgation.
Art. 128: CJI (with President's consent) can request a retired SC judge to sit and act as SC judge. It is NOT the President alone, and NOT without CJI's initiation. Confused with Art. 127 (ad hoc HC judges to sit in SC — also CJI + President).
Art. 124(1) originally: "not more than seven other Judges" — meaning original total was CJI + 7 = 8. Students often think it was 7 total. Always add 1 for the CJI. The word "other" is key.
Given UPSC Prelims is scheduled May 24, 2026 — one week after the Ordinance — this is a red-hot current affair. Expect at least 1–2 questions. Focus on: (1) Article 123 as the authority, (2) Section 2 of SC (NoJ) Act 1956, (3) 33→37 excl. CJI / 34→38 total, (4) Cabinet approval May 5 → Gazette May 16 → Promulgation May 17, and (5) the 6-week rule for Ordinances when Parliament reassembles.
| Year | Excl. CJI | Incl. CJI | Gap from previous |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1950 | 7 | 8 | — |
| 1956 | 10 | 11 | +3 |
| 1960 | 13 | 14 | +3 |
| 1977/78 | 17 | 18 | +4 |
| 1986 | 25 | 26 | +8 |
| 2009 | 30 | 31 | +5 |
| 2019 | 33 | 34 | +3 |
| 2026 | 37 | 38 | +4 |