Why an Ordinance, Not a Bill? Expanding the Supreme Court's Judge Strength Explained

Reports of a Central ordinance to raise the Supreme Court's sanctioned judge strength put the spotlight on Article 124's law-making requirement and the President's ordinance power under Article 123 — and on why the number of judges was never fixed by the Constitution itself.

Reports indicate the Union government has moved to raise the Supreme Court's sanctioned judge strength through an Ordinance, invoking the President's power under Article 123 when Parliament is not in session, instead of the usual route of an amending Bill passed by both Houses.

Article 124 fixes the Supreme Court's composition as the Chief Justice plus a number of judges "until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number," leaving strength open to ordinary legislative revision (as done via the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, last amended in 2019) rather than constitutional amendment. An Ordinance under Article 123 has the same force as an Act but is temporary — it lapses six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless approved, or can be withdrawn by the President. Articles 128 and 224A offer an alternative tool: recalling retired judges without expanding sanctioned strength.

Remember: judge strength is statutory, not constitutionally fixed; Article 123 vs Article 124/111 route distinction; ordinances require eventual parliamentary ratification; and the contrast between permanent expansion and ad hoc retired-judge appointments under Articles 128/224A.