Debate Over Judicial Appointments and Ideological Bias
During a recent debate in the Rajya Sabha concerning the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, Trinamool Congress MP and Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy raised concerns about the government’s alleged preference for appointing judges who align with its ideological leanings. Guruswamy’s comment, “You only appoint judges who you think have your ideology!” was met with a directive from Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh to exclude the statement from the official record.
Amendment Bill to Increase Supreme Court’s Strength
The discussed Bill aims to enhance the Supreme Court’s sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). The amendment received approval from the Lok Sabha earlier and was passed in the Rajya Sabha on Wednesday.
Concerns Over Representation and Judicial Backlog
Guruswamy highlighted the lack of adequate representation of women, religious minorities, and members of the LGBTQ community within the judiciary. She also pointed out the underrepresentation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes among judicial appointees, citing statistics from 2018 to 2026 that reveal only 3% of appointees were from Scheduled Castes, 2% from Scheduled Tribes, and 12% from Other Backward Classes.
Mounting Case Backlog in the Supreme Court
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice, Arjun Ram Meghwal, informed the Rajya Sabha that the Supreme Court is struggling with a backlog of approximately 10,000 cases annually, exacerbated by increasing fresh filings. CJI had previously communicated to Prime Minister Narendra Modi the necessity of increasing the sanctioned number of judges to manage this caseload effectively. Meghwal noted that larger Constitution Benches, such as the nine-judge bench in the Sabarimala case, further strain the regular hearing schedule.
Infrastructure and Regional Benches
Meghwal emphasized the need for establishing a permanent Constitution Bench and several three-judge benches to handle the growing number of cases. As of July 16, 2026, 96,024 cases were pending in the Supreme Court, with district and subordinate courts facing even larger backlogs. He also mentioned the potential for regional Supreme Court Benches, though the Supreme Court’s Full Court had previously opposed this idea.
More Read
Alternative Solutions and Opinions from Legal Experts
YSR Congress Party MP and Senior Advocate S Niranjan Reddy suggested that the addition of four judges might only serve as a temporary solution, proposing the establishment of intermediate appellate courts and intra-court appeals to alleviate the Supreme Court’s workload. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) MP and Senior Advocate P Wilson supported the idea of regional Supreme Court Benches, particularly in Chennai, while also advocating for increasing judges’ retirement ages.
Congress MP and Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha questioned whether the addition of four judges would significantly impact the backlog, given the 95,000 pending cases. Meanwhile, Biju Janata Dal MP Sasmit Patra and Bharatiya Janata Party MP and Bar Council of India Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra both emphasized the need for improved judicial infrastructure and addressing vacancies to tackle pendency issues effectively.
