INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of India began functioning in 1950 with just eight judges. Over seven decades, Parliament has repeatedly expanded this number to keep pace with rising litigation and case pendency. In 2026, this history took its latest turn: the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court was raised from 34 to 38 judges (33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India), and the Collegium moved quickly to recommend five new judges to fill the resulting vacancies. This article explains, in one place, how the number of Supreme Court justices has grown over time; who actually appoints Supreme Court justices and how; the landmark case law that shaped today's appointment process; and the most recent developments in 2026, including the newest justices to join the Court.

1. HISTORY: HOW THE NUMBER OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES HAS INCREASED OVER TIME

Article 124(1) of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court shall consist of the Chief Justice of India and, "until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number," seven other judges. Parliament exercises this power through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, which has been amended repeatedly:

The Supreme Court began in 1950 with a sanctioned strength of 7 judges (excluding the CJI), as originally fixed by Article 124(1) of the Constitution. This was raised to 10 in 1956 under the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. It rose to 13 in 1960, then to 17 in 1977, both via amendments to that Act. In 1986, the strength was increased again to 25, followed by a rise to 30 in 2009. The 2019 Amendment Act took it to 33, and most recently, the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act/Ordinance, 2026 increased the sanctioned strength to 37 judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India.

Including the Chief Justice of India, the Court's sanctioned strength accordingly rose from 8 (1950) to 34 (2019) and, most recently, to 38 judges in 2026.

2. WHO APPOINTS SUPREME COURT JUDGES --AND HOW

Constitutional Basis

Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President of India under Article 124(2) of the Constitution. However, the President does not act alone; appointments are made "after consultation" with such judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts as the President deems necessary.

Eligibility Criteria (Article 124(3))

A person is eligible for appointment as a Supreme Court judge if they:

• Have served as a High Court judge for at least five years; or

• Have practised as an advocate in a High Court for at least ten years; or

• Are, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.

The Collegium System in Practice

In practice, appointments follow the Collegium system, a judiciary-led process that evolved through Supreme Court judgments rather than being written into the Constitution's text. The Collegium consists of the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. The process typically works as follows:

1. The Collegium deliberates and recommends names for elevation to the Supreme Court,  usually from among sitting High Court Chief Justices, senior High Court judges, or senior advocates.

2. The recommendation is formally communicated to the Union Government.

3. The Government may seek clarifications or return a recommendation for reconsideration, but if the Collegium reiterates the same name, the Government is bound to act on it.

4. The President formally appoints the judge by notification under Article 124(2), and the judge takes oath before assuming office.

This process is guided by a Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), first framed in 1999 and periodically revised, which lays down the detailed steps and timelines for consultation between the judiciary and the executive.

3. IMPORTANT CASE LAWS ON SUPREME COURT JUDGE APPOINTMENTS

The Collegium system was not created by statute; it was developed by the Supreme Court itself through four landmark rulings, commonly called the "Judges Cases."

Important Case Laws

1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — "First Judges Case"

Court: Supreme Court of India (Seven-Judge Bench)

Key Principle: This decision held that the Chief Justice of India's opinion on judicial appointments was not binding on the President "consultation" did not mean "concurrence," giving primacy to the executive in the appointment process.

Relevance to the Article: This is the starting point of the modern appointments debate. It established that, at least initially, the Government, not the judiciary,  had the final word on who became a judge.

Why It Matters: It explains why the appointment process later shifted so decisively toward judicial primacy in the Second and Third Judges Cases  the pendulum swung from executive-dominant to judiciary-dominant appointments.

2. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (1993) — "Second Judges Case"

Court: Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench)

Key Principle: This case overturned the First Judges Case, holding that "consultation" with the Chief Justice of India effectively meant "concurrence," giving the judiciary primacy and decisive weight in appointments.

Relevance to the Article: This ruling is the origin of the Collegium system itself, transferring the effective power to select judges from the executive to a body of senior judges headed by the CJI.

Why It Matters: It remains the constitutional foundation for why judges, not the Government, effectively choose their own successors in India today.

3. In re: Presidential Reference (1998) — "Third Judges Case"

Court: Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench, on a Presidential Reference under Article 143)

Key Principle: This opinion expanded the Collegium to include the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court, rather than the CJI acting alone or with only two colleagues, to ensure collective decision-making.

Relevance to the Article: This case fixed the present composition of the Collegium  the body that continues to recommend every Supreme Court appointment, including the 2026 recommendations discussed below.

Why It Matters: It added a layer of institutional consensus, requiring multiple senior judges, not one individual,  to agree before a name is sent to the Government.

4. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015) — NJAC Case / "Fourth Judges Case"

Court: Supreme Court of India (Five-Judge Constitution Bench)

Key Principle: By a 4:1 majority, the Court struck down the Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 and the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014 as unconstitutional, holding that replacing the Collegium with a commission that included executive representatives threatened judicial independence.

