Lok Sabha Question No. 5546 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2026-03-27
Subject: Sanctioned and Vacant Posts of Judges in the High Courts
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: Smt. Delkar Kalaben Mohanbhai, Shri Sasikanth Senthil, Dr. Shivaji Bandappa Kalge, Shri Bhumare Sandipanrao Asaram, Shri Nilesh Dnyandev Lanke, Shri Gyaneshwar Patil

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

## DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

## LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 5546 TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 27 TH  MARCH, 2026

## SANCTIONED AND VACANT POSTS OF JUDGES IN THE HIGH COURTS

†5546.   SHRI NILESH DNYANDEV LANKE:

SHRI SASIKANTH SENTHIL:

SHRI GYANESHWAR PATIL:

SHRI BHUMARE SANDIPANRAO ASARAM:

DR. SHIVAJI BANDAPPA KALGE:

SMT. DELKAR KALABEN MOHANBHAI:

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

- (a) the details of the sanctioned strength and vacant posts of judges in the Supreme Court,  High  Courts  and  the  subordinate  courts  across  the  Country,  including the Madras High Court;
- (b) the  number  of  judges  and  judicial  officers  currently  in  position  against  the sanctioned  strength  in  Madhya  Pradesh,  Maharashtra  and  Dadra  and  Nagar Haveli;
- (c) the details of the impact of these vacancies on the pendency of cases;
- (d) the details of the steps being taken in coordination with the High Courts to fill these vacancies expeditiously; and
- (e) the details of the status of the Constitution of the 'All India Judicial Service' for filling up the vacancies?

## ANSWER

## MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) OF THE MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE; AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS

(SHRI ARJUN RAM MEGHWAL)

(a) to (e): Appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts is made under Articles 124, 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India and according to the procedure laid down in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) prepared in 1998 pursuant to the Supreme Court  Judgment  of  October  6,  1993  (Second  Judges  case)  read  with  their  Advisory Opinion of October 28, 1998 (Third Judges case). The information relating to sanctioned strength, working strength and vacancies in the Supreme Court and the High Courts is at Annexure .

Filling  up  of  the  vacancy  in  the  higher  Judiciary  is  a  continuous,  integrated  and collaborative process between the executive and the judiciary. It requires consultation and approval from various Constitutional Authorities both at State and Central level. As per the  Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in the Supreme Court vests with the Chief Justice of India, while the responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in the High Courts vests with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, in consultation with two seniormost puisne Judges of the High Court. As per the MoP, the High Courts are required to make recommendations at least 06 months before the occurrence of a vacancy. However, this  time  limit  is  rarely  observed.  For  appointments  to  the  High  Courts,  the  views  of concerned State Government are obtained in accordance with the MoP. The recommendations also have to be considered in the light of such other reports as may be available to the Government  in respect of the names  under consideration.  The recommendations  of  the High  Court Collegium, the State  Governments  and  the Government  of  India  are  then  forwarded  to  the  Supreme  Court  Collegium  (SCC)  for advice.  Only  those  persons  whose  names  have  been  recommended  by  the  SCC  are appointed as Judges of the High Courts. As on 23.03.2026, against the sanctioned strength of 1122 Judges, 803 Judges are working and 319 posts of Judges are vacant in various High  Courts.  Against  these  vacancies,  130  proposals  for  appointment  of  High  Court Judges  are  at  various  stages  of  processing  between  the  Government  and  the  Supreme Court Collegium.

Through  this continuous, integrated and collaborative process between  the executive  and  the  judiciary,  157  Judges  were  appointed  in  various  High  Courts  during 2025.

Further,  filling  up  of  vacant  positions  of  the  judicial  officers  in  District  and Subordinate  courts  is  the  responsibility  of  the  High  Courts  and  State  Governments concerned. As per the Constitutional framework, in exercise of powers conferred under the  proviso  to  Article  309  read  with  Articles  233  and  234  of  the  Constitution,  the respective State Government, in consultation with the High Court, frames the rules and regulations regarding the appointment and recruitment of Judicial Officers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order passed in January 2007 in the Malik Mazhar Sultan case, has inter-alia  stipulated  certain  timelines,  which  are  to  be  followed  by  the  States  and  the respective High Courts for recruitment of judges in District and Subordinate Courts.

Pendency of cases in courts arise due to several factors which inter alia, include complexity of the facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of stakeholders, viz., bar, investigation agencies, witness and litigants, the availability of physical infrastructure, supporting court staff, etc. besides the shortage of judges. The disposal of cases is within the exclusive domain of the judiciary.

