Lok Sabha odobrila prijedlog zakona o povećanju broja sudaca Vrhovnog suda na 38

Parliament cleared the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill on August 5, 2026, increasing the number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 37. The Rajya Sabha passed the Money Bill after returning it to the Lok Sabha following discussions. The measure replaces an ordinance issued by the government in May. The bill was initially approved by the Lok Sabha on the same day. During the debate, opposition members expressed concerns over the urgency of the ordinance and questioned whether the proposed changes were sufficient to address the backlog of cases. Congress MP Vivek Tankha raised questions about the impact of adding four judges on resolving approximately 95,000 pending cases. He also highlighted the need for more comprehensive reforms. When Tankha referenced the fifth anniversary of the abrogation of Article 370, Deputy Chairman Harivansh intervened, prompting the opposition to walk out of the house after a brief period. BJP MP Sangeeta Yadav argued that increasing the number of judges would aid in reducing case pendency, noting that around 64 lakh cases remain unresolved in various courts. Trinamool Congress MP Menaka Guruswamy pointed out that 30% of high court positions are vacant and emphasized the lack of representation among marginalized communities within the judiciary. She noted that women account for only 14% of high court judges, and Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes collectively represent less than 20% of the judiciary. Between 2018 and 2026, the government appointed just 3% Scheduled Caste judges, 2% Scheduled Tribe judges, and 12% OBC judges. DMK MP R. Girirajan criticized the dominance of a particular caste in the higher judiciary, stating that approximately 76% to 80% of recently appointed high court judges belong to upper caste general categories. Indian Union Muslim League MP Haris Beeran called for structural changes, including increased salaries for judges and a rise in the retirement age for Supreme Court justices. He left the chamber shortly after delivering his remarks. Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal defended the move, asserting that the increase in judges is aimed at improving judicial efficiency. He outlined plans to implement alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as arbitration, mediation, and conciliation to expedite case resolutions. He also reiterated the government’s commitment to collaborating with the judiciary on these initiatives. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiran Rijiju addressed concerns regarding appointments, explaining that while the government issues appointment notifications, the selection of names is determined by the Collegium of the Supreme Court. He clarified that the government cannot independently appoint individuals from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes unless the Collegium recommends them. The bill was ultimately passed through a voice vote, marking the final approval of the amendment. The decision comes amid ongoing debates over judicial efficiency, representation, and systemic reform. As the government moves forward with implementing the changes, further discussions on broader judicial restructuring and representation are anticipated.