Relevance to the Article: This case rejected Parliament's attempt to replace the Collegium with a body called the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which would have included the Law Minister and two "eminent persons" alongside judges.

Why It Matters: It confirms that, as matters currently stand, only a constitutional amendment reversing this ruling an unlikely and legally difficult path could change India's judiciary-led appointment process. The Collegium system it preserved is the same system that recommended the 2026 appointments discussed below.

4. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: THE 2026 INCREASE IN SUPREME COURT JUDGES

The 2026 Amendment

The Union Cabinet approved a proposal for the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, increasing the number of judges by four  from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India. Including the CJI, this took the Court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38  a move the Union Cabinet approved to address the growing pendency of cases before the Court.

Notably, the increase was first brought into effect through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, promulgated by President Droupadi Murmu, an unusually swift and rare instance of the President using ordinance powers to expand the Court's sitting strength.

The 2026 Collegium Recommendations

This was the first set of recommendations made under the Collegium led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who assumed office in November 2025. In its meetings held on 22 and 27 May 2026, the Collegium recommended five names for appointment as judges of the Supreme Court, including four sitting High Court Chief Justices and one senior advocate.

The five recommended names were:

• Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice, Punjab and Haryana High Court

• Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice, Bombay High Court

• Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice, Madhya Pradesh High Court

• Justice Arun Palli, Chief Justice, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh

• Senior Advocate V. Mohana, practising before the Supreme Court

Along with the four Chief Justices, the Collegium recommended Senior Advocate V. Mohana directly from the Bar, a move seen as addressing longstanding concerns about gender diversity on the Bench.

Presidential Approval and Appointment

By notifications dated 1 June 2026, the President of India, exercising powers under Article 124(2) of the Constitution, appointed all five recommended individuals as Judges of the Supreme Court of India, effective from the date each assumed charge of office.

With these appointments, the sitting strength of the Supreme Court rose to 37 judges, excluding the Chief Justice of India, moving the Court closer to its newly expanded sanctioned strength.With two further retirements scheduled for June 2026, the Collegium is expected to recommend additional names once it resumes sitting in July.

5. WHY THE NUMBER OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES KEEPS INCREASING

Every increase in strength since 1950 has been justified primarily on one ground: reducing case pendency. For instance, in 2019, the Chief Justice of India cited the pendency of nearly 58,669 cases before the apex court while urging the Government to raise the sanctioned strength. The 2026 increase follows the same rationale, aimed at enabling the Court to constitute more benches and hear more matters simultaneously.

At the same time, some experts have argued that merely adding judges does not, by itself, solve the deeper structural problem of pendency.  The Eighteenth Law Commission of India's 229th Report, authored under Justice A.R. Lakshmanan in 2009, argued that adding judges alone was insufficient, recommending instead a Constitution Bench at Delhi for constitutional matters along with four regional benches at Delhi, Chennai or Hyderabad, Kolkata, and Mumbai to handle appellate matters from the High Courts. This proposal for regional benches remains a live debate in discussions on judicial reform, even as the Government has continued to prefer numerical expansion.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q1. How many judges does the Supreme Court of India have in 2026? Following the 2026 amendment, the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court is 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India (37 excluding the CJI). As of June 2026, the sitting strength stood at 37 judges (excluding the CJI) after five new appointments.

Q2. Who appoints judges of the Supreme Court of India? Supreme Court judges are formally appointed by the President of India under Article 124(2) of the Constitution, acting on the binding recommendation of the Collegium, the Chief Justice of India and the four senior-most Supreme Court judges.

Q3. What is the Collegium system? The Collegium is a judiciary-evolved (not constitutionally written) mechanism comprising the CJI and the four most senior Supreme Court judges, which recommends candidates for appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary.

Q4. What are the "Judges Cases"? They are four landmark Supreme Court rulings: the First (1981), Second (1993), Third (1998), and Fourth/NJAC (2015) Judges Cases  that together shifted appointment power from the executive to the judiciary and created and entrenched the Collegium system.

Q5. Why was the National Judicial Appointments Commission struck down? In 2015, the Supreme Court held that the NJAC, which included the Law Minister and two eminent persons in the appointment process, was unconstitutional because it compromised judicial independence, a part of the Constitution's basic structure.

Q6. What law governs the number of Supreme Court judges? The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, as amended from time to time (most recently in 2026), fixes the maximum number of judges under Article 124(1) of the Constitution.

Q7. Who are the newest Supreme Court judges appointed in 2026? Justices Sheel Nagu, Shree Chandrashekhar, Sanjeev Sachdeva, and Arun Palli (all sitting High Court Chief Justices), along with Senior Advocate V. Mohana, were appointed as Supreme Court judges effective 1 June 2026.

Q8. What are the eligibility criteria to become a Supreme Court judge? A person must have been a High Court judge for at least five years, or a High Court advocate for at least ten years, or be a distinguished jurist in the President's opinion.

© 2025. All rights reserved.