What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

They may ask about the 'total sanctioned strength' of the Supreme Court (38) versus the 'working strength'. They may also confuse Article 136 (SLP) with Article 32 (Writs) or Article 131 (Original Jurisdiction). Another trap is asking about the ordinance-making power (Article 123) versus the bill process for increasing judges.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: New sanctioned strength of Supreme Court is 38 judges (increased from 34). 2. Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court Collegium (recommends judges). 3. Target this Legal Point: Article 136 of the Constitution (Special Leave Petitions).

PolityJudiciary

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 12 of 27

Supreme Court Strength Increased to 38 Judges via Ordinance; Pendency at 93,966 Cases

Q: Which constitutional body is responsible for recommending the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, as mentioned in the news?

The Supreme Court Collegium, As per the article, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the elevation of judges. The Collegium system, comprising the CJI and senior judges, is the body responsible for recommending appointments to the higher judiciary in India.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the news on Supreme Court pendency: 1. The President recently promulgated an ordinance to increase the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges. 2. A primary reason for high pendency, as discussed, is the Supreme Court's restrictive use of its jurisdiction under Article 136 for Special Leave Petitions. 3. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) reported the current pendency before the Supreme Court to be over 90,000 cases. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct as the article states the ordinance increased strength from 34 to 38. Statement 2 is incorrect because the problem is the 'expansive' or excessive use of Article 136, not restrictive use. Statement 3 is correct as the NJDG pendency figure is 93,966 cases (over 90,000).

Q: According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) mentioned in the article, what is the approximate number of cases pending before the Supreme Court?

Approximately 94,000 cases, The article explicitly states that pendency before the Supreme Court currently stands at 93,966 cases, which is approximately 94,000 cases. The other options are distractors close to this figure.

Q: What is a key institutional reform suggested in the article to address the Supreme Court's pendency crisis beyond increasing judge strength?

Formulating clear guidelines for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136., The article highlights that the absence of meaningful guidelines for the discretionary use of Article 136 (Special Leave Petitions) has contributed to case accumulation. Experts suggest developing a robust filtering mechanism and clear guidelines as a key reform to manage the inflow of cases.

PolityHIGH

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

28 May 2026

~2 min

Source: The Hindu

Key Data:38 Judges34 Judges93,966 CasesArticle 136May 17, 2026

Bodies:Supreme CourtSupreme Court CollegiumUnion CabinetNational Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.President promulgated an ordinance increasing Supreme Court strength from 34 to 38 judges on May 17, 2026, following Union Cabinet approval.

2.Experts debate if increasing judges is a solution, citing issues like excessive Special Leave Petitions (Article 136) and lack of a National Litigation Policy.

3.The core exam angle: This is a case study on judicial administration, pendency, constitutional provisions (Article 136), and the ordinance-making power of the President.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The President has promulgated an ordinance to increase the Supreme Court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges to tackle a pendency of 93,966 cases. This move, aimed at 'speedy justice', raises critical questions about judicial reforms, the role of Article 136 (SLPs), and the effectiveness of merely adding judges versus systemic changes.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

New SC Strength38 Judges

Previous SC Strength34 Judges

Current Pendency (NJDG)93,966 Cases

Key ArticleArticle 136

Ordinance DateMay 17, 2026

1-Minute Revision

›New SC Strength: 38 Judges
›Previous SC Strength: 34 Judges
›Target this Data: New sanctioned strength of Supreme Court is 38 judges (increased from 34).
›Target this Nodal Body: Supreme Court Collegium (recommends judges).
›Target this Legal Point: Article 136 of the Constitution (Special Leave Petitions).

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Ordinance Route

The President used ordinance power to increase Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38, bypassing immediate parliamentary debate.

📈

Pendency Crisis

Despite the increase, pendency stands at 93,966 cases, with experts questioning if more judges alone can solve the problem.

🔍

Article 136 & SLPs

A major cause of pendency is the Supreme Court's expansive use of its discretionary power under Article 136 to hear Special Leave Petitions.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The Supreme Court's sanctioned strength has been increased periodically via legislation (The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956). The current increase to 38 judges via an ordinance (May 17, 2026) follows the Cabinet's approval of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026. This continues a historical trend where judicial strength is increased as a primary response to mounting pendency, which now stands at 93,966 cases according to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).

Core Analysis & Implications

The debate centers on whether adding judges is a structural solution. Experts argue the real bottleneck is the Supreme Court's expansive jurisdiction, especially under Article 136 for Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), which were meant to be used 'sparingly' but now dominate the docket. Without clear guidelines, this leads to unpredictability and allegations of 'bench-fixing'. Furthermore, increasing judges to 38 may lead to more Division Benches (2-judge), causing conflicting rulings and doctrinal inconsistency, ultimately increasing delays when referred to larger benches. The absence of a National Litigation Policy (NLP) and the government's inconsistent litigation strategy, filing appeals even in weak cases, further clogs the system.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Systemic reforms are needed beyond increasing judge numbers. The Supreme Court must formulate clear guidelines for Article 136 SLPs and strictly filter frivolous Public Interest Litigations (PILs) as per the Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) guidelines. The government needs to implement a coherent National Litigation Policy to reduce its litigation footprint. Internal reforms like stricter time limits for oral arguments and reliance on written submissions can optimize judicial time. The appointments for the four new positions also present an opportunity to improve gender representation on the bench.

