Amicus Report Reveals Large Number Of Vacancies & Shortage In Infrastructure In District Judiciary Despite SC Intervention
Amid increasing concerns about the perennial problem of pendency afflicting the Indian judicial architecture, the Supreme Court was informed that despite its many efforts to populate the ranks in the subordinate judiciary in a prompt and timely manner, there exists a large number of vacancies as well as a shortage of infrastructure. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud,...
Amid increasing concerns about the perennial problem of pendency afflicting the Indian judicial architecture, the Supreme Court was informed that despite its many efforts to populate the ranks in the subordinate judiciary in a prompt and timely manner, there exists a large number of vacancies as well as a shortage of infrastructure.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justices P.S. Narasimha and J.B. Pardiwala was hearing a batch of interlocutory applications filed in the Malik Mazhar Sultan case, in which the top court had, in 2018, issued a continuing mandamus to oversee the availability of infrastructure facilities and appointment of judicial officers in the lower courts. Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria is among the amici curiae appointed to assist the court. In a comprehensive status report, he submitted, “This court has been monitoring the selection and appointment of judicial officers and giving directions from time to time. Despite the fixing of a strict time schedule for completing the selection process and issuing appointment letters, there are a large number of vacancies. There is also a shortage of infrastructure in terms of availability of court halls and residential facilities for the judicial officers.”
Originally arising out of a dispute over the eligibility of a judicial candidate, the Malik Mazhar Sultan case resulted in the apex court prescribing a strict timeline for the recruitment of district judges. It was held that a two-tier recruitment procedure should not take more than 153 days, whereas the period taken for a three-tiered recruitment process should not exceed 273 days from the notification of vacancies to the last date of joining. A bench headed by the then chief justice Y.K. Sabharwal held, “The non-filling of vacancies for long not only results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates. Further, non-filling of vacancies for long time, deprives the people of the services of the judicial officers. This is one of the reasons of huge pendency of cases in the courts. It is absolutely necessary to evolve a mechanism to speedily determine and fill vacancies of Judges at all levels. For this purpose, timely steps are required to be taken for determination of vacancies, issue of advertisement, conducting examinations, interviews, declaration of the final results and issue of orders of appointments. For all these and other steps, if any, it is necessary to provide for fixed time schedule so that system works automatically and there is no delay.” In 2018, a suo motu writ petition was registered by the top court to monitor the filling of vacancies.
The current position with regard to six states and two union territories, namely, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Haryana, Puducherry, and Chandigarh, has been outlined in the report based on the latest information furnished by the High Courts, and interactions with their officials, as well as the correspondence between Hansaria and the standing counsels of the state governments.
Number of judicial officers
As per the report, the state with the smallest proportion of vacancies is Odisha with 174 unfilled positions against a sanctioned strength of 1001. However, out of this number, 107 judicial officers are ‘not holding courts’, reducing the effective strength of judicial officers ‘holding courts’ to 894. Tamil Nadu comes a close second, with only 272 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 1340. At 2016, Bihar has the second-highest number of sanctioned judicial posts out of the states and union territories from which data has been compiled in this report. The number of vacancies in the state is 449. In Punjab, the number of sanctioned posts is 797, while the number of vacancies is 209. Madhya Pradesh has the highest number of sanctioned posts, i.e., 2021, and the highest absolute number of vacancies, i.e., 671. Haryana comes last in terms in terms of the proportion of unfilled seats, with 778 sanctioned posts and 308 vacancies.
The amicus has informed the Supreme Court that there is a single vacancy in the district judge cadre of Puducherry in the direct recruitment category, and a vacancy of 7 seats out of a sanctioned strength of 12 among junior division civil judges. The union territory of Chandigarh, which is the shared capital of the states of Punjab and Haryana, does not have its own cadre and judicial officers from the two states are posted on deputation. Thus, there is no separate recruitment process, the report stated.
Infrastructure
123 additional court halls are required in the state of Odisha, which already has 812 court halls and 706 residential units. In Madhya Pradesh, against the sanctioned number of 2021, only 1541 courtrooms are available. Therefore, 480 additional courtrooms are required in the state, of which 403 are under construction and the proposals for 305 court halls await administrative and final sanction. At 1284, the number of residential units is also insufficient to meet the current requirements. Bihar has only 1015 court halls and 1197 residential units. In Punjab, only 601 out of the total requirement of 797 courtrooms are available, although residential units are available for all officers. In Puducherry, a separate criminal block is required, since the existing criminal blocks are functioning as the common utility block.
On the other hand, the Madras High Court has stated that sufficient infrastructure is available for the functioning of courts with the entire sanctioned strength. In Haryana too, new court complexes have been constructed in almost every district headquarters and sub-division, which are sufficient for the functioning of all courts.
Case Title
Malik Mazhar Sultan v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission | Civil Appeal No. 1867 of 2006