Zakon o povećanju sudaca Vrhovnog suda usvojen u Lok Sabhi bez rasprave; Zastupničko vijeće je odloženo na dan

The Lok Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, on Monday without a debate, sending it to the Rajya Sabha for further consideration. The bill aims to increase the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India. The decision came amid ongoing disruptions caused by opposition members who raised slogans related to the NEET paper leak and allegations of stolen donations from the Ram temple. Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal delivered a brief introductory statement before the bill was put to a voice vote and passed. The House was adjourned for the day following the approval. The bill replaces an earlier ordinance that had proposed increasing the number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38, including the Chief Justice of India. The current sanctioned strength of the court stands at 33 judges, excluding the Chief Justice, a figure that has remained unchanged since the amendment in 2019. The new proposal, however, seeks to raise this number to 37, reflecting the government’s argument that a larger bench would enhance the efficiency and speed of judicial proceedings. The amendment would modify the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, which originally set the framework for determining the number of judges. The passage of the bill occurred under unusual circumstances, with opposition members continuously engaging in sloganeering rather than participating in formal parliamentary discourse. This disrupted the normal legislative process, leading to the bill being directly put to a voice vote. A similar situation unfolded last week, when another bill concerning birth and death registrations was also passed without a debate. These developments have sparked discussions about the impact of such procedural shortcuts on the integrity of parliamentary procedures. The government has defended its approach, citing the need for greater judicial capacity to meet growing demands. It argues that the current number of judges is insufficient to handle the backlog of cases, particularly in areas such as civil rights, constitutional matters, and public interest litigation. The 2019 amendment, which increased the sanctioned strength from 30 to 33 judges, was similarly passed without extensive discussion, indicating a pattern of expedited legislative action in recent years. The bill's progression to the Rajya Sabha is expected to face scrutiny, as the upper house typically engages in detailed deliberations and amendments. The opposition has expressed concerns over the lack of transparency and the influence of external factors on the legislative agenda. Some lawmakers have called for a more open and democratic process, emphasizing the importance of meaningful debate before passing major legal reforms. As the bill moves forward, the focus will shift to how the Rajya Sabha responds. The government’s rationale for expanding the judiciary will likely come under close examination, particularly regarding the allocation of resources and the potential implications for judicial independence. Meanwhile, the ongoing protests and political tensions surrounding issues like the NEET paper leak and the Ram temple donation allegations continue to shape the atmosphere within Parliament. The outcome of these developments could have long-term consequences for the functioning of the Indian legal system.