Govt proposes to increase number of Judges in Supreme Court from present 30 to 33 excluding CJI

Govt proposes to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present thirty to thirty-three, excluding the Chief Justice of India. 

The Government today, presented in the Lok Sabha, The Supreme Court (Number Of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2019″ to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.

It has proposed an Act called the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019.

As per the statement of objects and reasons of the said Bill, the pendency of cases in the Supreme Court of India has constantly been on the rise due to comparatively higher rate of institution of cases.

As on the 1st day of June, 2019, there were 58669 cases pending in the Supreme Court.

The Chief Justice of India has intimated that inadequate strength of judges is one of the prime reasons for backlog of cases in the Supreme Court. It is not possible for the Chief Justice of India to constitute five Judges Bench on a regular basis to hear cases involving substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution as it would result in constitution of less number of Division Benches which would lead to delay in hearing of other civil and criminal matters.

It further states that the feeder cadre of Chief Justices and Judges of the High Courts have increased from 906 to 1,079 and presently new High Courts have also been established in the previous years. This has led to increase in the disposal of cases at the High Court level leading to larger number of appeals to the Supreme Court.

Keeping in view the above, the Bill proposes to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase the number of Judges in the Supreme Court from present thirty to thirty-three, excluding the Chief Justice of India. 

• Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court
• High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA
• Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it
• Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC
• Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST

addition u/s 68 addition u/s 69A ca misconduct cash deposit in bank cbdt circular CBDT Instruction cbdt notification cbdt order cbdt press release cgst circular cgst notification cit revision 263 concealment penalty condonation of delay covid-19 custom circular demonetisation due date extension e-way bill faq GST circular GST Council Meeting gst faq gstn advisory GSTR-3B GST rates IBBI ibc icai announcement income tax penalty itat ITAT Delhi mca circular MCA notification penalty 271(1)(c) penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Press Release reasons recorded reopening 148 Reopening us 147 Search & Seizure sebi circular unexplained cash credits validity of notice u/s 148 Withdrawal of 2000 500 Bank Notes