Relevance: GS-2 (Indian Constitution, Judiciary Structure & Governance) | Source: The Hindu

1. The News 

The President of India has issued the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026.

This urgent law increases the maximum number of Supreme Court judges from 33 to 37 (excluding the Chief Justice). This means the total allowed strength is now 38. This emergency step was taken to tackle the massive judicial pendency crisis, as the top court is currently burdened with a backlog of over 93,000 cases.

2. Constitutional Rules: Who Has the Power?

To understand how judges are increased, we must look at the constitutional machinery:

• Article 124(1) & Parliament’s Role: The Constitution gives the exclusive power to increase the number of Supreme Court judges to Parliament, not the judiciary. Parliament does this by passing or amending an ordinary law called the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. A formal Constitutional Amendment is not required.
• Article 123 (Ordinance Power): Since Parliament was not in session, the President used emergency ordinance-making powers to change the law immediately.
• Lifespan: This is a temporary rule. It will automatically expire six weeks after Parliament restarts its next session unless both Houses officially vote to approve it.

3. The Core Issue: Why is the Backlog Growing?

Adding more judges is an administrative solution to a deep-rooted structural crisis. The main reasons for the case backlog include:

• The Government as the Largest Litigator: The State (Centre and State governments combined) is responsible for nearly 50% of all court cases in India. Government departments often file routine, unnecessary appeals automatically.
• Overuse of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs): Under Article 136, SLPs were meant to be used only for rare, complex legal questions. Today, lawyers misuse it as a routine route to appeal everyday disputes, flooding the apex court.
• The E-Filing Surge: Post-COVID, the ease of digital e-filing has made it much simpler for people to approach the court, causing a massive surge in new cases.
• Lower Court Vacancies: Delays and unfilled judge seats in High Courts and District Courts mean cases are poorly managed at lower levels, forcing citizens to appeal to the Supreme Court.

4. UPSC Value Box

• Law Commission’s 229th Report: Recommended splitting the Supreme Court into two parts: a Constitutional Court in Delhi (to focus purely on interpreting the Constitution) and a National Court of Appeal with regional benches across India to handle routine appeals.
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR): Administrative mechanisms like mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats that resolve civil and commercial disputes outside traditional, time-consuming courtrooms.
• National Litigation Policy: A highly anticipated government framework designed to stop official departments from filing frivolous, repetitive lawsuits, thereby reducing the state’s burden on the courts.

Consider the following statements regarding the structure and functioning of the Indian Judiciary:

1. The Constitution of India explicitly fixes the maximum strength of Supreme Court judges, and any increase requires a formal Constitutional Amendment under Article 368.
2. An Ordinance promulgated by the President of India to amend parliamentary law ceases to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament.
3. The Government of India and the State Governments collectively constitute the single largest litigant in the Indian judicial system.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 2 and 3 only

(c) 1 and 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Correct Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only