Question map
The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in
Explanation
Parliament has the power to make laws regulating the constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme Court. Subject to such legislation, the Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of India and not more than thirty-three other Judges.[1] Originally, the strength of the Supreme Court was fixed at eight (one chief justice and seven other judges). The Parliament has increased this number of other judges progressively to ten in 1956, to thirteen in 1960, to seventeen in 1977, to twenty-five in 1986, to thirty in 2008 and to thirty-three in 2019.[2]
The President's role is limited to appointing judges, not determining their number. The Chief Justice of India is consulted in the appointment process but has no authority to alter the court's strength. The Law Commission is merely an advisory body with no constitutional power to change the composition of the Supreme Court. Only Parliament, through legislation, can increase or decrease the maximum number of judges in the Supreme Court.
Sources- [1] Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > THE SUPREME COURT > p. 339
- [2] Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > 1 COMPOSITION AND . APPOINTMENT > p. 285
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a textbook 'Sitter' found explicitly in Laxmikanth and DD Basu. It tests the fundamental separation between Legislative power (structural changes) and Executive power (appointments). If you marked 'President', you confused the appointing authority with the regulating authority.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Does the Constitution of India vest the power to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of India in the President of India?
- Statement 2: Does the Constitution of India vest the power to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of India in the Parliament of India?
- Statement 3: Does the Constitution of India vest the power to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of India in the Chief Justice of India?
- Statement 4: Does the Constitution of India vest the power to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of India in the Law Commission of India?
- States the constitutional composition and a fixed numeric cap: 'not more than 33 other Judges', indicating the Constitution prescribes the number.
- Says those Judges are 'appointed by the President', distinguishing appointment power from a power to change the constitutional cap.
- Cites Article 124, specifying that appointments to the Supreme Court are made by the President in consultation, describing appointment procedure rather than a power to increase strength.
- By describing appointment authority and consultation, it implies the President's role is appointment, not unilateral alteration of the Court's size.
States that Parliament has the power to make laws regulating the Supreme Court and that the Court consists of the CJI and, subject to such legislation, not more than a specified number of other judges (Article 124).
A student could infer that changing the Court's size likely requires legislation by Parliament rather than a unilateral executive act by the President.
Records that Parliament enacted successive 'Number of Judges' Acts (1956, 1986, 2008, 2019) to raise the number of judges.
Seeing actual parliamentary Acts changing the number supports the idea that increases occur via Parliament — a student could check whether any comparable increase was ever made by presidential order (none shown).
Notes Article 124(1) sets an initial number 'until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number', showing a constitutional rule that Parliament may prescribe a larger number.
A student could combine this constitutional provision with knowledge of how laws are made (by Parliament) to conclude increases are a legislative function, not an executive one.
Presents a multiple-choice question explicitly asking which organ has the power to increase the number, listing President and Parliament as alternatives — implying this is a point of constitutional allocation of power.
A student could treat this as highlighting the contested options and then use the constitutional and statutory citations here to prefer Parliament over the President.
Explains the President appoints Supreme Court judges (in consultation with the CJI and others) — showing a distinct role for the President in appointment, not in changing the Court's sanctioned strength.
A student could contrast the President's appointment role with the legislative role shown elsewhere to separate 'appointing judges' from 'increasing the number of judges'.
- Directly cites Article 124 language: Supreme Court consists of CJI and, 'until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number', not more than seven other judges — explicitly vests power in Parliament to prescribe a larger number.
- Constitutional provision is the primary source for who may alter Court strength, so this snippet is the clearest textual support.
- Documents that Parliament has in fact increased the Supreme Court's strength repeatedly (lists years and increments), showing exercise of the power attributed to Parliament.
- Provides practical historical instances of Parliament legislating to change judge strength, corroborating the constitutional text.
- States Parliament has power to make laws regulating the Supreme Court and that the Court's composition is 'subject to such legislation', indicating Parliament’s lawmaking competence over Court size.
- Links Article 124 composition rule to Parliament's legislative role, reinforcing that increases are by parliamentary law.
States Article 124 frames Supreme Court composition as 'Chief Justice of India and not more than thirty‑three other Judges' and says Parliament has power to make laws regulating the Supreme Court.
