The Union Cabinet raised the Supreme Court's sanctioned judge strength beyond the current thirty-three (one Chief Justice and thirty-two judges), with reports citing thirty-seven or thirty-eight as the new figure. Instead of amending the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 through a Bill debated in Parliament, the government used a presidential ordinance to bring the change into immediate effect, after which the collegium is expected to recommend names for the new vacancies.
Article 124 lets Parliament enlarge the Court's strength by ordinary law, not constitutional amendment. Article 123 allows the President to issue ordinances, with the force of an Act, when Parliament is not in session and immediate action is deemed necessary; such ordinances are provisional, must be laid before both Houses, and lapse six weeks after reassembly unless enacted or disapproved. Critics argue that altering the top court's structure — a matter of judicial infrastructure and representation — deserves parliamentary debate rather than an emergency executive route, even though ratification is still required later.
Remember: sanctioned strength (Article 124/1956 Act) versus actual appointments (collegium process); ordinance power under Article 123 and its provisional, six-week-from-reassembly limit; and that more seats don't automatically mean faster appointments.