From 8 in 1950 to 38 Judges in 2026: A Look at Expanding Supreme Court Strength in India

On 16th May, 2026, President Droupadi Murmu promulgated the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026. With the substitution of the word "thirty-three" with "thirty-seven" in the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, the number of Judges in Supreme Court will be increased to 37 Judges and a Chief Justice of India. The amendment in essence is the latest chapter in a seventy-six-year story of Supreme Court as an institution struggling with pendency of cases.

This article focuses upon the historical numbers, started at 8 Supreme Court Judges in 1950, and landed at 38 Judges in 2026.

The Constitutional Foundation of Eight Supreme Court Judges

The Supreme Court of India convened for the first time on 28th January, 1950, which was two days after the Constitution of India came into force on 26th January. The Apex Judicial Institution had a Chief Justice and seven puisne judges - A total of eight. The Constitution under Article 124(1) set this as the original Supreme Court strength, and left it to Parliament to prescribe a larger number to increase the same by law.

In 1950, India had a population of roughly 360 million people, a nascent legal system, and simplicity in jurisdiction of the Top Court. The volume of cases was manageable. Eight trained judicial minds were thought to be adequate for the court of the last resort. That assumption did not survive for long, since the 1956 Act found its way.

Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 and Its Amendments

Six years after the Court's founding, Parliament enacted the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. The Act gave Parliament a mechanism to revise judicial strength without touching the Constitution itself, with a simple amendment to section 2 to suffice.

The amendments that followed track India's legal history almost perfectly.

11 Judges in 1960: A decade after independence, the post-partition legal backlog and the first wave of constitutional challenges to land reform legislation had begun mounting. Therefore, the Supreme Court's strength was raised to eleven.
18 Judges in 1977: The Emergency period (1975-77) and its aftermath produced a torrent of habeas corpus petitions, challenges against violation of fundamental rights, and preventive detention cases. By the time the Janata government came to power, it was clear that the court needed reinforcement, and the Supreme Court number of Judges was reworked to eighteen.
26 Judges in 1986: The mid-1980s witnessed two forces converge: the maturing of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a constitutional tool, and a dramatic rise in service-law disputes from government employees. The court's strength was accordingly increased to twenty-six.
31 Judges in 2009: Two decades of economic liberalisation had transformed India's commercial landscape. Along with that, the nature of disputes reaching the Apex Court, Regulatory challenges, taxation matters, and arbitration appeals became the reason for increasing the Supreme Court strength to thirty-one.
34 Judges in 2019: The most recent pre-Ordinance expansion brought the sanctioned strength to thirty-four, a figure the court had rarely, if ever, actually filled, given the persistent problem of judicial vacancies.
37 Judges in 2026: The 2026 Ordinance, promulgated while the Parliament was not in session under clause (1) of Article 123 of the Constitution, adds four more positions. It came into force immediately upon promulgation.

The Connection between Caseload and Supreme Court Expansion

Each amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 has been a response to the same underlying pressure. More cases kept arriving than the court could decide. In 1950, the Supreme Court received a few hundred cases in its first year. By the 1980s, annual filings had crossed 20,000. By 2010, the court was receiving over 60,000 new matters annually.

Today, the institution routinely carries a pendency of over 90,000 cases (source: NJDG), even as it disposes of several thousand each month. The figures for the subordinate judiciary are even starker. As of early 2026, India's district and subordinate courts carry a combined pendency of over four crore (40 million) cases. Every case that the lower courts fail to finally resolve due to dissatisfaction of one of the parties, has a chance of eventually reaching the Supreme Court, through appeal, revision, or writ.

The Supreme Court is, in some sense, the pressure-release valve of an overloaded system. Its own pendency is, in part, a mirror of pressure from below.

The Widening Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Before 1991, business in India was simple and confined to those who complied with the stringent rules and regulations. Liberalisation changed everything, Deregulation created winners and losers, and losers went to court. The advent of authorities like Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the Armed Forces Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board, Competition Commission of India (CCI), each spawned a new category of appellate litigation that ultimately fed upward to the Supreme Court. Between 1991 and 2010, the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) empowered Supreme Court's discretionary intervention in matters from lower courts and tribunals. The SLP jurisdiction, intended as a safety valve for exceptional cases under Article 136, became the primary gateway into the Supreme Court for commercial litigants.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) Revolution fundamentally transformed the Supreme Court's reach and sight. As a result, a concerned citizen, an academic, a journalist, even an anonymous letter-writer could, under the new doctrine, bring the state before the Supreme Court on behalf of bonded labourers, prisoners, slum-dwellers, or pollution victims. PIL transformed the court from a dispute-resolution body into something closer to a constitutional ombudsman. PILs account for most of the pendency before the Apex Court.

Vacancy Factcheck: Sanctioned Strength ≠ Actual Strength

Another crucial facet to be looked at while discussing the number of judges in Supreme Court is that the Apex Court rarely functioned in its full sanctioned strength through the years. The appointment process, governed by the collegium system and the Government’s stamp, has chronically produced delays and vacancies. For example, when the 2019 amendment raised the ceiling to 34, the court was functioning with 28 or 29 judges for extended periods. The 2026 Ordinance raises the ceiling to 37. Whether those four additional positions will be filled, and when, will determine whether the expansion translates into meaningful relief.

Supreme Court: A Court That Grew with India

The increase of number of Judges in Supreme Court is not just a reflection of increasing judicial strength. It magnificently mirrors the growth of our country – not just population, but the advent of legal fora to address certain domain specific challenges, such as pollution, taxation, insolvency, etc. There are several subordinate courts, high courts, tribunals, commissions, authorities, and one appellate court of last resort – the Supreme Court. Justice PN Bhagwati and Justice VR Krishna Iyer’s approach towards larger issues further embraced another facet, which is now very much popular as the Public Interest Litigation.

To conclude here, the numbers are not just an increase in Courtrooms or judges’ chairs, but an authoritative augmentation to address the overall pendency in Court cases, which is not in hundreds or thousands, but in lakhs and crores.