New SC judges take oath, all in the name of God; women judges in SC only 3 out of 37

Justices Sunita Agarwal, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Aparesh Kumar Singh formally joined the Supreme Court after taking their oaths of office. Chief Justice Surya Kant administered the oaths. Their arrival raised the court’s working strength to 37 judges, leaving only one vacancy against the sanctioned strength of 38.

The ceremony marked their elevation from High Court leadership to India’s highest court. Justice Agarwal came from the Gujarat High Court, Justice Upadhyaya from the Delhi High Court, and Justice Singh from the Telangana High Court. The event was attended by Supreme Court judges, the attorney general, the solicitor general and lawyers.

The appointment also increased the number of sitting women judges to three because Justice Agarwal became the Supreme Court’s 13th woman judge. The other two are Justices B V Nagarathna and Justice V Mohana. The enlarged bench gives the court greater capacity, but 95,481 pending cases show that a near-full bench still faces a major workload.

An oath of judicial office is a formal constitutional commitment made before a judge begins serving. It requires the judge to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, perform the office faithfully, and uphold the Constitution and laws. This matters because judicial power must be exercised independently and responsibly.

When a judge takes the oath in the name of God, the promise is expressed in a religious form. It signals solemnity and personal responsibility. India’s constitutional wording also permits a judge to make a solemn affirmation instead. Therefore, invoking God is not a separate qualification for judicial office. It is one permitted form of making the constitutional pledge.

In the article, Justices Agarwal, Upadhyaya and Singh took their oaths in the name of God before Chief Justice Surya Kant. The ceremony transformed their appointments into active judicial offices. It also publicly reinforces that Supreme Court judges are bound by constitutional duties, not political instructions.

After the three new appointments, the Supreme Court had 37 working judges. Its sanctioned strength, including the Chief Justice of India, is 38. That means the court was short by only one judge. The sanctioned number is the maximum staffing level approved by law, while the working strength counts judges actually serving.

Women remain a small minority. Three of the 37 sitting judges were women: Justices Sunita Agarwal, B V Nagarathna and V Mohana. This is about 8% of the working bench. Justice Agarwal’s appointment made her the Supreme Court’s 13th woman judge since the institution was established.

The court’s capacity has expanded over time. Its sanctioned strength rose from eight judges in 1950 to 31 in 2009, and later to 34 in 2019. Parliament subsequently raised it to 38. Even with 37 judges serving, the court had 95,481 pending cases, showing that numerical strength does not eliminate delay.

Elevation means moving a serving High Court judge to the Supreme Court. In India, the Supreme Court Collegium recommends candidates for appointment. For Supreme Court appointments, it is led by the Chief Justice of India and includes senior Supreme Court judges. The recommendation considers judicial experience, ability, integrity and representation, though the Constitution does not list a simple public scoring system.

The article gives a concrete example. Justices Sunita Agarwal, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Aparesh Kumar Singh had been chief justices of the Gujarat, Delhi and Telangana High Courts. The Collegium recommended their elevation, and they then took the Supreme Court oath administered by Chief Justice Surya Kant.

The Collegium’s recommendation is a central step, but it is not the oath itself or the final ceremony. Under the constitutional appointment process, the recommendation moves through the Union government and the President makes the formal appointment. The article also notes that the present Collegium has appointed two women judges so far.

Justice B V Nagarathna’s projected appointment matters because no woman has yet served as Chief Justice of India. The article says she is scheduled to become the first woman CJI on September 24 next year. The milestone would extend women’s representation beyond membership of the bench to leadership of the entire Supreme Court.

The significance is especially clear against the court’s history. India’s first woman Supreme Court judge was Justice M Fathima Beevi, who took office on October 6, 1989, 39 years after the court was established. Since then, only a limited number of women have joined the apex court. Nagarathna is one of only three women judges currently serving, alongside Justices Sunita Agarwal and V Mohana.

Her future role could provide an important institutional symbol for aspiring women lawyers and judges. It would not, by itself, resolve the wider gender imbalance. The article records that the court has had as many as four sitting women judges, showing both progress and the continuing need for broader representation.

The immediate practical reality is a heavily burdened court with limited gender diversity. Three women sit among 37 judges, while the Supreme Court has 95,481 pending cases. A nearly full bench can hear more matters than a court with many vacancies, but it still faces pressure from the volume and complexity of litigation.

Representation also affects whose experiences are visible within judicial decision-making. A broader gender balance may strengthen public confidence and bring a wider range of perspectives to cases involving family law, workplace rights, violence and discrimination. These benefits are institutional and symbolic. The article does not establish that women judges decide particular cases differently or that their number directly determines pendency.

The court’s recent appointments increased women’s representation to three, but the proportion remains about 8%. Justice B V Nagarathna’s expected future appointment as the first woman Chief Justice would be a major leadership milestone. Reducing pendency will still require sustained judicial capacity and case-management measures, not representation alone.

A sanctioned strength gives the Supreme Court a defined number of judicial positions. This supports orderly administration, budgeting and appointment planning. It also lets Parliament respond to growing litigation. The number is not permanently fixed: it began at eight judges in 1950 and later rose to 38, including the Chief Justice, after statutory changes.

The Supreme Court is a constitutional institution, not simply another court. It interprets the Constitution, hears important appeals and protects legal rights. Judicial independence allows judges to decide cases according to law rather than government preference. Appointment safeguards, security of tenure and institutional separation support that independence, while judges remain bound by the Constitution and legal procedures.

The article shows why capacity matters. The court now has 37 working judges but still carries 95,481 pending cases. A sanctioned strength of 38 provides room for a near-complete bench, yet numbers alone cannot guarantee speedy justice. Future increases may help, but effective listing, hearings and judgments are also necessary.