A student could combine this with the basic rule that if composition is subject to Parliament's law, then the power to change numbers likely lies with Parliament rather than an individual judge like the CJI.
Gives historical examples where Parliament enacted statutes (1956, 1986, 2008, 2019) to raise the number of Supreme Court judges.
Seeing that numerical increases occurred via Parliamentary Acts, a student could infer the practice and test whether any constitutional provision gives that power to the CJI instead.
Quotes Article 124(1) language and tabulates how maximum number was fixed initially and then changed by statute, linking constitutional text to legislative action.
A student could inspect Article 124(1) wording and note the explicit 'until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number' phrase to evaluate who holds the increase power.
Explains that the Chief Justice can appoint a High Court judge as an ad hoc judge when there is lack of quorum, showing a limited, temporary appointment power vested in the CJI.
A student could contrast this specific temporary ad hoc appointment power of the CJI with the separate, statutory process used to alter the permanent number of judges to see difference in scope.
Describes constitutional/legislative regulation of appointment procedure and the composition of a commission chaired by the CJI for recommending appointments, indicating CJI's role is recommendatory/administrative rather than legislative.
A student might use this to differentiate recommendation/appointment roles from law‑making authority to change court size, suggesting the latter is legislative (Parliamentary) not solely CJI's.
- This passage shows the Law Commission produces reports submitted to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, indicating an advisory/reporting role rather than a constitutional power to change Court composition.
- Being a commission that 'Submitted to the Union Minister of Law and Justice' implies it recommends reforms but does not itself enact constitutional changes.
- This passage records a Member supporting 'the proposal made by the Government to increase the number of the Judges of the Supreme Court,' showing such increases arise from Government proposals, not from the Law Commission.
- It implies the action to increase judges is a governmental/parliamentary matter rather than a unilateral power of the Law Commission.
- This passage explains that under Article 124 appointments are made by the President in consultation with Supreme Court judges, indicating constitutional provisions assign appointment-related powers to the President, not the Law Commission.
- Shows constitutional allocation of judicial appointment/related powers to executive/constitutional offices rather than to advisory bodies like the Law Commission.
States that Parliament has the power to make laws regulating the Supreme Court and that Article 124 provides for a Chief Justice and until Parliament prescribes a larger number a specified number of other judges.
A student could check Article 124 text and historic parliamentary acts to infer that increasing judge-strength is a legislative (Parliamentary) function, not an administrative commission function.
Tabulates specific 'Supreme Court (Number of Judges)' Acts (1956, etc.) showing the number of judges was altered by Acts of Parliament.
One could examine these Acts to confirm that formal increases were achieved by parliamentary statute, suggesting the Law Commission does not itself effect such increases.
Notes constitutional provision subject to legislation by Parliament and records that Parliament enacted Acts raising the number to 30, 33, etc.
A student can correlate these legislative amendments with the constitutional note to conclude the mechanism for change is parliamentary legislation.
Explains Parliament may regulate procedure for appointment and empower a Commission to lay down procedure for its functions; describes the composition/functions of the (judicial) Commission related to appointments.
Use this to distinguish appointment/selection functions of commissions from the separate power to change court composition (which earlier snippets attribute to Parliament).
Contains a multiple-choice question asking which body has power to increase Supreme Court judges and lists Parliament and Law Commission as distinct alternatives.
A student could treat this as an indicator that common teaching contrasts Parliament (correct answer implied) with the Law Commission (distractor), prompting review of constitutional provisions.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Directly available in M. Laxmikanth (Chapter: Supreme Court) under 'Composition and Appointment'.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: Article 124(1) of the Constitution – The distinction between the 'Constitutionally fixed minimum' and 'Parliament's power to increase'.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Contrast SC vs HC: (1) SC Strength = Parliament (by Law); (2) HC Strength = President (Executive Order); (3) SC Seat = CJI (with President's approval); (4) SC Jurisdiction expansion = Parliament; (5) Salaries = Parliament.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Create a 'Who Holds the Power?' matrix. Rows: SC, HC, UPSC, EC. Columns: Strength, Appointment, Removal, Service Conditions. Note specifically where Parliament steps in vs where the President acts alone.
