SC pulls up Centre over ‘huge paucity of judges’

Top court warns that the government’s administration will also come to a standstill if vacancies in courts are not filled

NEW DELHI: Citing massive vacancies of judges across the high courts in the country, the Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on the Union government for bringing the “third pillar of democracy to a standstill” by not appointing judges and warned that the government’s administration will also come to a standstill if this attitude continues.

“The government authority must realise that this is not how it will work. If you want to bring the judicial system to a standstill, your system will also come to a standstill...the line has been crossed by the government. You cannot let the third pillar of democracy come to a standstill,” rued a bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy.

“There is a huge paucity of judges but you are not interested... If the judicial system is sought to be brought to a working halt, then your administrative system will also come to a working halt. It is time you (government) realise this,” it told additional solicitor general Madhvi Divan, who was appearing for the central government.

As of August 1, a total of 455 posts of high court judges were lying vacant in the 25 high courts across the country against the total strength of 1,098.

The vacancy translates to more than 41% of the total strength. High courts of Delhi, Allahabad, Calcutta, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Patna, Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan and Telangana face shortages of more than one-third of their total judges’ strength.

The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the Centre against an order of the Delhi high court in an anti-dumping duty matter when it remarked that the top court was “exasperated” by the “recalcitrant attitude of the government in not appointing high court judges for years together” despite final recommendations made by the collegium and timelines laid down through judicial orders for appointments.

The comment came even as the ASG complained about the delay that may be caused before the expert body of anti-dumping because of the pendency of the matter before the high court. But the court shot down her request to interfere.

“The government of India cannot take an argument that a judge is not able to hear cases expeditiously because the government itself does not appoint judges in the high courts. The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has last week talked about tribunals. The situation in the high court is also the same. You (government) have reduced the number of judges to almost half the sanctioned strength,” the bench told the ASG.

On Friday, a bench led by CJI NV Ramana asked the Union government if it wants all tribunals wrapped up since they were unable to function due to a massive shortage of manpower.

On Monday, the Justice Kaulled bench trained its gun at the Centre.

The bench told the law officer: “The scenario of inability to hear your petition early arises out of your inability to appoint judges. This is our view and grievance, both. You want to have a timebound investigation but you cannot have it without time-bound scrutiny and that will require appointment of judges. The government does not take this point. You don’t make appointments after collegium recommends. We also gave you time-bound directions to appoint judges but you have not done that either.”

The ASG, on her part, submitted that she was appearing only for one department (department of revenue) and that delay in deciding the present matter would impact the domestic industry which will not be in the public interest.

At this, the court retorted: “It is also in the public interest that people get their adjudications done within a reasonable time and that they have enough judges to do it. But since you cannot do it, let the domestic industry realise that you cannot help them because you cannot appoint judges. You are therefore taking all the burden to the apex court. But we cannot ask the high courts to hear you expeditiously since you have not appointed judges and they are already overburdened.”

While dismissing the petition by the Centre, the court recorded in its order: “The recommendations take months and years to reach the collegium and thereafter for months and years no decisions are taken post the collegium, the judicial institution of the high courts is manned by a number of judges where it will become almost impossible to have an early adjudication even on important issues.”

“The real rub is in the fact that the high court does not find it feasible to accommodate such matters at an early date. This is the direct result of there being inadequacies of the number of high court judges including in the capital of the country where the Delhi high court is located,” said the court while noting that the Delhi high court is at present working with 50% of judges (30 of 60) and one more judge will retire in less than a week.

The order added: “The government must realise that early adjudication of commercial disputes is the necessity for which there has to be an adequate number of judges which in turn would require them to follow the timelines.”

Earlier in April, the Supreme Court had in a judgment set down 18 weeks as an outer time limit within which the Centre is expected to process the names for appointments of the high court judges, besides notifying appointments once the names are reiterated by its collegium.