Lok Sabha Question No. 5205 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2019-07-24
Subject: Strength of Judges in High Courts
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: Bhartruhari Mahtab, Rahul Ramesh Shewale, Sangeeta Kumari Singh Deo

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

## MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

## LOK SABHA

## UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 5205

## TO BE ANSWERED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 24.07.2019 Strength of Judges in High Courts

## 5205. SHRI BHARTRUHARI MAHTAB:

## SHRI RAHUL RAMESH SHEWALE: SHRIMATI SANGEETA KUMARI SINGH DEO:

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

- (a)  whether there is a gap in sanctioned and actual strength of Judges in  each High Court of the country and if so, the details thereof;
- (b) whether  the Judge-Population ratio has deteriorated in such Courts  during each of the last three years and the current year
- and if so, the  details thereof;
- (c) whether  the   pendency  of  cases in  such  courts has   been increased due to gap in sanctioned and actual strength of Judges and if so, the   details thereof, Court-wise; and
- (d) the corrective steps taken by the Government in this regard?

## ANSWER

## MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE, COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

## (SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD)

- (a)  :    A  Statement  showing  the  sanctioned  strength  and    working  strength  of Judges  in various High Courts is given at Annexure.
- th
- (b)  to  (d):  In  245 Report  (2014),  the  Law  Commission  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 cases as well as to ensure that new backlog is not created, is more pragmatic  and  useful.  In  August  2014,  the  Supreme  Court  asked  the  National Court  Management  System  Committee  (NCMS  Committee)  to  examine  the recommendations made by the Law Commission and to furnish its recommendations  in  this  regard.    NCMS  Committee  submitted  its  report  to  the Supreme Court in March, 2016.  The report, inter-alia ,  observes 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,  the  Committee  has proposed a ' weighted ' disposal approach i.e. disposal weighted by the nature and complexity of cases in local conditions.

As  per  the  direction  of  the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  its  Order  dated 02.01.2017, the Department of Justice has forwarded a copy of interim report of the  NCMS Committee to all the State  Governments  and High Courts to enable them to  take  follow  up  action  to  determine  the  required  strength  of  district  and subordinate judiciary.

The pendency of cases in Higher Judiciary is not only due to shortage of Judges, but also due to various factors such as (i) increasing number of state and central legislation,(ii) accumulation of first appeals,(iii) continuation of ordinary civil jurisdiction  in  some  of  the  High  Courts,  (iv)  Appeals  against  orders  of  quasijudicial forums goings to High Courts,(v) number of revision/appeals, (vi) frequent adjournments,  (vii)  indiscriminate  use  of  writ  jurisdiction  (viii)  lack  of  adequate arrangements to monitor, track and bunch cases for hearing, (ix) long duration of vacation period of Court, and (x) assigning  work of administrative nature to the Judges, etc.

As  per  the  Constitutional  framework,  the  selection  and  appointment  of judges  in  subordinate  courts  is  the  responsibility  of  High  Court  and  State Government  concerned.  In  September,  2016,  Union  Minister  of  Law  &  Justice wrote  to  the  Chief  Ministers  of  States  and  the  Chief  Justices  of  High  Courts  to enhance the  cadre  strength  of  the  District  and  Subordinate  Courts  and  provide physical  infrastructure  to  the  State  judiciary.  The  same  was  reiterated  in  May, 2017.  In August, 2018, in the context of increasing pendency of cases, the Union Minister  of  Law  &  Justice  has  written  to  all  Chief  Justices  of  High  Courts  to monitor the Status of the vacancies regularly and to ensure proper coordination with  the  state  Public  Service  Commission  to  fill  up  vacant  posts  as  per  time schedule prescribed  by  the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  the  Malik  Mazhar  Sultan case. The filling up of vacancies is also being monitored by the Supreme Court in a suo-motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2018.

A series of meetings were held with Registrars General of all High Courts and Law Secretaries of all State Governments / UTs through Video Conferencing in  the  month of January, 2018, July, 2018 and November, 2018 to follow up on filling  up  posts  of  Judicial  Officers  in  District  and  Subordinate  Courts.    The Department of Justice has hosted a web-portal on its  website for reporting and monitoring of sanctioned and working strength, and vacancies of Judicial Officers of District and Subordinate Courts on monthly basis.

In order to facilitate regular filling up of these vacancies in a smooth and time-bound manner, the Department of Justice vide its letter dated 28 th April, 2017 suggested  creation  of  a  Central  Selection  Mechanism  to  the  Hon'ble  Supreme Court.  The  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court suo  motu converted  the  Government's suggestions  into  a  Writ  Petition  on  09 th May,  2017  and  directed  all  State Governments (including Union Territories) to file their responses and suggestions by way of affidavits to the Supreme Court Registry.

****

## Annexure

Statement referred to in reply  to  part(a)  of  Lok  Sabha  Unstarred  Question No. 5205 for 24.07.2019 regarding 'Strength of Judges in High Courts'.

(As on 01.07.2019)

| Sl. No.   | Name of the Court   |   Sanctioned Strength |   Working Strength |
|-----------|---------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|
| 1         | Allahabad           |                   160 |                105 |
| 2         | Andhra Pradesh      |                    37 |                 13 |
| 3         | Bombay              |                    94 |                 66 |
| 4         | Calcutta            |                    72 |                 42 |
| 5         | Chhattisgarh        |                    22 |                 15 |
| 6         | Delhi               |                    60 |                 39 |
| 7         | Gauhati             |                    24 |                 19 |
| 8         | Gujarat             |                    52 |                 28 |
| 9         | Himachal Pradesh    |                    13 |                 10 |
| 10        | Jammu & Kashmir     |                    17 |                 09 |
| 11        | Jharkhand           |                    25 |                 19 |
| 12        | Karnataka           |                    62 |                 32 |
| 13        | Kerala              |                    47 |                 34 |
| 14        | Madhya Pradesh      |                    53 |                 33 |
| 15        | Madras              |                    75 |                 58 |
| 16        | Manipur             |                    05 |                 04 |
| 17        | Meghalaya           |                    04 |                 02 |
| 18        | Orissa              |                    27 |                 14 |
| 19        | Patna               |                    53 |                 30 |
| 20        | Punjab& Haryana     |                    85 |                 50 |
| 21        | Rajasthan           |                    50 |                 24 |
| 22        | Sikkim              |                    03 |                 03 |
| 23        | Telangana           |                    24 |                 11 |
| 24        | Tripura             |                    04 |                 03 |
| 25        | Uttarakhand         |                    11 |                 10 |
| Total     | Total               |                  1079 |                673 |

****