Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026: Regional Supreme Court Benches, Judicial Diversity And Reservation In Promotions

1. Introduction

 On 6 February 2026, P. Wilson who serves as a Rajya Sabha MP and works as a senior advocate presented the Constitution Amendment Bill 2026 which he introduced as a private member's Bill to make extensive changes to India's higher judiciary system. The Bill aims to establish judicial appointment requirements for social diversity while establishing permanent Supreme Court regional benches and increasing backward class promotion reservations and increasing High Court judge retirement age and transferring census authority from the Union List to the Concurrent List.

Although private member’s Bills rarely become law, the proposals crystallise long running debates on representation, access to the Supreme Court and the design of the appointments process. This article summarises the key constitutional amendments proposed, explains the rationale advanced by the Bill, and highlights the questions legal and policy audiences should track if any of these ideas gather political momentum.

2. Judicial Diversity

 Proportional representation for SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities and women

The Bill’s central purpose is to amend the Constitution to hard wire social diversity into appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts. It proposes amending Articles 124, 217 and related provisions to require that:

1. The process of appointments of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts must give due representation to Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), religious minorities and women,
2. Such representation should be proportionate to their share in the population, as determined by updated caste census data, and
3. A formal Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointments must incorporate these diversity norms.

Background notes highlight that, between 2018 and 2024, members of marginalised communities constituted only a small fraction of High Court and Supreme Court judges, with significant over representation of certain social groups. The Bill argues that a representative judiciary would enhance public confidence, enrich deliberation and better reflect the constitutional commitment to social justice.

Reservation in promotions and consequential seniority

The Bill also seeks to expand reservation in promotions for backward classes by further amending Article 16 of the Constitution. The explanation materials show that current legal rules permit SC and ST candidates to receive promotion reservations according to specific conditions yet this practice has not improved backward class representation in higher public service positions. The proposal is to explicitly provide for reservation in promotional posts with consequential seniority for backward class citizens, which in turn is expected to widen the pool of eligible candidates for higher judicial office over time.

Although this part of the Bill is not confined to the judiciary, it is framed as part of a pipeline strategy by improving representation in senior civil service and legal roles, it aims to indirectly expand the diversity of candidates considered for elevation to High Courts and the Supreme Court.

3. Regional Supreme Court Benches

Proposed permanent regional appellate benches

The Bill proposes establishing permanent regional benches of the Supreme Court in New Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai and Chennai, in addition to a Constitution Bench at Delhi. As summarised in policy briefs, the design is:

1. The Constitution Bench at Delhi would continue to hear matters of national constitutional importance, references and Presidential references.
2. The regional benches would handle regular appellate work, including appeals from High Courts and tribunals in their territorial jurisdiction.
3. Each regional bench would exercise the full jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in non constitutional matters for its region, with the Chief Justice of India nominating judges to sit on the Constitution Bench or regional benches as required.

Supporters may state that the Supreme Court currently has more than 90000 active cases which makes it impossible for a single Delhi city court to provide both timely justice and geographic access. Permanent benches in major regions are presented as a way to reduce travel and cost burdens for litigants and lawyers outside Delhi, while allowing the Constitution Bench to focus on core constitutional questions.

Do we need a constitutional amendment for regional benches?

Article 130 of the existing Constitution already allows the Supreme Court to sit at places other than Delhi, with the approval of the President on the recommendation of the Chief Justice. The 229th Law Commission Report (2009) and parliamentary committees have previously recommended using Article 130 to set up regional benches without a formal constitutional amendment.

The Bill nevertheless proposes an explicit amendment to entrench permanent regional benches in the text of the Constitution, arguably to reduce dependence on judicial initiative and to ensure parliamentary buy in for a more federal design of the apex court. Critics could argue that such engrained entrenchment will end up depleting the institution's flexibility and make rearrangement more complicated for the future Supreme Court structural reorganization.

4. Other Structural Proposals

 Beyond diversity and benches, the Bill also touches two additional constitutional levers.

Raising High Court judges’ retirement age

The Bill reportedly proposes increasing the retirement age of High Court judges (currently 62) to a higher threshold, in line with longstanding recommendations to reduce loss of experienced judges and encourage lateral movement between High Courts and the Supreme Court. This is presented as a way to stabilise High Court benches and broaden the pool of judges eligible for elevation, particularly from under represented regions and communities.

Moving “census” from the Union List to the Concurrent List

The Bill also seeks to move the entry relating to “census” from the Union List to the Concurrent List, thereby allowing States, along with the Union, to conduct caste based or other specialised censuses. The stated aim is to provide updated population data by caste and community that can underpin the proposed proportional representation formula in judicial appointments and wider reservation policy.

This proposal intersects with broader ongoing debates which examine caste census implementation and federalism and the allocation of legislative authority. Critics of this proposal may view this as a pathway which leads to the creation of separate data collection systems and the political control of counting processes.

5. Key Debates

 Judicial independence and the appointments process

One of the most contentious questions is how the Bill’s diversity and reservation mandates would interact with the existing collegium system and Supreme Court doctrine on judicial independence. The Bill calls for a detailed Memorandum of Procedure for appointments, to be framed by the Centre in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and State governments, with a 90 day outer limit for the government to notify collegium recommendations.

Supporters may argue that constitutional diversity mandates and time bound processing would make the appointments process more transparent and accountable, while still leaving identification of individual candidates to a judicial led collegium. Critics may argue that embedding constitutionally mandated quotas together with population proportional requirements will restrict judicial authority and create legal disputes over whether specific appointments satisfy diversity requirements.

Merit versus representation

The Bill explicitly rejects the notion that merit and diversity are mutually exclusive, contending that a more diverse bench improves the quality of decision making by bringing a wider range of life experiences and perspectives to complex cases. However, questions remain on:

1. How “merit” will be assessed alongside reservation criteria in a small pool of senior advocates and judges.
2. Whether proportional representation by population is workable given the small size of the Supreme Court bench at any given time.
3. How to handle under representation of multiple cross cutting categories (for example, women from SC/ST/OBC groups, or minorities from specific regions).
4. These issues are likely to feature in academic and policy debate even if the Bill does not advance legislatively.

6. Practical Takeaways For Legal And Policy Stakeholders

For courts and the bar

Even as a private member’s initiative, the Bill:

1. Signals growing parliamentary and civil society pressure for greater transparency and diversity in higher judicial appointments.
2. Puts regional benches back on the agenda at a time when the Supreme Court’s docket and geographical centralisation in Delhi are under scrutiny.

Bar associations and courts may see increased advocacy around data disclosure on the social composition of benches and the feasibility of using Article 130 to pilot regional benches even without an amendment.

For governments and policy planners

For the Union and States, the Bill raises questions about:

1. How to design appointment mechanisms that respect judicial independence while responding to demands for representation and accountability.
2. Whether and how to move towards regular caste based or socio economic censuses, and how such data would be used in reservations and other policies.
3. The fiscal and logistical implications of establishing and staffing regional Supreme Court benches.

For litigants and civil society

Litigants and civil society groups can use the Bill as a reference point to:

1. Push for more public data on the composition of the judiciary and on delays in processing collegium recommendations.
2. Advocate for phased, Article 130 based regional benches to improve access to the Supreme Court, independently of whether the Bill passes.

The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2026 which currently exists in its present form will not achieve enactment, yet, it has created a set of reforms that include judicial diversity and regionalization of the Supreme court and promotion assessment for job positions and social justice policy data which will continue to influence upcoming discussions about the Indian higher judicial system.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.