ANSWER
MINISTER OF STATE FOR LAW AND JUSTICE AND ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(SHRI P.P. CHAUDHARY)
(a): A statement showing the approved strength, working strength and vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts as on 25.7.2016 is at Annexure-I. A statement showing the number of Judges appointed in Supreme Court and High Courts during 2015-16, State-wise is at Annexure-II. A statement showing the sanctioned strength, working Strength and vacancies of Judicial officers of District and Subordinate Courts as on 31.12.2015 is at Annexure-III. The Government does not maintain data on number of judicial officers/judges appointed in various States.
(b): The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (CJI) during his inaugural address in the Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts held on 24.04.2016, inter-alia, made a mention of the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India in its 120th Report (1987) for increasing the ratio of judges per million of population to 50. However, the criteria of judge-population ratio for determining the adequacy of the Judge Strength in the country has been reviewed by the Law Commission in its 245th Report (2014) prepared on the direction of the Supreme Court in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others. In this case the Supreme Court 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, 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 cases 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
3/-
-3-
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.
(c): As per Supreme Court Order dated 16.12.2015, the Government of India proposed changes in the draft Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for appointment of Judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts which were sent to Chief Justice of India (CJI) vide letter dated 22.3.2016. The response of the CJI has been received on 22.5.2016 and 1.7.2016. The Supreme Court Collegium has agreed with some of the suggestions made in the revised MoP while it has not agreed with some other provisions. Presently all the proposals are being processed as per the existing MoP.
(d): The Government of India does not maintain data regarding the number /percentage of Law graduates appearing in Judicial Services examinations.
(e): The matters relating to recruitment to the judicial services in the States fall within the domain of the High Courts and State Governments. An agenda item for 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 included in the agenda for the Chief Justices Conference, which was held on 03rd and 04th April, 2015. During the Conference, 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.
* * *
Annexure-I referred to Part (a) of LSUSQ No. 2056 due for answer on 28.7.2016. Statement showing the Approved strength, Working Strength and Vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts
(As on 25.07.2016)
Sl. No. Name of the Court Approved Strength Working Strength Vacancies as per
Approved Strength
A. Supreme Court of India 31 28 03
B. High Court Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl Total
1 Allahabad* 76 84 160 60 17 77 16 67 83
2 High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad* 46 15 61 25 0 25 21 15 36
3 Bombay 71 23 94 55 09 64 16 14 30
4 Calcutta 54 18 72 32 09 41 22 09 31
5 Chhattisgarh 17 05 22 08 -- 08 09 05 14
6 Delhi 45 15 60 35 0 35 10 15 25
7 Gauhati 18 06 24 06 07 13 12 -01 11
8 Gujarat 39 13 52 27 06 33 12 07 19
9 Himachal Pradesh 10 03 13 09 02 11 01 01 02
10 Jammu & Kashmir 13 04 17 09 0 09 04 04 08
11 Jharkhand 19 06 25 09 05 14 10 01 11
12 Karnataka 47 15 62 23 04 27 24 11 35
13 Kerala * 35 12 47 26 07 33 09 05 14
14 Madhya Pradesh * 40 13 53 22 12 34 18 01 19
15 Madras 56 19 75 38 0 38 18 19 37
16 Manipur* 04 01 05 03 01 04 01 0 01
17 Meghalaya 03 01 04 03 0 03 0 01 01
18 Orissa 20 07 27 16 03 19 04 04 08
19 Patna * 40 13 53 27 0 27 13 13 26
20 Punjab& Haryana * 64 21 85 42 02 44 22 19 41
21 Rajasthan 38 12 50 24 07 31 14 05 19
22 Sikkim * 03 0 03 02 0 02 01 0 01
23 Tripura* 04 0 04 04 0 04 0 0 0
24 Uttarakhand 09 02 11 06 0 06 03 02 05
Total 771 308 1079 511 91 602 260 217 477
* Acting Chief Justice
Sl. No. Name of the Court Fresh appointments made
during
1.1.2015 to 31.12.2015 1.1.2016 to 25.7.2016
A. Supreme Court of India 01
04
B. High Court
1 Allahabad 07 09
2 Telangana & Andhra Pradesh -- 01
3 Bombay -- 06
4 Calcutta 08 --
5 Gauhati 05 --
6 Gujarat -- 05
7 Himachal Pradesh -- 04
8 Jharkhand 01 02
9 Kerala 07 --
10 Madhya Pradesh -- 11
11 Madras -- 06
12 Manipur -- 01
13 Orissa 03 --
14 Patna 02 --
15 Punjab& Haryana 01 --
16 Rajasthan 07
17 Sikkim 01 --
Total 35 52
Annexure-II referred to Part (a) of LSUSQ No. 2056 due for answer on 28.7.2016.
Annexure-III referred to Part (a) of LSUSQ No. 2056 due for answer on 28.7.2016.
Sanctioned Strength, Working Strength and Vacancies of Judicial Officers of District and Subordinate Courts As on 31.12.2015
Sr. No. Name of State / UT Total Sanctioned Strength Total Working Strength Vacancies
1 Arunachal Pradesh 17 15 2
2 Andhra Pradesh & Telengana 1034 785 249
3 Assam 424 319 105
4 Bihar 1727 1067 660
5 Chandigarh 30 30 0
6 Chhattisgarh 385 341 44
7 Daman & Diu and Dadra Nagar Haveli 7 6 1
8 Delhi 793 490 303
9 Goa 57 49 8
10 Gujarat 1939 1170 769
11 Haryana 644 474 170
12 Himachal Pradesh 152 134 18
13 Jammu and Kashmir 245 220 25
14 Jharkhand 592 466 126
15 Karnataka 1122 820 302
16 Kerala 457 442 15
17 Lakshadweep 3 3 0
18 Madhya Pradesh 1350 1132 218
19 Maharashtra 2251 1917 334
20 Manipur 41 35 6
21 Meghalaya 57 29 28
22 Mizoram 63 30 33
23 Nagaland 27 25 2
24 Orissa 716 598 118
25 Puducherry 26 14 12
26 Punjab 672 490 182
27 Rajasthan 1191 985 206
28 Sikkim 18 14 4
29 Tamil nadu 1015 969 46
30 Tripura 104 68 36
31 Uttar Pradesh 2104 1827 277
32 Uttarakhand 280 206 74
33 West Bengal and A & N Islands 959 900 59
Total 20502 16070 4432
Download PDF Files
