New DelhiIndia expanded its Supreme Court to 38 judges.
President Murmu issued an ordinance — bypassing Parliament — adding 4 seats to address ~95,000 pending cases.
Lawyers say structural case-management reform matters more than headcount; several sitting judges retire in 2026.
Sources: The Hindu, News18
THE ORDINANCE ROUTE
Article 123 of India's Constitution lets the President promulgate ordinances when Parliament is not in session — temporary laws with full statutory force. They lapse six weeks after Parliament reconvenes unless ratified. The mechanism exists for emergencies but is routinely used to bypass legislative debate.
WHY 34 WAS THE CEILING
The Supreme Court's strength was fixed at 8 judges in 1950, expanded to 11, 14, 18, 26, 31, and then 34 in 2019. Each expansion required a parliamentary amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act. Doing it by ordinance compresses what was historically a deliberated process into a cabinet decision.
WHAT PENDENCY ACTUALLY MEANS
India's judiciary holds roughly 50 million pending cases across all levels — the Supreme Court's 95,000 is a sliver of the total. The bottleneck is rarely the apex court; it is the district courts where evidence is recorded and witnesses examined. Adding judges at the top tier filters fewer cases up but does not unclog the base.
THE COLLEGIUM PROBLEM
India is the only major democracy where judges appoint judges. The collegium — five senior Supreme Court justices — recommends names; the government can object but ultimately must accept reiterations. Expanding seats does nothing if the collegium and the executive cannot agree on whom to elevate, and historically vacancies persist for months.
WHY HEADCOUNT WON'T FIX IT
The Supreme Court sits in division benches of 2 or 3 judges, not en banc. More judges means more parallel benches, but also more inconsistent rulings across benches that the Chief Justice then has to reconcile through larger constitutional benches. The structural reformers want case-management software, mandatory mediation, and limits on adjournments — none of which require a constitutional ordinance.