"Go To Delhi, Don't Embarrass The Court This Way": Bombay High Court Refuses Urgent Hearing Of PIL To Fill Up Judicial Vacancies

The bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik questioned the maintainability of the PIL and directed for the matter to be listed after eight weeks, after the summer vacation.

"How can a PIL be maintainable? Go to Delhi and file, not here." Chief Justice Dipankar Datta remarked as soon as Advocate Eknath Dhokale mentioned the matter on behalf of the Bombay Lawyers' Association.

Dhokale said he was seeking circulation and would satisfy the court on the maintainability. Further, that he would approach the Supreme Court if leave was granted.

The Bombay Lawyers' Association approached the High Court last week against for a permanent mechanism for filling up such vacancies in time. In the interim, the Association had sought to urgently fill up the vacancies.

Despite a sanctioned strength of 94 judges, the Bombay High Court is currently functioning with a strength of only 57 judges. Eleven judges from the Bombay High Court retire this year. Therefore, by the end of 2022, the High Court will have only 48 judges if the vacancies are not filled.

The petitioner association states that it's been a while since Court's sanctioned strength of judges was filled.

"Due to the shortage of Judges, it is experienced that there is a huge pendency of matters for years together. There are so many matters not even listed for hearing. Due to shortage of Judges, no urgent listing is granted. The official data from the website of Hon'ble this Court shows the case clearance rate in the year 2021 is 67.52%, which means there are pendency of 32.48 per cent cases in the year 2021," the petition states.

Judges are appointed by the President of India in communication and recommendation of the collegium of the High Court and Supreme Court of India under Article 217 of the Constitution. The number of Judges in a court is decided by dividing the average number of cases filed in the last five years by the national average, or the average rate of disposal of main cases per judge per year in that High Court, whichever is higher.

The respondents to the petition include the Registrar Generals of the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Law and Judiciary (Maharashtra).

The petitioner states that it is a body of advocates practicing at Bombay High Court with the primary purpose of undertaking activities to facilitate the improvement in the quality of legal services.

The Bombay High Court is one of the three High Courts in India established at the Presidency Towns by Letters patent granted by Queen Victoria, on June 26, 1862. It was inaugurated on August 14, 1862 under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861.

The High Court with its principal seat in Mumbai, has benches in Nagpur, Aurangabad and Goa, as also in the union territories of Dadra, Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.

The petitioners claimed that "not filling of all the vacant post of Judges is a straight away denial of access of justice to the citizens. It is pertinent to note that not filling up the vacancies of Judges in time causes a delay in delivery of justice. The Petitioner further submits that shortage of judges in judiciary is violation of fundamental rights to citizens."

"That people are languishing in jail and their bail application are pending due to non-availability of Judges," the plea adds.