New Delhi: The Rajya Sabha on Wednesday passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, paving the way for an increase in the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court from 34 to 38, including the Chief Justice of India. The legislation replaces an ordinance promulgated by the Centre in May and is aimed at easing the mounting workload of the country’s highest court by enabling the appointment of four additional judges.
The Bill had already been approved by the Lok Sabha earlier this week. Following a nearly two-hour discussion in the Upper House, it was passed through a voice vote and returned to the Lower House, marking another significant step in the government’s efforts to strengthen the judiciary’s institutional capacity.
Introducing the Bill in the Rajya Sabha, Union Law and Justice Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said the expansion in the Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength would allow the apex court to constitute dedicated benches for hearing long-pending matters and improve the overall pace of justice delivery. He also highlighted that the availability of judges in India has improved from around 16 judges per one million population in 2014 to 22 judges per million at present, although he acknowledged that filling vacancies in subordinate courts remains the responsibility of state governments and respective High Courts.
Despite broad agreement on the need to reduce judicial pendency, the Bill triggered sharp criticism from Opposition parties, which questioned both the government’s decision to promulgate an ordinance and the larger issues affecting the judicial system.
Congress MP and senior advocate Vivek Tankha asked why the Centre resorted to the ordinance route just days before the Supreme Court’s summer vacation, arguing that Parliament was already scheduled to meet in July. He questioned the urgency behind bypassing the normal legislative process and suggested that the government should have waited to introduce the legislation during the Monsoon Session.
The debate briefly turned contentious when Tankha attempted to raise issues relating to the Supreme Court’s judgment on Article 370. Deputy Chairman Harivansh reminded him to confine his remarks to the Bill. The intervention led to protests from Opposition MPs, who demanded that Tankha be allowed to continue. Congress members subsequently staged a walkout, followed later by several other Opposition parties.
Another major theme during the debate was the issue of diversity within the higher judiciary. Several Opposition members argued that merely increasing the number of judges would not address concerns regarding representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, women, religious minorities and other underrepresented groups.
Trinamool Congress MP and senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy argued that the Bill failed to address the structural challenges facing the judiciary, including inadequate representation of women and socially marginalised communities. DMK MP P. Wilson echoed similar concerns, calling attention to what he described as a “diversity deficit” in both the Supreme Court and High Courts. He also renewed the long-standing demand for establishing a permanent Supreme Court Bench in Chennai to improve access to justice for litigants from southern India.
Data previously shared by the Law Ministry in Parliament indicated that of the 593 judges appointed to the Supreme Court and High Courts between January 2021 and January 2026, only 26 belonged to Scheduled Castes, 14 to Scheduled Tribes, 80 to Other Backward Classes, and 37 to minority communities, while 96 women were appointed to various High Courts during the period.
Several members also shifted the focus towards the condition of lower courts, where the overwhelming majority of pending cases are concentrated. National Conference MP Chowdry Mohammad Ramzan argued that increasing the strength of district court judges would have a more meaningful impact on reducing judicial delays, given the crores of cases awaiting disposal across subordinate courts. JMM MP Mahua Maji similarly questioned whether adding four judges to the Supreme Court alone would significantly improve justice delivery when more than 5 crore cases remain pending nationwide.
AAP MP Sanjay Singh also sought greater representation of vulnerable sections in judicial appointments. Responding to these concerns, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju clarified that while the Centre formally notifies judicial appointments, the recommendations originate from the Supreme Court Collegium, thereby limiting the government’s direct role in selecting candidates.
The proceedings of the Rajya Sabha unfolded amid continued disruptions by Opposition parties over separate political issues. Members repeatedly demanded that Union Home Minister Amit Shah address the House regarding police action against student protesters. Slogans were raised inside the House, prompting Chairman C. P. Radhakrishnan to warn members against entering the Well or displaying placards, cautioning that disciplinary action could follow continued disruptions.
Outside Parliament, MPs belonging to the INDIA bloc reiterated their demand for the restoration of full statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. Meanwhile, AIADMK MP M. Thambi Durai urged the Centre to consider renaming the Madras High Court as the High Court of Tamil Nadu, arguing that the state’s capital has officially been known as Chennai for decades.
Despite the political disagreements and procedural objections, the passage of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill marks a significant legislative development aimed at strengthening the apex judiciary.
