Data given the Union Ministry has provided the high number of vacancies that are available in the High Courts of India. It is crucial to note that while the Indian Supreme Court is full to capacity with a maximum of 34 judges, all High Courts put together have 324 posts lying vacant out of the sanctioned strength of 1114 judges.
The data also provides that during the year 2022, 165 Judges were appointed in various High Courts and eight transfer among High Courts were made (two Chief Justices and six Judges) and during the year 2023, a total of 110 Judges have been appointed in various High Courts and 34 judges have been transferred among various High Courts till December 4, 2023.
Questions on vacancies in the courts, data on transfers and vacancies in the tribunal were put by Rajya Sabha members from the Indian National Congress (INC), Janata Dal and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) respectively.
Data on the same was provided on December 7, during the ongoing winter parliamentary session, when INC’s Shaktisinh Gohil raised questions regarding the vacancies in the High Courts and the Supreme Court in the Rajya Sabha. Gohil is also president of the Gujrat Pradesh Congress Committee. In the response of the Law and Justice ministry, Arun Meghwal said that as of December 4, 2023, the Supreme Court operates at its full sanctioned strength with no vacancies among the 34 Judges. However, the High Courts confront a significant shortage, with 324 vacancies against the sanctioned strength of 1114 Judges. Meghwal has been elected to the Lok Sabha from Bikaner in Rajasthan.
Further details elicited from the Rajya Sabha response reveal that, in 2023, 121 fresh proposals were received, summing up to 292 proposals for consideration, including 171 proposals from earlier. Of these, 110 Judges were appointed, and 60 recommendations were referred back to the High Courts based on the advice of the Supreme Court Collegium (SCC). As of December 4, 2023, 122 proposals are in different processing stages. 87 proposals received advice from the SCC, while 42 remain under the SCC’s consideration. Additionally, 35 new proposals are being processed. Recommendations are yet to be received from High Court Collegiums in respect of the remaining 198 vacancies. Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed under Article 124, 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India.
In answer also contains the procedure on that is employed in regards to vacancies. The Chief Justices of the High Courts are required to propose vacancies six months before their occurrence, as per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP). However, adherence to this timeline by the High Courts is inconsistent. All names recommended by the High Court Collegium are sent to the Government, which forwards them, along with its views, to the SCC for advice. The Union Government appoints only those recommended by the SCC.
The data illustrates a stark contrast between the full-strength Supreme Court and the substantial vacancies in the High Courts. Delays in appointments often arise due to High Courts not consistently adhering to the prescribed timeline for proposing vacancies. The collaborative appointment process between the Executive and Judiciary, though outlined in procedures like the MoP, faces challenges regarding timely proposals and appointments, contributing to the persistent vacancies across High Courts. Streamlining the proposal timeline and expediting the appointment process could help address these significant vacancies, ensuring a more robust and functional judicial system.
The full answer can be read here: (Vacancies in High Courts and the Supreme Court)
On the same day, Ram Nath Thakur, Janata Dal leader in the Rajya Sabha, raised questions regarding the transfer of High Court judges in the Rajya Sabha. Thakur is the leader of Janata Dal in the Rajya Sabha.
In its response, Meghwal asserted that the transfers of Judges and Chief Justices of High Courts are governed by Article 222 of the Indian Constitution and the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) established in 1998 following Supreme Court judgments (Second and Third Judges cases).
As per the existing MoP, the proposal for transfer of High Court Judges is initiated by the Chief Justice of India in consultation with four senior-most puisne Judges of the Supreme Court. The MoP further provides that the Chief Justice of India is also expected to take into account the views of the Chief Justice of High Court from which the judge is to be transferred, as also the Chief Justice of the High Court to which the transfer is to be effected, besides taking into account the views of one or more Supreme Court judges who are in a position to offer views.
The transfer of Chief Justices/Judges of High Courts are to be made in public interest i.e. for promoting better administration of justice throughout the country. No timeline has been prescribed in the MoP for transfer of judges from one High Court to another.
The data indicates a notable movement of judicial officials within High Courts during the specified period. However, the lack of a prescribed timeline for these transfers within the MoP reflects the flexibility afforded in determining these movements.
The process outlined, involving consultation at various levels, suggests a concerted effort to ensure that transfers are made in public interest and with due consideration for the perspectives of the concerned parties.
While the specific reasons for these transfers aren’t outlined, the actions likely align with enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice delivery system. The absence of a defined timeline might grant the flexibility needed but could also raise questions about the criteria and timing of such transfers.Top of Form
The complete answer can be read here: (Transfer of High Court Judge)
On a similar issue, Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), raised questions regarding the vacancies in various Tribunals on December 7. Kumar has been elected to the Rajya Sabha from Andhra Pradesh. Responses from the ministry in Parliament indicate nearly 170 vacancies across 16 Tribunals, attributing these vacancies arise due to routine factors such as retirements and resignations within the Tribunals, contributing to the continuous need for appointments to maintain operational efficiency.
The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, specifically Sub-section (7) of Section 3, outlines a critical provision that seeks to expedite the appointment process. It mandates the Central Government to decide within a three-month timeframe on recommendations made by the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointing Chairpersons or Members to various Tribunals. This provision aims to address the significant vacancies and streamline the appointment of Chairpersons and Members across various Tribunals.
Efficiently filling these vacancies within the stipulated timeframe is crucial for ensuring the effective functioning and timely resolution of cases within these Tribunals. The Act’s provision underscores a commitment to addressing these vacancies promptly and maintaining the Tribunals’ operational efficiency.
The complete answer can be read here: (VACANCIES IN VARIOUS TRIBUNALS)
Related:
Questions on Collegium haunt Budget Session; 18 names with SC for reconsideration
Collegium System is Law of the Land, Must Be Followed: Supreme Court to Centre