Parliament Monsoon Session Day 13 highlights: Rajya Sabha clears SC Judges' Bill; Lok Sabha adjourned for the day
On 5 August 2026, the thirteenth day of the Monsoon Session, the Rajya Sabha discussed and cleared the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, which replaces an ordinance raising the apex court's sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges, even as several Opposition members walked out. The Lok Sabha, meanwhile, passed the Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026 by voice vote without any discussion before being adjourned for the day amid continuing Opposition protests. The day illustrates two themes a candidate must be able to argue about: the machinery for expanding the higher judiciary, and legislation passing amid disruption.
What happened
The Rajya Sabha took up the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 for consideration and passing; it amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to raise the number of puisne judges from 33 to 37, taking the sanctioned strength with the Chief Justice of India to 38, and replaces an ordinance promulgated earlier in the year. The Lok Sabha had passed the same Bill by voice vote on 3 August, and the Rajya Sabha returned it to the Lok Sabha after consideration. Separately, the Lok Sabha passed the Bankers' Books Evidence Bill, 2026, moved by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, by voice vote without discussion; the Bill seeks to make digital and virtual records admissible as evidence and align the law with contemporary digital banking practices. Opposition MPs, led by Rahul Gandhi, Mallikarjun Kharge and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, marched within the Parliament complex, and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju held a roughly 50-minute meeting with the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
Why it matters
CPI MP P. Sandosh Kumar listed the Opposition's three demands: restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, a discussion on the alleged Ram Janmabhoomi funds scam, and a statement by Home Minister Amit Shah on the alleged lathi charge on students on 20 July; Rijiju countered that the Congress, CPI and Samajwadi Party were politicising the donations issue and should apologise, and accused them of not wanting the House to function. Congress MP K.C. Venugopal said Parliament exists for debate and that the government wanted to "bulldoze" legislation, while Congress MP Rajeev Shukla alleged that the Rajya Sabha Chair had begun dictating what members may say during a speech. On the judges Bill itself, the government argued through Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal that more judges would let the Supreme Court hear more cases simultaneously and make it easier for the CJI to constitute Constitution Benches, whereas JMM MP Mahua Majhi asked whether more judges would guarantee justice, pointing to pendency and the inaccessibility of even district courts.
Prelims: Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 — puisne judges raised from 33 to 37; sanctioned strength 34 to 38 · Article 130 — seat of the Supreme Court; CJI's appointment of other places with President's approval · Constitution Bench — minimum of five judges for substantial questions of constitutional interpretation · Rule 267 notice in the Rajya Sabha; adjournment motion notice in the Lok Sabha · Presiding officers' rulings: entry into the Well of the House and display of placards prohibited · Ordinance replaced by legislation; Bill passed by voice vote without discussion.
Mains (GS-II): Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court addresses the symptoms of judicial delay rather than its causes. Critically examine, with reference to the demands for regional benches and for larger strength in high courts and trial courts.
Reported by one newsroom. Nothing here has been corroborated against a second account — check it before relying on it in an answer.
Background
The strength of the Supreme Court is fixed by Parliament under the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, and the present increase first came through an ordinance that this Bill replaces. Members across parties used the discussion to press for more judges in high courts and trial courts and for regional benches: BRS MP Ravichandra Vaddiraju sought a South India Bench at Hyderabad, and Meghwal cited Article 130, which allows the Supreme Court to sit in Delhi or such other place as the CJI may appoint with the President's approval, saying the consultation process was on. Earlier in the session the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was cleared by both Houses, also amid Opposition protests and without major debate.