President Murmu Approves Hike in Supreme Court Judge Strength to 38

President Draupadi Murmu has approved increasing the strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, as announced by Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had approved the proposal on May 5. Legal experts have widely welcomed the decision, calling it a timely step to deal with rising pendency and litigation. However, many also stress that increasing judge strength must be accompanied by wider judicial reforms and better case management.

Key Points: Supreme Court Judge Strength Increased to 38

  • President Murmu approves raising Supreme Court judge strength to 38
  • Union Cabinet, led by PM Modi, approved proposal on May 5
  • Legal experts welcome move to address rising pendency
  • Experts also call for structural reforms and better case management
3 min read

President Murmu approves increasing Supreme Court Judge strength from 34 to 38

President Murmu approves increasing Supreme Court judge strength from 34 to 38. Legal experts welcome move to tackle pendency, but call for wider reforms.

"The demand for increasing the number of Supreme Court judges had existed for a long time due to the steady rise in filings before the apex court. - Vikas Singh"

New Delhi, May 17

President Draupadi Murmu has approved the Union Cabinet's decision to increase the strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, said Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on Sunday.

In an X post, Meghwal said, "The President is pleased to increase the Judge strength of the Supreme Court from 33 to 37 Judges (Excluding the Chief Justice of India) by promulgating The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, which has further amended the "Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956".

The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on May 5 approved the proposal for introducing The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Parliament to amend The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 for increasing the number of Judges of the Supreme Court of India by 4 from the present 33 to 37 (excluding the Chief Justice of India).

It has been widely welcomed by members of the legal fraternity, who described it as a timely step to deal with rising pendency and growing litigation before the apex court.

President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, said the demand for increasing the number of Supreme Court judges had existed for a long time due to the steady rise in filings before the apex court. He said that although the disposal rate of Supreme Court judges has been commendable, the heavy volume of cases requires more judges.

Singh also highlighted the need for matching infrastructure and expressed hope that a part of the new Supreme Court building would become operational by the end of this year. According to him, the Court can comfortably accommodate 38 judges and may even require around 50 judges in the coming years once the entire new building becomes functional.

Senior Advocate Sacchin Puri, Vice President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, termed the decision a "positive and much-needed step." He said increasing the strength of judges was the need of the hour and would help in the speedy disposal of pending matters. He added that the move would benefit litigants as well as the legal community.

Advocate Sumit Gehlot, a Supreme Court lawyer known for his views on constitutional and judicial issues, said the move was welcome but noted that merely increasing the number of judges would not fully solve the problem of pendency. Referring to the nearly 95,000 pending cases in the Supreme Court, he stressed the need for structural reforms and better case management systems alongside increasing judicial strength.

Eminent lawyer Hemant Shah also said that while the increase in judges may help reduce backlog, it cannot be the only solution. He pointed out that several judges are set to retire in 2026, which may again impact pendency. Shah further suggested that the government should work towards reducing unnecessary litigation.

Advocate Juhi Arora Gupta, known for her legal expertise and court practice, described the move as a crucial step for improving judicial efficiency and ensuring speedy justice. She said the growing number and complexity of cases had made it difficult for the present strength of judges to manage matters efficiently.

However, former Union Law Secretary PK Malhotra said that simply increasing the number of judges may not bring major judicial reforms. He suggested that the government should consider setting up regional Courts of Appeal so that the Supreme Court can focus mainly on constitutional matters.

Overall, while legal experts have largely welcomed the Centre's decision, many believe that increasing the number of judges must be accompanied by wider judicial reforms to effectively tackle delays and pendency in the justice delivery system.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
I appreciate the move, but I'm skeptical. We've seen increases before, and pendency still remains high. The real issue is that cases get stuck due to adjournments and procedural delays. Increasing judge strength without addressing the culture of endless adjournments won't solve much. Arre bhai, quality bhi chahiye, quantity ke saath! 😤
R
Rohit P
Good decision by the government. The Supreme Court is the highest court, and backlog there affects the entire judicial system. I like the idea of regional Courts of Appeal mentioned by the former Law Secretary—that would let the Supreme Court focus on constitutional issues. But for now, four more judges is a welcome start. 👨‍⚖️
R
Rekha R
I'm happy with this decision, but I worry about the quality of judges being appointed. We need people with integrity and competence, not just numbers. Also, why does it take an ordinance to do this? Shouldn't Parliament have debated this more thoroughly? Still, let's hope it helps reduce the backlog.
M
Michael C
From my experience in the US, simply adding judges isn't the silver bullet. India needs a comprehensive case management system—digital filing, strict timelines, and better alternative dispute resolution. But I understand the immediate need given the 95,000 pending cases. Let's see if this move is complemented by real reform.
S
Suresh O
Good step, but I'm disappointed that the government didn't consult more stakeholders. The Bar Association has been asking for more judges for years, but why did it take an ordinance? Also, what about the lower courts? They have even more pendency. Supreme

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50