Lok Sabha Question No. 15 (STARRED), answered on 2016-11-16
Subject: Shortage of Judges
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: RAVINDRA KUMAR RAY, BALABHADRA MAJHI

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

## MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

## LOK SABHA

## STARRED QUESTION NO. †*15

## TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, 16 TH  NOVEMBER, 2016

Shortage of Judges

## †*15. DR. RAVINDRA KUMAR RAY: SHRI BALABHADRA MAJHI:

Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

- (a) whether the delivery of speedy justice is being affected owing to the shortage of Judges in the country and, if so, the details thereof along with the number of vacant posts of Judges in various courts;
- (b) the number of pending cases in various courts in the country;
- (c) whether the Government has prepared any action plan for speedy disposal of such cases and if so, the modus operandi chalked out in this regard along with time frame drawn for the purpose;
- (d)  whether  any  time  assessment  has  been  made  for  disposal  of  all  pending cases with present manpower and if so, the details thereof; and
- (e)  the  measures  taken  by  the  Government  to  fill  the  vacant  posts  of  judges including women judges?

## ANSWER

## MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD)

- (a) to (e): A Statement is laid on the Table of the House.

## STATEMENT  REFERRED  TO  IN  REPLY  TO  PARTS  (a)  TO  (e)  of  LOK  SABHA STARRED QUESTION NO. *15 FOR ANSWER ON 16 TH  NOVEMBER, 2016.

(a) to (e) : Timely disposal of cases in courts depends on several factors which, interalia ,  include  availability  of  adequate  number  of  judges,  supporting  court  staff  and physical infrastructure, complexity of facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of stake  holders viz .  bar,  investigation  agencies,  witnesses  and  litigants  and  proper application of rules and procedures.

The sanctioned  strength  of  judges  in  the  Supreme  Court  is  31  and  5  posts  of judges are vacant as on 10.11.2016.  The sanctioned strength of judges in the High Courts has been increased from 906 in June, 2014 to 1079 in November 2016.  442 posts of judges in the High Courts are vacant as on 10.11.2016.  The matters relating to sanctioned strength and filling up of the vacancies of judges / judicial officers in District and  Subordinate  Courts  fall  within  the  domain  of  State  Governments  and  the  High Courts.  The sanctioned strength of Judges / Judicial officers in District and Subordinate Courts stood at 21,320 as on 30.06.2016.  Out of these 16,383 posts were filled up, leaving 4,937 vacancies.  The Central Government has been taking up the matter of increasing the sanctioned strength of judges / judicial officers and filling up of vacancies in  District  and  Subordinate  Courts  with  the  State  Governments  and  the  High  Courts from time to time.

As per information available, 61,436 cases were pending in the Supreme Court as on 31.10.2016.  38.70 lakh cases were pending in the High Courts and 2.70 crore cases were pending in District and Subordinate Courts as on 31.12.2015.  Disposal of cases in courts is within the domain of judiciary.  The Government has adopted a coordinated approach to assist judiciary for phased liquidation of arrears and pendency in judicial  systems,  which, inter-alia ,  involves  better  infrastructure  for  courts  including computerisation, increase in strength of judicial officers / judges, policy and legislative measures in the areas prone to excessive litigation and emphasis on human resource development.

The Supreme Court in its Order dated 1 st February, 2012 in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed versus State of Uttar Pradesh asked the Law Commission of India to evolve a method for scientific assessment of the number of additional courts to clear the backlog of cases.  Pursuant to this Law Commission submitted its 245 th Report titled 'Arrears and  Backlog:  Creating  Additional  Judicial  (wo)manpower'.    In  this  report,  the  Law Commission  has  observed  that  filing  of  cases per  capita varies  substantially  across geographic units as filings are associated with economic and social conditions of the population.  As such the Law Commission did not consider the judge population ratio to be  a  scientific  criterion  for  determining  the  adequacy  of  the  judge  strength  in  the country.    The  Law  Commission  found  that  in  the  absence  of  complete  and  scientific approach  to  data  collection  across  various  High  Courts  in  the  country,  the  'Rate  of Disposal'  method  to  calculate  the  number  of  additional  judges  required  to  clear  the backlog of case as well as to ensure that new backlog is not created, is more pragmatic and useful.

In  May,  2014,  the  Supreme  Court  asked  the  State  Government  and  the  High Courts to file their response to the recommendations made by the Law Commission.  In August  2014,  the  Supreme  Court  asked  the  National  Court  Management  System Committee (NCMS) constituted by it in 2012 to examine the recommendations made by the  Law  Commission  and  to  furnish  their  recommendations  in  this  regard.    NCMS submitted its report to the Supreme Court in March, 2016.  It has, inter-alia ,  observed that  in  the  long  term,  the  judge  strength  of  the  subordinate  courts  will  have  to  be assessed  by  a  scientific  method  to  determine  the  total  number  of  'Judicial  Hours' required for disposing of the case load of each court.  In the interim, this Committee has proposed  a  'weighted'  disposal  approach  -  disposal  weighted  by  the  nature  and complexity of cases in local conditions.  The matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court.

The fresh  appointments  to  the  higher  judiciary  could  not  be  made  during  the period the constitutional validity of National Judicial Appointment Commission was subjudice .    However, after pronouncement of the judgement of the Supreme Court, while working on the new draft of Memorandum of Procedure, Government took initiative to resume the process of appointments and during 2016, from 01.01.2016 to 10.11.2016, 4 Judges have been appointed in the Supreme Court, 124 Additional Judges have been made Permanent and 105 fresh appointments of Judges have been made in various High  Courts.    The  Government  has  been  requesting  the  Chief  Justices  of  the  High Courts to take into consideration suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Minorities and from women while sending proposals for appointment of Judges.

************