From 33 to 37 Judges: Modi Govt’s Quiet Judicial Reform Puts Spotlight Back on Supreme Court

The Union Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, on May 5, 2026, approved a proposal to increase the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court of India from 33 to 37 judges (excluding the Chief Justice of India), marking the first such expansion since 2019.

The move, which will be formalised through an amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, has been positioned by the government as a step towards strengthening judicial capacity and addressing mounting pendency at the apex court.

Prime Minister Modi, reacting to the Cabinet decision, described it as a measure linked to “strengthening the judicial infrastructure of the nation and ensuring speedy justice for people".

The timing of the proposal is also significant. By the end of March 2026, pending cases in the Supreme Court had risen to 93,143, an increase of 1,141 cases from February. The figure is among the highest pendency levels witnessed by the court in decades and has once again brought the spotlight back on the question of judicial capacity and institutional efficiency.

The Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength has gradually expanded over the years, from an initial cap of eight judges in 1956 to 33 judges in 2019, in response to the increasing volume and complexity of litigation.

Yet, despite periodic revisions, concerns relating to mounting backlog, delayed constitution bench hearings, and pressure on regular benches have continued to dominate discussions around judicial reforms.

Advocate Hitesh Jain, Managing Partner at Parinam Law Associates, described the move on his X account as one of the more consequential judicial reforms undertaken in recent years. “One of the most significant yet least discussed judicial reforms since 2014 has been the increase in the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India. This expansion under the leadership of Narendra Modi reflects a serious recognition of the growing burden on the judiciary and the urgent need for greater institutional capacity. Alongside this, the government has also committed substantial financial support towards strengthening judicial infrastructure across the country,” he said.

At the same time, Jain underlined that the real test would lie in outcomes. “The ball is now firmly in the Supreme Court’s court. Increased strength and better infrastructure must translate into faster disposal of cases, reduced pendency, and more efficient delivery of justice,” he added.

Vice President of Delhi High Court Bar Association, Senior Advocate Sacchin Puri, also welcomed the decision, observing that the government had acknowledged the growing pendency before the court. “Earlier, around 2019, the strength had been increased, and now it has once again been proposed to be raised, which is excellent. It is very welcome news, and I sincerely hope the proposal goes through and the appointments are made as soon as possible,” he said, stressing the need for timely appointments.

Abhimanyu Bhandari, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, termed the move a “very positive development,” but argued that a much larger increase in judicial strength may ultimately be required. “I believe the strength should ideally be doubled because, for a growing economy and strong development, a robust judiciary is extremely important. We need many more judges,” he said.

Bhandari linked the issue of judicial efficiency directly with economic growth and investor confidence. According to him, a credible and efficient justice delivery system strengthens the rule of law and creates confidence among businesses and investors. Drawing a comparison with the United Kingdom, he said," One must not forget that one of the biggest contributors to the UK’s economic development has been its strong rule of law. India also needs to move in that direction, as it would help attract FDI in return. So, while this is certainly a welcome step, it could have gone much further".

Additional Advocate General for Chhattisgarh Bishwajit Dubey termed the proposal a “welcome and timely measure,” noting that the Supreme Court’s docket had expanded significantly in both scale and complexity since the last revision in strength. He observed that additional judges would improve roster distribution, reduce listing pressure, and enable the constitution of more specialised benches dealing with constitutional and commercial matters, thereby ensuring that cases involving substantial public importance receive adequate judicial attention.

Advocate Janay Jain similarly viewed the amendment as a step in the right direction. “While certain critics may argue that increasing court strength alone cannot resolve pendency, the present amendment is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It will not only enhance the court’s efficiency but will also make a meaningful contribution toward reducing the backlog of cases,” he said.

Advocate Mayank Yadav pointed out that rising pendency itself justifies an increase in judicial strength. “Given the growing pendency of cases, an increase in the number of judges is always a welcome step. With the Supreme Court handling a diverse docket ranging from routine appeals to complex constitutional questions, this enhancement in judicial strength may help improve the Court’s ability to deal with its expanding workload more effectively", he said.

Advocate Anant Malik described the Cabinet’s decision as an “important, timely and celebratory move” towards improving the justice delivery system. Referring to rising pendency across tax, arbitration, criminal and constitutional matters, he noted that constitution benches have met infrequently while delays in bail hearings have increasingly become a concern. However, he cautioned that the effectiveness of the move would depend substantially on how quickly vacancies are filled and how efficiently additional benches are utilised.

Advocate Raghav Sethi complimented the Government’s will to douse the pendency issue in the country. “The Modi government is not only working in the right direction for strengthening the legal ecosystem but also making sure that litigants from all spheres do not face the heat of delay and latches. It is indeed a welcome move,” he said.

Tanvi Dubey, Advocate-on-Record at the Supreme Court, called the decision a “pragmatic and long-overdue response” to the mounting pressure on the apex court. She noted that the addition of four judges could help expedite routine appellate work while also allowing the court to constitute dedicated benches for constitutional matters. At the same time, she stressed that prompt appointments would remain critical if the expansion is to translate into meaningful judicial outcomes.

The broad consensus among members of the Bar appears to be that the government has taken a necessary institutional step at a time when the Supreme Court’s burden has become impossible to ignore.

The focus now shifts to the court itself. Increasing sanctioned strength and allocating resources can only create the framework; the larger challenge will be ensuring that appointments are made swiftly and that the expanded capacity results in faster hearings, reduced backlog and more effective delivery of justice.