Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses From Hearing PIL Seeking Expeditious Filling Of Judicial Vacancies In HC

Allahabad High Court Judge, Justice Mahesh Chandra Triptahi, today recused himself from hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea seeking a direction for the timely and expeditious filling of all the current judicial vacancies in the High Court in a time-bound manner. The matter will now be heard in July. The PIL plea, filed in March this year, states that HC is "facing gravest crisis in its history", the PIL plea also seeks the laying down binding guidelines to be mandatorily and strictly adhered to streamline the process of judicial appointments in this Court, including strict adherence to the timelines prescribed under the MoP. Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi, along with Advocates Shashwat Anand and Syed Ahmad Faizan, appeared for the petitioner-Senior Advocate Satish Trivedi. Highlighting the severe shortage of judges in the Allahabad High Court, the petition points out that with a population of 24 crore and 1,155,225 pending cases in the state, there is currently only one judge for every 30 lakh people, with each judge handling an average of 14,623 pending cases. The PIL plea has been moved by Senior Advocate Satish Trivedi, stating that the High Court is in a "state of functional paralysis" as it is operating at less than 50% of its sanctioned judicial strength, and this has led to an insurmountable backlog of over 11 lakh cases. "The sheer lack of judges has effectively disabled the judiciary, reducing its ability to dispense justice to a mere illusion. Its corridors, once filled with the rhythm of justice, now resonate with the silence of unheard petitions," the PIL plea states while clarifying that the petition's objective is not to cast blame, but to strengthen the HC's functioning. The petition further argues that even if the court's strength reaches the sanctioned 160 judges, there will still be only one judge for every 15 lakh people, and each judge will have approximately 7,220 pending cases to address. "These are not mere statistics. Each vacancy represents a courtroom that should have been fully functional, every unfilled seat represents a judge who should have been delivering justice, and most importantly, numerous litigants who should have been receiving justice and not waiting indefinitely," the PIL plea submits further. The PIL plea further adds that the vacancies, leading to enormous mounting pendency, put an insurmountable burden and hardship – not just upon the litigants who are made to endlessly await hearing in their cases – even upon the Judges "If the judiciary, the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, is rendered non-functional due to lack of manpower, then the fundamental principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial independence and judicial review— all forming part of the Basic Structure Doctrine—are effectively dismantled; making the Constitution itself, sterile and nugatory...A High Court functioning at half its sanctioned strength is not independent – it is a weakened and incapacitated institution, unable to discharge its role as the guardian of constitutionalism" the PIL plea submits. It further argues that the vacancies, if left unaddressed, risk crippling the administration of justice and eroding public confidence in the judiciary. Hence, the PIL plea calls for an expeditious, transparent, and collaborative approach so as to restore the strength and stature of this esteemed constitutional court. Importantly, the PIL plea suggests that the High Court should establish a mandatory accountability mechanism through judicial guidelines. These would require the names of at least 20 potential candidates for judicial elevation to be recommended six months before any vacancy arises. The plea suggests that this process should be expedited so that when a vacancy occurs or a judge retires, a successor is immediately ready, ensuring the court functions at its full strength of 160 judges without any gaps. Notably, the PIL plea also suggests that once the sanctioned vacancies of 160 Judges are all filled, the provisions of Article 224A (Appointment of retired Judges at sittings of High Courts) may be utilised to deal with the enormous backlog in the Hon'ble High Court. It also proposes that periodic reviews of the adequacy/inadequacy of the current sanctioned strength of 160 judges be conducted, and appropriate and decisive steps be taken towards increasing the same, so as to bring the same in a reasonable and just proportion to the population. The petitioner (Senior Advocate Trivedi) has a distinguished career spanning more than fifty years as a lawyer and about twenty-five years as a designated Senior Advocate of the High Court. The PIL plea has been moved just days after the Supreme Court raised concerns over the judicial vacancies at the High Court, which is presently working with only 88 judges (including the Chief Justice), despite having a...

Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses From Hearing PIL Seeking Expeditious Filling Of Judicial Vacancies In HC

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags