On May 16, 2026, President promulgated Ordinance increasing Supreme Court strength from 34 to 38 judges. Five judges took oath - two filled existing vacancies, three occupy Ordinance-created posts. Supreme Court Collegium's acceptance raises judicial independence concerns as three judges' tenure depends on executive action. Ordinance ceases in six weeks unless Parliament passes replacement Act. Critics argue this compromises security of tenure and appearance of judicial detachment from executive, violating basic structure principles established in NJAC judgment (2015).

This Ordinance creates unprecedented constitutional tension between judicial independence and executive power. Under Article 123, President can issue ordinances when Parliament isn't in session, but using this for judicial appointments raises alarm. Three Supreme Court judges now hold positions that exist only through executive fiat - their tenure depends on government converting the Ordinance to statute within six weeks of Parliament reassembling. This violates core judicial independence principles. The Supreme Court itself ruled in NJAC case (2015) that judicial independence is basic structure, requiring appearance of detachment from executive. Here, judges whose seats depend on government's parliamentary majority may appear compromised when deciding cases involving Union government. The D.C. Wadhwa doctrine (1986) prohibits governance by repeated ordinances as 'fraud on Constitution.' If Parliament rejects the Bill, these judges' positions become untenable - they cannot be removed mid-term, creating legal chaos. The Collegium's acceptance appears calculated, betting on political process completing transition to proper legislation. However, this sets dangerous precedent for executive manipulation of court composition without parliamentary scrutiny, potentially undermining public confidence in judicial impartiality and constitutional governance principles.