President Murmu promulgates ordinance to increase Supreme Court judge strength by four

This development highlights the constitutional mechanism for altering the size of the apex court. The framers originally set the strength in Article 124(1) at the CJI plus seven judges, explicitly granting Parliament the power to prescribe a larger number by law. This led to the enactment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, which has been amended periodically (1960, 1986, 2009, 2019) to accommodate the growing workload. The current change was enacted via the President's ordinance-making power under Article 123, since Parliament was not in session. This mechanism is crucial for immediate legislative action but requires parliamentary approval within six weeks of reassembly to remain valid. UPSC aspirants must understand this interplay between constitutional provisions, parliamentary authority, and executive action in shaping the judiciary's structure.

The underlying driver for this ordinance is the severe crisis of judicial pendency. The article notes a backlog exceeding 93,000 cases, exacerbated by the post-pandemic surge in e-filing. This immense burden severely hampers the timely delivery of justice, undermining the principle that 'justice delayed is justice denied'. While increasing judge strength is a necessary step, it's not a panacea. Governance reforms must also address procedural bottlenecks, infrastructure deficits, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to truly tackle the pendency crisis. The National Judicial Data Grid provides critical insights into these backlogs, emphasizing the need for comprehensive systemic reforms beyond merely adding more judges.

The continuous expansion of the Supreme Court's size raises critical questions about its institutional character and efficiency. Originally envisioned as a relatively compact constitutional court, its growth to nearly 40 judges changes its dynamic. While a larger bench capacity allows for more cases to be heard simultaneously, it can also lead to inconsistencies in jurisprudence across different benches and complicates the functioning of larger Constitution Benches. This expansion necessitates a deeper look at the court's role—whether it should primarily function as a constitutional court or a regular appellate court. Debates around establishing regional courts of appeal or bifurcating the Supreme Court into Constitutional and Appellate divisions often resurface in this context, making it a key analytical area for UPSC Mains.