A Desperate SOS Call from CJI for achhe din (अच्छे दिन) of Judiciary and Litigants

An independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structures of our Constitution. If sufficient numbers of Judges are not appointed, justice would not be available to the people, thereby undermining the basic structure. It is well known that justice delayed is justice denied. Time and again the inadequacy in the number of Judges has adversely been commented upon. Emotional and tearful appeal of the CJI TS Thakur to the Central and State Governments to augment the judicial strength while addressing a joint conference of chief ministers and chief justices of high courts, with Prime Minister Modi and Union Law Minister D V Sadananda Gowda present on the dais has again brought to the fore the issue of acute inadequacy of Judges' strength and resultant mounting pendency of cases leading to a virtual "DOCKET EXPLOSION". However, in all probabilities, the impassioned appeal is likely to fall on deaf ears seeing the lukewarm responses of Governments to the recommendations/directions made/issued in the past qua the issue of inadequacy of judicial strength in India as narrated below:

1.     120th Law Commission Report in 1987 had recommended that the judge –population ratio be increased to at least 50 judges per million population . However, 30 years  later, the ratio remains just 15 judges per million in a Country which has swelled by 25 crore  in population in last 3 decades. . Indian Judge on an average decides 2600 cases every year compared to 81 cases by an American judge. Now in 2016,  a strength of 18000 judges is grappling with a pendency of 3 crores cases although way back in the year 1987 for a lesser population/lesser cases the LCI report had recommended the Judges' strength of 40000.

2.     Shri Pranab Mukherjee Ji led  Parliamentary Standing Committee 85th report, submitted in February, 2002, to Parliament, had recommended that there should be an increase in the number of Judges. The said committee had noted the Judge-population ratio in different countries and adversely commented on the Judge-population ratio of 10.5 Judges per 10 lakh people in India. The report recommends the      acceptance, in the first instance, of increasing the Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people as was recommended by the 120th Law Commission Report.

3.     In  All India Judges Association And  vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. (8 February, 2002 ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed  increase, in the first instance, in the Judge strength from the existing ratio of 10.5 (or 13)  per 10 lakhs people to 50 Judges for 10 lakh people. The Court had directed  that the existing vacancies in the subordinate Court at all levels should be filled, if possible, latest by 31st March, 2003, in all the States.  The increase in the Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people should be affected and implemented with the filling up of the posts in phased manner to be      determined and directed by the Union Ministry of Law, but this process should be completed and the increased vacancies and posts filled within a period of five years. The Court further opined that perhaps increasing the Judge strength by 10 per 10 lakh people every year could be one of the methods which may be adopted thereby completing the first stage within five years before embarking on further increase if necessary.

4.     In Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr vs U.P. Public Service Commission ( 3 April, 2006) the Supreme Court  inter alia  held that  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 filling up of vacancies. The dates for taking these steps can be provided for on the pattern similar to filling of vacancies in some other services or filling of seats for admission in medical colleges. The schedule appended to the Regulations governing medical admissions sets out a time schedule for every step to be strictly adhered to every year. The exception can be provided for where sufficient number of vacancies does not occur in a given year. The adherence to strict time schedule can ensure timely filling of vacancies. All State Governments, Union Territories and/or High Courts are directed to provide for time schedule for the aforesaid purposes so that every year vacancies that may occur are timely filled. All State Governments, Union Territories and High Courts are directed to file within three months details of the time schedule so fixed and date from which time schedule so fixed would be operational.
5. MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN AND ANR VERSUS U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL NO.1867 OF 2006)DOD 04/01/2007 
  http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/186720065412007p.txt
DIRECTIONS: For filling of  vacancies  in  the cadre of  District  Judge in respect of
 (a)  twenty   five   per   cent   vacancies   to   be   filled   by   direct recruitment from the Bar; and
(b)   twenty   five   per   cent   by   promotion   through   limited competitive   examination   of  
Civil   Judges   (Senior   Division)   not having less than five years of qualifying service. For
filling of  vacancies  in  the cadre of  District  Judge in  respect of  fifty  per cent   vacancies  to 
be  filled  by promotion. For   filling   of   vacancies   in   the   cadre   of   Civil   Judge (Senior
Division) to be filled by promotion. For   appointment   to   the   posts   of   Civil   Judge   (Junior
Division) by direct recruitment.

POST SCRIPT: 16/1/2017
 Short of 5,000 judges,2.81 cr cases pending

Lower courts need 15,000 more appointments: Report

http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/short-of-5-000-judges-2-81-cr-cases-pending/350969.html

A whopping 2.8 crore cases are pending in district courts across the country as these face shortage of nearly 5,000 judicial officers.

The situation has led to suggestions in two Supreme Court reports to increase the judicial manpower “manifold” — at least seven times — to overcome the crisis by appointing around 15,000 more judges in the coming few years.

The suggestions and some sharp remarks came out in the reports issued by the Supreme Court — “Indian Judiciary Annual Report 2015-2016” and “Subordinate Courts of India: A Report on Access to Justice 2016” — which also highlighted that nearly 15,000 more judges would be required in next three year to overcome this critical situation.