Key Facts at a Glance

New SC Strength38 Judges

Previous SC Strength34 Judges

Current Pendency (NJDG)93,966 Cases

Key ArticleArticle 136

Ordinance DateMay 17, 2026

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which constitutional body is responsible for recommending the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, as mentioned in the news?

Q2Statement-basedMediumUPSC, SSC

Consider the following statements regarding the news on Supreme Court pendency:

1. The President recently promulgated an ordinance to increase the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges.

2. A primary reason for high pendency, as discussed, is the Supreme Court's restrictive use of its jurisdiction under Article 136 for Special Leave Petitions.

3. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) reported the current pendency before the Supreme Court to be over 90,000 cases.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) mentioned in the article, what is the approximate number of cases pending before the Supreme Court?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC

What is a key institutional reform suggested in the article to address the Supreme Court's pendency crisis beyond increasing judge strength?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from The Hindu

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →

PreviousIndia's Balance of Payments Deficit Hits $30.8 Billion in 2025-26, Driven by Sharp Fall in Foreign Investment Next Cow Protection Laws in 20+ States Under Article 48, Yet Cattle Census Shows Only 49.63% Growth Since 1951

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Rajya Sabha Passes Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill 2026, Raising Judge Strength to 38

The Rajya Sabha has cleared the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the apex court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. The Bill replaces a May ordinance, but Opposition MPs questioned the ordinance route and highlighted the persistent diversity deficit in judicial appointments. This is a high-yield Polity topic for Prelims and Mains, with concrete data on SC/ST/OBC/minority/women representation and judiciary infrastructure.

Polity Current Affairs

Parliament Increases Supreme Court Judges Strength from 34 to 38 via Amendment Bill, 2026

Parliament has increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges (including CJI) for the first time since 2019. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed by Lok Sabha on August 3, 2026, replacing an ordinance. The move aims to address the growing backlog of cases in the apex court.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Collegium to Fill 4 Vacancies; Gender and CJI Succession Criteria Examined

The Supreme Court Collegium, after completing appointments of regular Chief Justices to all 25 High Courts, now focuses on filling 4 vacancies in the Supreme Court. The selection will consider gender representation (only 3 women HC Chief Justices) and potential CJI succession. Aspirants must note the current strength (34 judges) and upcoming retirements of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (Nov 29, 2026) and CJI Surya Kant (Feb 9, 2027).

Polity Current Affairs

SC Collegium Elevates 4 Judges as Chief Justices: Justice V. Kameswar Rao to Patna HC

The Supreme Court Collegium, led by CJI Surya Kant, has recommended the elevation of four High Court judges as Chief Justices of different high courts and the transfer of two judges. This highlights the Collegium's role in judicial appointments and transfers, a key topic for UPSC Polity and Governance.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Judge Flags Frivolous Criminal Cases, 4.27 Cr Pending, Calls for Amnesty

Supreme Court Judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has sharply criticized the filing of frivolous criminal cases, including those over food choices, poems, and social media posts. He proposed a one-time amnesty for non-serious cases to reduce the massive 4.27 crore pending criminal caseload, highlighting systemic issues in criminal justice and policing.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Expands to 38 Judges: Diversity Deficit Exposed as Women Only 4.15%

Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, adding 4 judges to the apex court (strength now 38). However, the article underscores a glaring lack of diversity: women constitute only 4.15% of all SC judges ever appointed, and caste representation in High Courts remains abysmally low. For exam aspirants, this links directly to the collegium system, judicial appointments, social justice, and pendency crisis.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Rules Police Cannot Independently Investigate Sex Determination Cases Under PC&PNDT Act

The Supreme Court has ruled that police cannot independently investigate offences under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994. Only the Appropriate Authority, a specialised body under the Act, can investigate. Police may assist but cannot take over the investigation, and any separate criminal offences (IPC/BNS) can be investigated independently. This clarifies a long-standing legal confusion and is crucial for understanding the enforcement mechanism of this social legislation.

Polity Current Affairs

Supreme Court Split Verdict: Justice Dipankar Datta Terms Centre's Remarks on Collegium 'Disquieting'

In a split verdict, Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court strongly defended the collegium system, terming the Centre's oral criticism as 'disingenuous, evasive and disquieting'. The judgment reaffirms the judiciary's independence in appointments and warns against undermining institutional integrity. Essential for UPSC Polity (Judicial Appointments, Separation of Powers).

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Supreme Court Strength Increased to 38 Judges via Ordinance; Pendency at 93,966 Cases

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Ordinance Route

Pendency Crisis

Article 136 & SLPs

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance