ANSWER
MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE, COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(SHRI RAVI SHANKAR PRASAD)
(a) : The Supreme Court, in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, inter-alia, 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. In 245th report in the year 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 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 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.
(b): In May, 2014, the Supreme Court asked the State Governments 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) 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, the Committee has proposed a “weighted” disposal approach – 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 State Governments and High Courts to enable them to take follow up action to determine the required Judges Strength of district judiciary based on the NCMS report.
(c): The sanctioned strength, working strength and vacancies in District & Subordinate Courts as on 05.12.2019 is given in Annexure-I and in High Courts as on 01.12.2019 in given in Annexure–II.
(d) and (e): Filling up of vacancies in the High Courts is a continuous, integrated and collaborative process between the Executive and the Judiciary. It requires consultation and approval from various Constitutional Authorities both at the State and Central level. While every effort is made to fill up the existing vacancies expeditiously, vacancies do keep on arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of Judges and increase in Judge strength. Sanctioned strength of Judges of High Courts has been increased from 906 in May, 2014 to 1079 currently. Due to combined efforts of Government and Judiciary, 126 Judges in 2016, 115 Judges in 2017, 108 Judges in 2018 and 72 Judges in 2019 (as on 05.12.2019) have been appointed in High Courts.
As per the Constitutional framework, the selection and appointment of judges in subordinate courts is the responsibility of the High Courts and State Governments concerned. However, the Union Government, on its part, has been taking up the matter of filling up of vacant positions in District & Subordinate Courts with the States and High Courts. In August, 2018, Union Minister of Law & Justice has written to all Chief Justices of High Courts to monitor status of vacancies regularly and to ensure proper coordination with State Public Service Commission to fill up vacant posts stipulated by Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan case. In addition, series of meetings were held with Registrars General of all High Courts and Law Secretaries of all State Governments / UTs through Video Conferencing in January, 2018, July, 2018, November, 2018 and September, 2019 to follow up on filling up posts of Judicial Officers in District and Subordinate Courts. Department of Justice has hosted a MIS 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. Sanctioned and working strength of Judicial Officers in District and Subordinate Courts has been increased as follows:
As on Sanctioned Strength Working Strength
31.12.2013 19,518 15,115
05.12.2019 23,597 18,144
Annexure - I
Sanctioned Strength / Working Strength and vacancies in District & Subordinate Courts as on 05.12.2019
Sr. No. Name of State / UT Total Sanctioned Strength Total Working Strength Total Vacancy
1 Andaman and Nicobar 0 13 -13
2 Andhra Pradesh 597 529 68
3 Arunachal Pradesh 41 27 14
4 Assam 441 412 29
5 Bihar 1847 1152 695
6 Chandigarh 30 29 1
7 Chhattisgarh 468 394 74
8 D & N Haveli 3 3 0
9 Daman & Diu 4 3 1
10 Delhi 799 680 119
11 Goa 50 43 7
12 Gujarat 1506 1185 321
13 Haryana 772 475 297
14 Himachal Pradesh 175 152 23
15 Jammu and Kashmir 290 232 58
16 Jharkhand 677 462 215
17 Karnataka 1345 1106 239
18 Kerala 536 461 75
19 Lakshadweep 3 3 0
20 Madhya Pradesh 2021 1504 517
21 Maharashtra 2189 1942 247
22 Manipur 55 39 16
23 Meghalaya 97 49 48
24 Mizoram 64 46 18
25 Nagaland 33 25 8
26 Odisha 919 771 148
27 Puducherry 26 11 15
28 Punjab 675 579 96
29 Rajasthan 1428 1121 307
30 Sikkim 25 19 6
31 Tamil Nadu 1224 1087 137
32 Telangana 413 334 79
33 Tripura 120 96 24
34 Uttar Pradesh 3416 2012 1404
35 Uttarakhand 294 228 66
36 West Bengal 1014 920 94
TOTAL 23597 18144 5453
Annexure-II
Statement showing Sanctioned strength, Working Strength and Vacancies of Judges in High Courts (As on 01.12.2019)
Sl. No. Name of the
High Court Sanctioned Strength Working Strength Vacancies
Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl
Total
1. Allahabad 76 84 160 69 31 100 07 53 60
2. Andhra Pradesh 28 09 37 15 0 15 13 09 22
3. Bombay 71 23 94 56 09 65 15 14 29
4. Calcutta 54 18 72 22 18 40 32 0 32
5. Chhattisgarh 17 05 22 11 04 15 06 01 07
6. Delhi 45 15 60 37 0 37 08 15 23
7. Gauhati 18 06 24 15 06 21 03 0 03
8. Gujarat 39 13 52 28 0 28 11 13 24
9. Himachal Pradesh 10 03 13 09 01 10 01 02 03
10. Jammu & Kashmir 13 04 17 08 0 08 05 04 09
11. Jharkhand 19 06 25 14 05 19 05 01 06
12. Karnataka 47 15 62 19 21 40 28 -06 22
13. Kerala 35 12 47 27 05 32 08 07 15
14. Madhya Pradesh 40 13 53 31 0 31 09 13 22
15. Madras 56 19 75 45 09 54 11 10 21
16. Manipur 04 01 05 04 0 04 0 01 01
17. Meghalaya 03 01 04 03 0 03 0 01 01
18. Orissa 20 07 27 14 0 14 06 07 13
19. Patna 40 13 53 27 0 27 13 13 26
20. Punjab& Haryana 64 21 85 39 17 56 25 04 29
21. Rajasthan 38 12 50 21 0 21 17 12 29
22. Sikkim 03 0 03 03 0 03 0 0 0
23. Telangana 18 06 24 12 01 13 06 05 11
24. Tripura 04 0 04 03 0 03 01 0 01
25. Uttarakhand 09 02 11 09 01 10 0 01 01
Total 771 308 1079 541 128 669 230 180 410
Download PDF Files
