Why in the news
With Parliament not sitting, the President issued an ordinance to enlarge the Supreme Court. The government cited the huge backlog of over 80,000 cases and the growing complexity of constitutional, commercial, criminal and tax disputes.
Key facts
- Instrument: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026.
- Sanctioned judges rise from 33 to 37, not counting the CJI.
- Total strength moves from 34 to 38 (1 CJI plus 37).
- Power used: Article 123 (President’s ordinance power).
- Aim: more benches, including for specialised matters.
Growth of Supreme Court strength
| Year | Total strength (with CJI) |
|---|
| 1950 | 8 (Constitution) |
| 1956 | 11 |
| 1960 | 14 |
| 1977-78 | 18 |
| 1986 | 26 |
| 2009 | 31 |
| 2019 | 34 (Amendment Act, 2019) |
| 2026 | 38 (Ordinance) |
About ordinances
- A temporary law issued by the executive head when the legislature is not sitting: Article 123 for the President, Article 213 for a Governor.
- Conditions: legislature not in session (or a House prorogued), need for immediate action, and advice from the Council of Ministers.
- Same force as an Act; limited to Union or Concurrent List subjects (State and Concurrent for Governors); can be retrospective and can amend or repeal Acts or other ordinances.
- It cannot amend the Constitution; that needs Article 368.
- Must be laid before Parliament; it ceases six weeks after reassembly unless passed, or earlier if both Houses disapprove. The President may withdraw it anytime. Maximum life about 7.5 months.
| Aspect | Article 123 | Article 213 |
|---|
| Issued by | President (Union) | Governor (State) |
| Advice from | Union Council of Ministers | State Council of Ministers |
| Subjects | Union and Concurrent Lists | State and Concurrent Lists |
| Special rule | None | Some matters need the President’s prior instructions |
Judicial limits
- D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987): Bihar issued 256 ordinances in 1967-81, many re-promulgated for up to 14 years; the Court called this a fraud on the Constitution.
- Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017): a seven-member Constitution Bench held re-promulgation unconstitutional and not laying an ordinance before the legislature an abuse of power.
Background: the Supreme Court
- Article 124(1): a CJI plus other judges up to the number Parliament fixes; originally 8 (1 CJI and 7).
- Article 124(2): the President appoints after consulting the CJI and other judges; the Collegium (CJI and four senior-most judges) evolved from the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases.
- Article 124(3): Indian citizen who was a High Court judge for 5 years, a High Court advocate for 10 years, or a distinguished jurist in the President’s view.
Concerns
- Bypasses parliamentary debate and weakens separation of powers.
- Judge numbers were historically raised by Acts of Parliament, so the route sets a procedural precedent.
- Judge strength alone does not fix delays; infrastructure, case management and alternative dispute resolution matter too.
Exam angle
- Articles: 123 (President), 213 (Governor), 124 (SC composition), 368 (amendment).
- The ordinance must become an Act once Parliament meets.
- Numbers: 33 to 37 judges; 34 to 38 total.