Parliament approved a Money Bill that seeks to raise the sanctioned strength of judges in India’s higher courts, a move that could speed up a backlog of cases and affect millions of litigants. The decision matters because it uses a financial legislation route to alter the judiciary, sidestepping the usual constitutional amendment process that requires approval from both houses of Parliament.
The Money Bill mechanism is designed for tax and expenditure matters and does not go to the Rajya Sabha for debate. Historically, changes to the number of judges have been made through constitutional amendments, which need a two‑thirds majority in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. By classifying the judges’ increase as a financial matter, the government avoided the upper house’s scrutiny.
The bill, introduced earlier this week, proposes to add new judges to the Supreme Court and several high courts, aiming to reduce the average pendency of cases that now stretches beyond several years. Officials argue that the judiciary’s capacity has not kept pace with the country’s growing population and expanding legal disputes.
Supporters say the measure will improve access to justice, lower costs for litigants, and help the courts meet constitutional guarantees of speedy trial. They point to recent surveys showing that case backlogs have risen sharply, straining both judges and parties.
Legal experts, however, warn that the use of a Money Bill for a structural change may be vulnerable to a challenge in the Supreme Court. Critics argue that the move could set a precedent for bypassing the Rajya Sabha on other constitutional issues.
The next weeks are likely to see petitions filed against the bill, while the judiciary prepares for a possible increase in its workforce. If upheld, the change could reshape the speed and efficiency of India’s legal system.