Why has Parliament increased the number of Supreme Court judges? | Explained

This development directly relates to the constitutional framework governing the Indian Judiciary. Under Article 124(1) of the Indian Constitution, the Parliament has the power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India by enacting a law. Initially, the Constitution fixed the strength at eight (one Chief Justice and seven other judges), but Parliament has progressively increased this through amendments to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. The current bill seeks to amend this Act to raise the number of 'puisne' (ordinary) judges to 37. For Prelims, remember that the power to increase the number of Supreme Court judges lies with the Parliament, not the President or the CJI. For Mains, this action highlights the ongoing challenge of judicial pendency; while increasing judicial strength is a necessary step, structural reforms, improved case management, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are equally critical to ensure timely justice delivery.

The passage of the bill replacing an ordinance brings the ordinance-making power of the Executive under scrutiny. Article 123 grants the President the power to promulgate ordinances when either house of Parliament is not in session, and immediate action is required. However, these ordinances must be approved by Parliament within six weeks of its reassembly. The fact that the bill was passed via a voice vote without debate amid protests raises concerns about legislative scrutiny. While the constitutional procedure was followed, the lack of substantial debate on a crucial bill affecting the highest court underscores issues with parliamentary functioning and the need for robust discussion on legislative matters. From a governance perspective, the focus should not only be on increasing the number of judges but also on improving the efficiency of the judicial system, ensuring adequate infrastructure, and addressing the root causes of litigation.

The issue of judicial strength is inherently linked to access to justice, a fundamental right implied under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The vast backlog of cases, numbering in the tens of thousands in the Supreme Court alone, often results in significant delays, encapsulated in the legal maxim 'justice delayed is justice denied'. While increasing the number of judges is a positive step toward addressing this, true access to justice requires more than just judicial manpower. It necessitates making the legal system more affordable, comprehensible, and accessible to the marginalized sections of society. The increase in the sanctioned strength should be viewed as a prerequisite, not a panacea, for a more equitable and responsive justice delivery system.