Article  312  of  the  Constitution  provides  for  the  establishment  of  an  All  India Judicial  Service  (AIJS),  which  shall  not  include  any  post  inferior  to  that  of  a  District Judge.

A  comprehensive  proposal  was  formulated  for  the  constitution  of  an  All  India Judicial Service (AIJS) and the same was approved by the Committee of Secretaries in November,  2012.  The  proposal  was  included  as  an  agenda  item  in  the  Conference  of Chief  Ministers  and  Chief  Justices  of  the  High  Courts  held  in April,  2013  and  it  was decided that the issue needs further deliberation and consideration. The views of the State Governments  and  High  Courts  were  sought  on  the  proposal.  There  was  divergence  of opinion among the State Governments and among the High Courts on the constitution of an All India Judicial Service.

The  matter  regarding  creation  of  a  Judicial  Service  Commission  to  help  the recruitment  to  the  post  of  district  judges  and  review  of  selection  process  of  judges/ judicial  officers  at  all  levels  was  also  included  in  the  agenda  for  the  Chief  Justices' Conference, which was held on 03 rd and 04 th April, 2015, wherein it was resolved to leave it  open to the respective High Courts to evolve appropriate methods within the existing system  to  fill  up  the  vacancies  for  appointment  of  District  judges  expeditiously.  The

proposal for constitution of All India Judicial Service with views from the High Courts and  State  Governments  received  thereon  was  also  included  in  the  agenda  for  the  Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts held on 05 th April, 2015. However, no progress was made in the matter.

The proposal of setting up of an All India Judicial Service was again discussed on points  of  eligibility,  age,  selection  criteria,  qualification,  reservations  etc.  in  a  meeting chaired  by  then  Minister  of  Law  and  Justice  on  16 th January  2017  in  the  presence  of Minister  of  State  for  Law  and  Justice, Attorney  General  for  India,  Solicitor  General  of India, Secretaries of Department of Justice, Department of Legal Affairs and Legislative Department.  Setting  up  AIJS  was  also  deliberated  in  a  meeting  of  the  Parliamentary Consultative Committee in March, 2017 and the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of SCs/STs on 22.02.2021.

It was proposed to include the issue of All India Judicial Service in the agenda for Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts held on 30 th April, 2022. However, the same could not be included in the agenda of the conference. In view of the existing divergence of opinion amongst the major stakeholders, at present, there is no consensus on the proposal for setting up an All India Judicial Service.

****

## Annexure

Sanctioned Strength, working strength and vacancy of Judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts as on 20.03.2026.

|    |                  | Sanctioned Strength   | Working Strength   | Vacancies   |
|----|------------------|-----------------------|--------------------|-------------|
| A. | Supreme Court    | 34                    | 33                 | 1           |
| B. | High Court       |                       |                    |             |
| 1  | Allahabad        | 160                   | 109                | 51          |
| 2  | Andhra Pradesh   | 37                    | 34                 | 3           |
| 3  | Bombay           | 94                    | 79                 | 15          |
| 4  | Calcutta         | 72                    | 42                 | 30          |
| 5  | Chhattisgarh     | 22                    | 15                 | 7           |
| 6  | Delhi            | 60                    | 44                 | 16          |
| 7  | Gauhati          | 30                    | 24                 | 6           |
| 8  | Gujarat          | 52                    | 35                 | 17          |
| 9  | Himachal Pradesh | 17                    | 12                 | 5           |
| 10 | J &Kand Ladakh   | 25                    | 14                 | 11          |
| 11 | Jharkhand        | 25                    | 13                 | 12          |
| 12 | Karnataka        | 62                    | 45                 | 17          |
| 13 | Kerala           | 47                    | 39                 | 8           |
| 14 | Madhya Pradesh   | 53                    | 41                 | 12          |
| 15 | Madras           | 75                    | 52                 | 23          |
| 16 | Manipur          | 5                     | 3                  | 2           |
| 17 | Meghalaya        | 4                     | 4                  | 0           |
| 18 | Orissa           | 33                    | 19                 | 14          |
| 19 | Patna            | 53                    | 37                 | 16          |
| 20 | Punjab &Haryana  | 85                    | 58                 | 27          |
| 21 | Rajasthan        | 50                    | 39                 | 11          |
| 22 | Sikkim           | 3                     | 3                  | 0           |
| 23 | Telangana        | 42                    | 28                 | 14          |
| 24 | Tripura          | 5                     | 4                  | 1           |
| 25 | Uttarakhand      | 11                    | 10                 | 1           |
|    | Total            | 1122                  | 803                | 319         |