Lok Sabha passes Supreme Court judges Bill without debate as Opposition protests continue
The Lok Sabha passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, raising the sanctioned strength of Supreme Court judges from 34 (including the Chief Justice of India) to 38, without a substantive debate on the floor of the House.
The sitting was marked by repeated disruptions, and the House was adjourned for the day after the Bill's passage.
In the same sitting, two other bills were introduced: the Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026, and the Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026.
The Supreme Court judges Bill now moves to the Rajya Sabha for consideration before it can receive Presidential assent and take final legislative effect.
Article 124(1) and the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956
Article 124(1) establishes the Supreme Court and originally fixed its strength at the Chief Justice of India plus not more than seven other judges, "until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number." This wording deliberately leaves the exact judge strength to an ordinary law of Parliament rather than requiring a rigid constitutional amendment under Article 368, allowing the bench to be expanded as caseload grows through a simple-majority Bill.
Key Details
- The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, first exercised this power; strength (excluding CJI) was subsequently raised to 13 (1960), 17 (1977), 25 (1986), 30 (2008), and 33 (2019).
- The 2026 Amendment Bill raises the strength (excluding CJI) from 33 to 37, taking the total sanctioned strength (including CJI) to 38.
- Because Article 124(1) sets no ceiling, each such increase requires only an ordinary Bill passed by simple majority in both Houses, not a special majority.
- The increase was first given immediate effect through the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, promulgated on 16 May 2026 under Article 123, before Parliament's regular Bill could be passed.
The Bill passed by the Lok Sabha is the regular legislative replacement needed to make the May 2026 ordinance's judge-strength increase permanent, illustrating the Article 123–Article 124(1) sequence by which urgent judicial-capacity measures are first enacted by ordinance and then ratified by Parliament.
Article 122 — Courts Not to Inquire into Proceedings of Parliament
Article 122(1) provides that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament cannot be called into question merely on the ground of an alleged irregularity of procedure. Article 122(2) further protects the Speaker and other officers regulating the conduct of business in the House from the jurisdiction of courts in the exercise of those powers. This is one of the constitutional pillars of parliamentary privilege and the separation of powers between the legislature and judiciary.
Key Details
- Article 122 does not require that a Bill be substantively debated for its passage to be legally valid; the constitutional requirement is that it be passed in accordance with the House's own rules of procedure, not that discussion time be guaranteed to every member.
- Passage by voice vote (where the presiding officer gauges the "Ayes" and "Noes" without a recorded count) is procedurally valid unless a member formally demands a division and it is granted.
- The corresponding provision for State Legislatures is Article 212, which uses near-identical language.
- Courts have consistently held (relying on Article 122) that internal procedural lapses in a House's conduct of business are non-justiciable, though this does not extend to violations of express constitutional requirements (such as a mandated special majority).
A Bill passed amid disruption and without extended discussion, as happened here, remains a legally valid piece of legislation once cleared through the House's procedure — a distinction UPSC frequently tests by contrasting political/normative critiques of "no debate" with the constitutional position that procedural regularity, not the quality or length of debate, determines validity under Article 122.
Institutions of National Importance and Related Bills of the Same Sitting
The Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026, seeks to replace the 1891-era Bankers' Books Evidence Act, updating how banking records (including digital and cloud-based records) are admitted as evidence in court. The Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026, seeks to replace the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959, reconstituting the Kolkata-based ISI — an Institution of National Importance — as a body corporate with a Board of Governors and the President of India as its Visitor.
Key Details
- Institutions of National Importance derive their special constitutional status from Entry 63 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule), placing law-making for such institutions within Parliament's exclusive competence.
- Section 4 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, currently allows a certified copy of a bank entry to be admitted as prima facie evidence without producing the original ledger; the 2026 Bill extends this treatment to digital and electronic banking records.
- Both bills were introduced (first reading) in the same sitting as the Supreme Court judges Bill's passage, illustrating a single day's mixed legislative business — introduction of new bills alongside passage of a pending one.
The same sitting shows the range of ordinary legislative business — introducing new bills versus passing one already before the House — that continues even when a specific Bill is cleared amid disruption.
- Pre-amendment Supreme Court strength: 33 judges (excluding CJI) / 34 total (including CJI).
- Post-amendment Supreme Court strength: 37 judges (excluding CJI) / 38 total (including CJI).
- Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, promulgated: 16 May 2026, under Article 123.
- Historical strength increases (excluding CJI): 10 (1956) → 13 (1960) → 17 (1977) → 25 (1986) → 30 (2008) → 33 (2019) → 37 (2026).
- Bankers' Books Evidence Act being replaced: enacted 1891 (over 125 years old).
- Indian Statistical Institute Act being replaced: enacted 1959.
- Article 122 (Lok Sabha) and Article 212 (State Legislatures) both bar courts from questioning proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularity.