The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, was introduced in Parliament to replace an executive ordinance promulgated on May 16, 2026, following Cabinet approval on May 5, 2026. The Bill seeks to increase the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 33 to 37, excluding the Chief Justice of India, by amending the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. This expansion is aimed at addressing the growing backlog of cases and enhancing the Court’s capacity to deliver timely justice.
The government’s decision to proceed with the Bill as a money bill has attracted constitutional scrutiny. Under Article 110 of the Constitution, a bill qualifies as a money bill only if it contains provisions dealing exclusively with matters specified in clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1). These include taxation, borrowing, appropriation of funds from the Consolidated Fund of India, and declaring any expenditure to be charged on the Consolidated Fund or increasing the amount of such expenditure. The classification of a bill as a money bill significantly alters the legislative process by limiting the Rajya Sabha’s role to making non-binding recommendations within a 14-day period, which the Lok Sabha may accept or reject.
The government’s position relies on Article 112(3)(d)(i) and Article 146(3) of the Constitution, which treat the salaries, pensions, and administrative expenses of Supreme Court judges as expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India. By admitting that the additional financial burden from increasing judicial strength would be met from the Consolidated Fund, the government argues that the Bill falls under Article 110(1)(e), which covers the declaring of expenditure to be charged on the Consolidated Fund or increasing the amount of such expenditure.
However, critics contend that while the financial implications of increasing judicial strength are real, the core substance of the Bill pertains to altering the composition of the judiciary a matter of structural and institutional reform rather than financial legislation. The constitutional validity of classifying such a Bill as a money bill hinges on whether its provisions are substantially and directly related to the financial matters enumerated in Article 110, or whether the financial aspect is merely incidental or consequential to a non-financial legislative objective.