Data showed that district courts across the country were grappling with a backlog of 2,81,25,066 civil and criminal cases between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016. But a large number of matters, 1,89,04,222, were also disposed of during the period.

A key reason for high pendency is the shortage of judges in subordinate courts, which is “a cause for concern”, as 4,954 posts of judge are vacant against the sanctioned strength of 21,324 judicial officers, the report on subordinate courts said. “Based on the study and keeping in mind the future growth in institution of cases, it is found that the present judge strength is insufficient to deal with a huge figure of pendency of cases, which is a cause of concern. In the backdrop of the tussle between the judiciary and the executive over appointments of judges and infrastructure, the report came out with sharp remarks over the failure of the government in dealing with these issues. “The immediate requirement itself shows that enough has not been done to increase the judges’ strength of the subordinate judiciary,” it said. The figures compiled in the annual report till June 30 last year show the district courts in Gujarat, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were the worst affected as they were short of 794, 792 and 624 judges, respectively.

POST SCRIPT: 18/1/2017

SC forms panel on recruitment of judges in lower judiciary

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/pVXHoadzL8Q00z5CNsMqWP/SC-forms-panel-on-recruitment-of-judges-in-lower-judiciary.html

The Supreme Court says the panel will look into the issue of bringing uniformity in the recruitment process of judicial officers in the lower judiciary across the country. The Supreme Court has set up a committee of judges to look into the issue of bringing uniformity in the recruitment process of judicial officers in the lower judiciary across the country. A bench headed by chief justice J.S. Khehar said the committee would deal with issues like fixing the date on which advertisements for filling up the vacancies would be issued, dates of examination, interviews, issuance of the appointment letter and the joining date. Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, who is amicus curiae in the matter, pointed out to the court that the matter relating to appointment of judges in subordinate judiciary has not been listed for hearing for quite some time and there was a need to bring uniformity in the selection process. He said a similar schedule was drawn up by the apex court by its judgment on 4 January 2007, but it has not been compiled by the states including the high courts in letter and spirit. The top court by its 4 January 2007 judgment had said that the process for the recruitment of judicial officer in the subordinated judiciary including for the posts of district judges would commence on 31 March of a calendar year and the entire process would concluded on 31 October, the last date of joining for successful candidates.

POST SCRIPT:

SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION(C) No. 1/2017

 IN RE : CENTRAL SELECTION MECHANISM FOR SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY Date : 09/05/2017

 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR For the Parties UOI Mr. Ranjit Kumar, SG Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv. Mr. R. Bala, Adv. for Mr. M.K. Maroria, AOR State of Karnataka Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. Mr. Chinmoy Deshpande, Adv. State of Jharkhand Mr. Ajit Kr. Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal prasad, Adv. NCT of Delhi Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv. for Mr. B.K. Prasad, AOR State of HP Mr. Varinder Kr. Sharma, Adv. State of Jharkhand Mr. Mohd. Waquas, Adv. Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv. for Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AOR State of Haryana Mr. Anil Grover, AAG Ms. Nupur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Govt. of Puducherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Adv. Mr. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. State of Odisha Mr. Shibasis Misra, Adv. Ms. Sylona Mohapatra, Adv. UT of Andaman & Ms. G. Indira, Adv. Nicobar 2 State of Arunachal Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Adv. Pradesh Mr. Ritu Raj, Adv. State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Adv. Mr. A.P. Mayee, Adv. Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv. Ms. Maha Lakshmi, Adv. for Mr. M.Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, Adv. UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Union of India, as also, all the State Governments (including the Union Territories), have been duly served through the standing counsel nominated for this Court. Liberty is granted to the Union of India, as also, all the State Governments (including the Union Territories) to file their response and suggestions, if they are so advised. Response and suggestions by way of affidavits be filed, on or before 30.06.2017. Post for further consideration on 10.07.2017 at 3: 00 p.m. (Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar) Assistant Registrar AR-cum-PS

S.M.W.(C)No.1 of 2017 IN RE : CENTRAL SELECTION MECHANISM FOR SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 04-08-2017 This petition was called on for hearing today

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R 1. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned Senior Counsel, in his capacity as an Amicus Curiae, on our asking, has prepared a Concept Note with reference to the proposed centralization of the District Judiciary Recruitment Examination. 2. We are of the view, that the aforesaid Concept Note should be circulated to all State Governments and High Courts. Accordingly, the Registry of this Court is 3 directed to forward the Concept Note to Registrar Generals of all High Courts, and Secretaries in the Ministry of Law of all State Governments. The needful be done within two weeks from today, immediately by e-mail, to be followed by furnishing hard copies. The concept note may also be posted on the Supreme Court Website, so as to enable the High Courts and Secretaries to the State Governments, to make suggestions. 3. Suggestions, if any, shall be forwarded by the respective State Governments and the Registrar Generals of the High Courts to this Courts, so as to reach this Court on or before 16.08.2017 4. Post for hearing on 18.8.2017, at 2.00 p.m. (Sarita Purohit) (Renuka Sadana) COURT MASTER Assistant Registrar 

ALSO READ "The mounting unfilled vacancies in judiciary also negates constitutional mandate" @

 http://rajkhushiniti.blogspot.in/2011/07/mounting-unfilled-vacancies-in.html