J&K High Court Directs Govt To Create 334 Judicial Posts Within 60 Days, Emphasises Binding Nature Of Directive

Commenting on the action of administration in constituting committees to review the proposal of the High Court for the creation of the posts a bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Mohammad Yousuf Wani observed,

“.. we need not reiterate that the recommendation made by the High Court/Hon'ble Chief Justice with respect to creation of posts are binding on the Government and there is no discretion in the matter”.

The court added,

“.. Once the High Court has given on the judicial side its requirement for 334 posts, the act of the Government in stating that it would have to examine the requirement of the High Court based on the parameters of the number of judges working in the High Court and the number of posts against ongoing cases and also examining the requirement of this Court of 334 posts while drawing a comparison with the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the Allahabad High Court with its principal seat at Allahabad and one Bench at Lucknow, is gross contempt”

These observations came in a writ petition, filed in 2017, originally seeking monetary benefits for High Court employees. Over time, it evolved into a broader discussion about the critical need for additional staff to address the growing requirements of the judiciary.

The High Court's bench strength increased from 14 to 17 judges in 2021, and subsequently to 25. However, the UT administration repeatedly failed to act on recommendations from the High Court's Registry, which in 2014 proposed creating 334 posts across various categories. Despite multiple meetings and communications over the past decade, the government showed persistent reluctance to implement the proposal.

The matter gained urgency with a February 2023 order from the Court, which pointed the acute need for staff and infrastructure. Although the UT administration eventually sanctioned 24 posts in May 2023 after significant delays, the broader recommendation for 334 posts remained in limbo.

Taking a serious note of the matter the bench spotlighted the binding nature of recommendations and declared that recommendations from the High Court or the Chief Justice concerning post creation are binding on the government, leaving no room for discretion. It held that the financial implications must be borne by the consolidated fund of the UT of Jammu and Kashmir.

“For creation of posts for the judiciary, no concurrence or approval either of the Department of Law and Justice, Government of India or the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, is required,” the bench emphasized.

Criticising the UT administration's approach as laggardly and casual the court noted that compliance reports filed in a phased manner lacked specificity or urgency.

“UT has consistently been using the phrase “that it is complying with the direction of this Court in a phased manner”. The Union Territory has consistently resorted to this phrase without specifying the time span within which it would comply with the orders passed by this Court. Part of the problem lay with the High Court itself which has given the UT Government and its bureaucracy excessive latitude and compliance reports after compliance reports have been filed with very little to nil being done on the ground”, the court remarked.

Frowning over the UT government's attempt to compare the requirements of the J&K High Court with other High Courts like Himachal Pradesh and Allahabad the bench pointed out unique logistical challenges faced by the J&K High Court, such as maintaining dual establishments at Srinagar and Jammu, unlike other High Courts with single or primary benches.

. .. the UT comparing this High Court with the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh or Allahabad for that matter is trying to draw a comparison of similarity between an ambassador car and Mercedes-Benz only because they have four wheels, an engine and a steering. Therefore, this Court puts to notice the UT Government that they are forbidden from ascertaining the requirement of the High Court as it is not within their domain”, the court stated.

Warning that any future attempts by the government to assess judicial staffing requirements would invite contempt proceedings the court observed,

“This High Court shall understand and accommodate the UT if the question is restricted only to the issue of finances. But we would take very serious note henceforth, if committees are made to sit and ascertain and assess the requirement of this Court. If it is ever so done again, this Court shall exercise its powers to initiate proceedings of contempt against those officers for their indiscretion”

In view of these observations the court directed the Chief Secretary of the UT to convene a meeting with key officials, including the Secretaries of Law, Finance, and General Administration, to finalize the creation of the 334 posts within a period of 60 days.

The case has been posted on January 25th 2025 for further review.

Case Title: Joginder Singh Vs State & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 312

Click Here To Read/Download Order