The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in

Parliament is correct. Article 124(1) says the Supreme Court shall have a Chief Justice and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, not more than seven other judges. The phrase 'until Parliament by law prescribes' is the key: the strength is fixed by ordinary legislation, not by the constitutional text itself, which is why it has grown over time, from 8 at the start to 26 by 1986, 31 in 2008 and 34 after the 2019 amendment.

Why the others fail:

• President: appoints judges under Article 124(2) after consulting the CJI, but has no power to fix how many judges there are.
• Chief Justice of India: heads the judiciary and allocates benches, but cannot create new judicial posts.
• Law Commission: is an advisory body set up by executive order. It can recommend changes to judicial strength, but it cannot legislate.

Mains angle: this connects to the debate on judicial vacancies and pendency, where the sanctioned strength is a legislative choice, and to the separation of powers in judicial appointments.

Trap: candidates pick the President because the President 'appoints' judges, mixing up appointment with fixing the sanctioned strength.