In India, the power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court lies with—

1. Integrated and Independent Judicial System (basic)

Welcome to your first step in mastering the Indian Judiciary! To understand how the Supreme Court functions, we must first understand the 'architecture' of our justice system. Even though India follows a dual polity (having both a Union and State governments), we do not have a dual system of justice. Instead, the Constitution establishes a system that is both integrated and independent. An integrated judiciary means there is a single, unified hierarchy of courts for the entire nation. At the pinnacle stands the Supreme Court, followed by High Courts at the state level, and Subordinate Courts (District and Lower courts) below them Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30. The defining feature of this integration is that this single set of courts enforces both Central laws and State laws. This prevents the confusion of different procedures for different types of laws and ensures a uniform remedial process throughout India Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Centre-State Relations, p.151. Alongside integration, the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our democracy. For the courts to act as the 'Guarantor of Fundamental Rights' and the 'Guardian of the Constitution', they must be insulated from the influence of the Executive and the Legislature Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30. This independence is protected by ensuring that the appointment of judges is not based on political loyalty or party politics, but on legal expertise and experience Indian Constitution at Work, NCERT Class XI, JUDICIARY, p.126.

Feature	Indian Judicial System	USA Judicial System
Structure	Integrated (Single Hierarchy)	Dual (Federal & State Hierarchies)
Law Enforcement	Single system enforces both Central & State laws	Federal courts for Federal laws; State courts for State laws

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Salient Features of the Constitution, p.30; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Centre-State Relations, p.151; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), JUDICIARY, p.126

2. Establishment and Constitution of the Supreme Court (basic)

To understand how the highest court in our land is structured, we must look at Article 124(1) of the Constitution. This article serves as the 'birth certificate' of the Supreme Court of India, establishing its existence and defining its initial composition. What is truly fascinating is the foresight of our Constitution-makers; they knew that as India grew, the workload of the court would inevitably increase. Therefore, while the original Constitution of 1950 fixed the strength at just eight judges (one Chief Justice and seven other judges), it explicitly empowered the Parliament to increase this number by law Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.285.

It is a common point of confusion for students to mix up the roles of the President and the Parliament. Here is the distinction: while the President is the authority who appoints individual judges to the bench, only the Parliament has the legislative power to expand the size of the bench. Parliament exercises this authority through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. Since then, the number of judges has been increased progressively to meet the demands of a growing democracy Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.295.

As it stands today, the Supreme Court consists of a maximum of 34 judges, which includes the Chief Justice of India and 33 other judges. This evolutionary process ensures that the judiciary remains equipped to handle the complexities of modern Indian law Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.285.

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Supreme Court, p.285; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Supreme Court, p.295

3. Appointment Process: From NJAC to Collegium (intermediate)

The process of appointing judges to the higher judiciary in India has seen a fascinating tug-of-war between the Executive and the Judiciary. Originally, the Constitution stated that the President would appoint judges after 'consultation' with the Chief Justice of India (CJI). However, through a series of legal battles known as the Three Judges Cases, the Supreme Court reinterpreted 'consultation' to mean 'concurrence.' This gave birth to the Collegium System—a body of the CJI and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court who recommend names for appointment Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 31, p.354. While the Parliament holds the power to increase the number of judges under Article 124(1), the selection of individuals remains largely within this judicial peer-selection mechanism D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, Chapter 22, p.339.

In an attempt to bring more transparency and executive participation into this process, the Parliament passed the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act in 2014. The NJAC was designed to replace the Collegium with a six-member commission including the CJI, senior judges, the Law Minister, and two eminent persons. However, in 2015, the Supreme Court struck down both the amendment and the Act as unconstitutional in what is often called the Fourth Judges Case. The Court reasoned that judicial independence is part of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution, and executive interference in appointments would compromise that independence Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Chapter 31, p.354.

Currently, the appointment process has reverted to the Collegium System. To understand the core differences between the two systems, look at the table below:

Feature	Collegium System (Current)	NJAC (Struck Down)
Composition	CJI + 4 senior-most judges (for SC)	CJI, 2 senior judges, Law Minister, 2 eminent persons
Executive Role	Limited to background checks and requesting reconsideration	Active participation through the Law Minister
Legal Basis	Judicial Precedents (Three Judges Cases)	99th Amendment Act (declared void)

Sources: Indian Polity, High Court, p.354; Introduction to the Constitution of India, The Supreme Court, p.339; Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.285

4. High Courts: Contrast in Determining Strength (intermediate)

When studying the Indian Judiciary, it is fascinating to see how the Constitution balances rigidity and flexibility. A prime example is the determination of judicial strength. While the Supreme Court and High Courts are both constitutional courts, the authority to decide how many judges they should have rests with different branches of government.

For the Supreme Court, the power is strictly legislative. Under Article 124(1), the Constitution originally fixed the strength at eight judges but empowered Parliament to increase this number by law. This means any expansion of the apex court requires a formal amendment to the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. Over the decades, Parliament has used this authority to raise the strength from the original 8 to the current 34 judges (including the Chief Justice of India) to handle the increasing burden of constitutional and appellate cases Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.285.

