The government has issued an ordinance amending the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, raising the sanctioned strength of the apex court from 34 to 38, including the Chief Justice of India. This move adds four new judges to the Supreme Court.
Former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice T. S. Sivagnanam, appointed as one of 19 retired judges serving as single-member Appellate Tribunals for Special Intensive Revision in West Bengal, resigned from his tribunal position on Thursday citing personal reasons.
Justice Rajesh Bindal said mandating prior legal practice before joining as munsiff or magistrate helps young judges understand courtroom operations and litigants’ realities. At his farewell by Supreme Court Bar Association, he reflected on evolving recruitment and training.
The Union government told the Delhi High Court that appointment of a regular NCLT President remains pending since December 2025. The Centre stated it awaits recommendation from the Chief Justice of India under Companies Act provisions.
The Supreme Court of India witnessed a split among judges over the mandatory three-year bar-practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) appointments. While some stressed courtroom experience to counter coaching-centre influence, others warned the rule may exclude talented young law graduates.
Former Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana said the government lacked intent to achieve gender parity despite women forming forty percent of trial court judiciary. He said, “Government showed casual attitude appointing women judges in higher courts.”
Gita Mittal highlighted challenges women face entering and advancing in the judiciary, recalling a Delhi High Court collegium meeting where she questioned the absence of women during discussions on judicial appointments.
Orissa High Court Justice Savitri Ratho said, “I was stalked when I started practising law,” while speaking about the challenges faced by women lawyers. She shared the incident during a panel discussion on gender gaps in the judiciary at the Indian Women in Law conference held in the Supreme Court.
Surya Kant said institutional intent alone cannot improve women’s representation in the higher judiciary, urging High Court collegiums to consider deserving women lawyers and expand the zone of consideration so their elevation to the Bench becomes the norm.
The Bombay High Court ruled that judicial appointments cannot be rushed and must prioritize merit and temperament over quick vacancy filling. The Court recalled its earlier order seeking a time-bound recruitment blueprint, emphasising quality in the subordinate judiciary.
