The Lok Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38, including the Chief Justice of India. The move aims to address the court's mounting case backlog. The Supreme Court's judge strength is not fixed by the Constitution itself but is set by Parliament through ordinary legislation under Article 124(1), making this amendment procedurally straightforward yet constitutionally significant.

Article 124(1) of the Constitution originally fixed the Supreme Court's strength at eight judges, including the Chief Justice. Crucially, it empowers Parliament to increase this number by law — meaning no constitutional amendment under Article 368 is required; a simple majority statute suffices.

The legislative history of increases:
• 1950: Original strength — 8 (1 CJI + 7 judges)
• 1956: Raised to 11 (Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956)
• 1960: Raised to 14
• 1977: Raised to 18
• 1986: Raised to 26
• 2009: Raised to 31
• 2019: Raised to 34
• 2026: Raised to 38 (current amendment)

The distinction between sanctioned strength and working strength is exam-critical: even with 34 sanctioned posts, the court has historically operated with several vacancies. The 2026 amendment brings sanctioned strength to 38, but actual sitting judges will depend on appointments made through the collegium process.

The collegium system — under which the CJI and four senior-most judges recommend appointments — is itself a judicial creation (Second and Third Judges Cases, 1993 and 1998) not found in the constitutional text. This creates a structural tension: Parliament can expand the bench by statute, but cannot direct who fills those seats.

For CLAT PG, the constitutional hook is Article 124 read with the doctrine that Parliament's power to legislate on court strength is plenary and does not require presidential assent beyond ordinary bill procedure. For UPSC, the number sequence and the governing statute name are the primary recall points.