In sharp contrast, the strength of a High Court is not fixed by the Constitution nor by Parliament. Instead, the Constitution leaves this to the discretion of the President. Every High Court consists of a Chief Justice and "such other judges as the President may from time to time deem necessary to appoint" Laxmikanth, M. Indian Polity, High Court, p.353. This allows for a more flexible, administrative approach where the executive can adjust the number of judges in a specific state based on its actual workload and case pendency without needing a legislative amendment every time a new judge is required.

Feature	Supreme Court	High Court
Determining Authority	Parliament (by Law)	President (Executive Discretion)
Constitutional Provision	Article 124	Article 216
Basis of Change	National legislative policy	Workload and pendency of cases

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 26: Supreme Court, p.285; Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth(7th ed.), Chapter 34: High Court, p.353

5. Ad-hoc and Acting Judges (exam-level)

In the smooth functioning of the Supreme Court, there are times when the permanent strength is insufficient due to vacancies, absences, or a lack of quorum (the minimum number of judges required to conduct a session). To ensure justice is not delayed, the Constitution provides for temporary judicial appointments: Acting Chief Justice, Ad-hoc Judges, and the attendance of Retired Judges.

Under Article 126, the President of India has the power to appoint an Acting Chief Justice. This happens in three specific scenarios: if the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is vacant, if the CJI is temporarily absent, or if the CJI is unable to perform their duties for any reason Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 26, p.288. It is important to note that the President selects this individual from among the existing judges of the Supreme Court.

Ad-hoc Judges, governed by Article 127, are a specialized solution for a lack of quorum. When there aren't enough permanent judges to hold or continue a session, the Chief Justice of India (not the President) can appoint a High Court judge as an ad-hoc judge for a temporary period. However, the CJI can only do this after obtaining the previous consent of the President and consulting the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Chapter 22, p.339. The judge chosen must be fully qualified to be appointed as a Supreme Court judge.

Finally, Article 128 allows the CJI to request a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a retired High Court judge (who is duly qualified) to sit and act as a judge for a temporary period. This also requires the previous consent of the President and, crucially, the consent of the person being requested Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 26, p.288. While they enjoy the jurisdiction and powers of a judge, they are not technically deemed a "permanent judge" of the Court.

Category	Appointing Authority	Primary Reason
Acting CJI	President of India	CJI office vacant or CJI absent
Ad-hoc Judge	CJI (with President's consent)	Lack of Quorum
Retired Judge	CJI (with President's & Judge's consent)	Temporary requirement/Workload

Sources: Indian Polity, M. Laxmikanth, Chapter 26: Supreme Court, p.288; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu, Chapter 22: THE SUPREME COURT, p.339

6. Legislative Control and the Number of Judges Act (exam-level)

In the architecture of Indian democracy, the principle of checks and balances is beautifully illustrated by how the size of the Supreme Court is determined. While the Judiciary remains independent in its functions, the power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court is vested exclusively in the Parliament. This is rooted in Article 124(1) of the Constitution, which originally established a court of eight judges (one Chief Justice and seven others) but included the crucial phrase: "until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number" Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.295.

To exercise this authority, Parliament does not need a formal Constitutional Amendment under Article 368 every time it wants to add a seat. Instead, it uses ordinary legislation. Specifically, it enacted the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. Over the decades, as the litigation workload and the complexity of legal issues grew, Parliament has repeatedly amended this specific Act to expand the judicial strength Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.355.

It is vital to distinguish between appointment and sanctioned strength. While the President is the authority who appoints individual judges, the President cannot create a new permanent post; only Parliament can authorize a new seat through law. Even when the Chief Justice of India (CJI) appoints ad hoc judges (under Article 127) or requests retired judges to sit (under Article 128) to handle a temporary lack of quorum, these are temporary measures and do not change the permanent "sanctioned strength" of the court Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.339.

Sources: Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.295; Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.355; Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE SUPREME COURT, p.339; Indian Polity, Supreme Court, p.285

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question bridges your understanding of the Separation of Powers and the specific constitutional mechanics governing the Union Judiciary. You have recently learned that while the Judiciary is independent in its functions, its structural composition—specifically the sanctioned strength of judges—is a matter of legislative framework rather than judicial or executive whim. Under Article 124(1) of the Constitution, the original strength was set at eight, but the framers included a flexible provision allowing the Parliament of India to increase this number by law. As noted in Indian Polity by M. Laxmikanth, this legislative authority has been exercised repeatedly through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to bring the current strength to 34 judges.

To arrive at the correct answer, analyze the nature of the action described. Increasing the number of judges requires a formal amendment to an existing Act of Parliament, which only the legislature can perform. The Parliament of India is therefore the correct choice. UPSC often includes the President of India as a distractor because the President is the appointing authority under Article 124(2); however, appointment power is distinct from the power to create the post itself. Similarly, while the Chief Justice of India may represent the need for more judges and the Union Ministry of Law handles the administrative files, they lack the constitutional mandate to 'prescribe by law' the size of the Court. Recognizing this distinction between executive appointment and legislative creation is key to mastering Indian Polity questions.