References state Article 124 contemplates a fixed initial number 'until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number' and that Parliament has enacted laws changing the number.
High-yield constitutional detail: UPSC often tests which organ (Parliament/President/Court) has power over institutional composition. Understand the textual source (Article 124) and how Parliament exercises it via statutes. Prepare by memorising key Constitutional clauses and landmark legislative changes, and practise applying clause-to-function questions.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > Table 26.2 Acts Relating to the Composition of the Supreme Court > p. 295
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > THE SUPREME COURT > p. 339
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > REFERENCES > p. 355
Evidence shows the President appoints Supreme Court judges (consulting the CJI) while Parliament enacts laws regulating the Court's composition.
Frequently tested separation of roles: who appoints versus who changes structure. Useful for questions on constitutional scheme, checks and balances, and institutional roles. Study by contrasting relevant articles (e.g., Article 124(2) on appointment) alongside legislative provisions and examples.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 11: The Union Executive > 2. Powers and Duties of the President > p. 212
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > THE SUPREME COURT > p. 339
References list the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Acts and subsequent amendments that raised the sanctioned number of judges.
Fact-backed examples strengthen answers: knowing the specific legislative route and historical acts (1956, 1986, 2008, 2019) shows how Parliament operationalises Article 124. UPSC answers benefit from citing such statutes; revise timeline of major amendments and their constitutional basis.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > REFERENCES > p. 355
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > Table 26.2 Acts Relating to the Composition of the Supreme Court > p. 295
Article 124 explicitly frames the Supreme Court's composition and contains the phrase allowing Parliament to 'prescribe a larger number', which is central to the statement.
High-yield for UPSC constitutional questions on judicial structure and source of legislative authority; mastering the exact Article text and its implications helps answer both direct and applied questions about court composition and parliamentary competence. Learn the Article wording, implications, and related case/examples from practice passages.
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > Table 26.2 Acts Relating to the Composition of the Supreme Court > p. 295
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > THE SUPREME COURT > p. 339
References record specific Acts and years where Parliament raised the Supreme Court's judge strength, showing how the constitutional permission is implemented by statute.
Useful for factual and analytical questions on institutional change — UPSC often asks about amendments/acts and timelines. Memorize major acts/years and understand the process (constitutional provision → parliamentary law).
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > 1 COMPOSITION AND . APPOINTMENT > p. 285
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > REFERENCES > p. 355
One reference notes Article 224 allows additional High Court judges for temporary increases, while there is 'no such corresponding provision for the Supreme Court', highlighting constitutional distinctions.
Clarifies nuance between temporary staffing measures (High Courts) and parliamentary law to change Supreme Court strength — a frequent analytical angle in UPSC questions on judicial administration. Compare relevant Articles and remember contrasts.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 23: THE HIGH COURT > p. 363
References state Article 124 limits the Court's composition 'subject to such legislation' and record Parliament's enactments raising the number of judges.
High-yield for UPSC: tests understanding of constitutional allocation of powers between legislature and judiciary. Connects to topics on Article 124, legislative competence, and historical acts changing Court strength. Prepare by studying the text of Article 124 and the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Acts referenced in the references.
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > THE SUPREME COURT > p. 339
- Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). > Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT > REFERENCES > p. 355
- Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.) > Chapter 26: Supreme Court > Table 26.2 Acts Relating to the Composition of the Supreme Court > p. 295
The High Court Trap: While Parliament fixes the strength of the Supreme Court, the strength of a High Court is NOT fixed by Parliament. It is determined by the President from 'time to time' (Article 216). This inverse logic is a favorite area for future questions.
The 'Power of the Purse' Logic: Increasing the number of judges permanently increases the burden on the Consolidated Fund of India. In a parliamentary democracy, permanent financial burdens usually require Legislative sanction (Parliament), not just an Executive (Presidential) nod.
Mains GS-2 (Judiciary): Increasing judge strength is a 'Legislative' solution to pendency, whereas filling vacancies is an 'Executive/Collegium' process. This distinction is crucial when analyzing the 'Memorandum of Procedure' (MoP) debates.