The Rajya Sabha on Wednesday passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, increasing the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court to 38 from 34. The Bill was approved by a voice vote.
The legislation seeks to replace an Ordinance that increased the number of judges in the apex court.
The Upper House passed the Bill and returned it to the Lok Sabha, as it is a Money Bill.
Following a brief debate, Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal said the legislation forms part of the government's judicial reforms and would help reduce the pendency of cases.
"The increase of judges in the Supreme Court is a step to improve the judicial efficiency... We will adopt an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism using arbitration, mediation and conciliation to help reduce the pendency in cases," he said.
He added that the central government was committed to working in coordination with the judiciary.
During the debate, Opposition members stressed the need to increase the number of judges in lower courts and improve the representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and women in the higher judiciary.
Participating in the debate, AAP MP Sanjay Singh sought details of the number of judges from deprived sections, with Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju clarifying that appointments are recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium and the government only issues appointment notifications.
RJD MP Sanjay Yadav called for scrapping the collegium system and demanded greater transparency in judicial appointments.
Supporting the Bill, he said the representation of deprived communities in the higher judiciary was not even one per cent and described it as a matter of concern.
Yadav asked how many Supreme Court judges belonged to lower castes, Dalit and tribal communities, and other marginalised sections. "Their representation in the judiciary is negligible," he said, adding that equal representation from all sections of society was essential to ensure justice.
Clarifying the issue, Rijiju said, "The appointment notifications are definitely done by the government but the names are decided by the collegium. If the collegium does not send names from SC or ST, the government on its own cannot appoint anyone from SC or ST."
Yadav also said that while a peon is appointed through an examination, judges are appointed without one, and argued for an All India Judicial Service Commission to oversee judicial appointments. He further demanded greater transparency in the appointment process.
Noting that Parliament has no role in the existing collegium system, Yadav alleged nepotism in judicial appointments and said the system should be abolished.
Trinamool Congress MP Menaka Guruswamy accused the government of not appointing women, people from lower castes, religious minorities and the gay community to the judiciary.
Debate extends beyond Bill
Congress MP Vivek K Tankha criticised the government for promulgating the Ordinance in May, just four days before the Supreme Court's summer vacation, questioning the urgency.
"Why wasn't this brought as an Act straight to Parliament? Nobody is opposing increasing the number of judges," he asked.
Tankha attempted to raise the issue of the abrogation of Article 370 and the conversion of Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory, but Deputy Chairman Harivansh did not allow it.
Deputy Leader of the Congress in the Rajya Sabha Pramod Tiwari objected, leading to a heated exchange before INDIA bloc members staged a walkout.
Some Opposition members later returned to participate in the debate.
Opposition MPs also sought to raise issues including the alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, and demanded that Home Minister Amit Shah respond in the House on action taken against students.
Dinesh Sharma, who was in the Chair, asked members to confine their remarks to the Bill under discussion.
Responding to Tankha's criticism, BJP MP Sangeeta Yadav said the Ordinance had been brought to prevent further delays in the delivery of justice.
Calls for more judges in lower courts
CPI(M) MP V Sivadasan stressed the need to increase the number of courts and judges across the country.
Several members urged state governments to increase the sanctioned strength of judges in subordinate courts and High Courts to reduce the overall backlog of cases.
Shiv Sena MP Milind Murli Deora said more than 92,000 cases were pending before the Supreme Court, while the apex court alone saw a backlog of more than 10,000 cases last year.
He said the Bill would help maintain a healthy balance between the judiciary, legislature and executive.
JMM MP Mahua Majhi also called for increasing the number of judges in lower courts to reduce pendency.
Shiv Sena MP Jyoti Nagnath Waghmare strongly supported the Bill, saying it would help ensure speedy justice for ordinary citizens.
BJP MP Ashok Kumar Mittal said the number of judges should also be increased in High Courts and subordinate courts.
DMK MP P Wilson demanded the establishment of a Supreme Court Bench in Chennai and called for raising the retirement age of the apex court and High Court judges.
UPPL MP Pramod Boro urged the government to examine the feasibility of establishing regional Supreme Court Benches, saying this would particularly benefit people in the North East.
BJP MP Manan Kumar Mishra said the heavy litigation burden and mounting pendency remained serious challenges for the judiciary, with many cases awaiting hearing because of the limited number of judges.
IUML MP Haris Beeran also called for raising the retirement age of Supreme Court judges and alleged a lack of transparency in appointments to the apex court.
BSP MP Ramji said lakhs of cases remained pending across courts and claimed that people from backward classes were not being appointed as Supreme Court judges, calling for equal opportunities for all.
