CJ Allahabad High Court Recuses Himself From Hearing PIL Seeking Direction For Filling All Current 81 Posts Of Judges: Senior Lawyer Satish Trivedi Files The PIL
By Rajesh Pandey
The Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court Justice Arun Bhansali on Thursday recused himself from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking a direction for the timely and expeditious filling of all the current 81 posts of judges of Allahabad High Court, which is over fifty percent of the sanctioned strength of 160 judges in the high court in a time-bound manner.
Now, the PIL filed by a senior advocate of Allahabad high court – Satish Trivedi will be placed for hearing before another division bench, where the chief justice is not a member.
During the court proceedings, another senior advocate of high court – SFA Naqvi appeared on behalf of the PIL petitioner when the matter was taken up on Thursday.
While stating that the high court is “facing gravest crisis in its history”, the PIL also sought the laying down of binding guidelines to be mandatorily and strictly adhered to to streamline the process of judicial appointments in this court, including strict adherence to the timelines prescribed under the memorandum of procedure (MoP).
Highlighting the severe shortage of judges in the Allahabad High Court, the PIL pointed out that with a population of 24 crore and 1,155,225 pending cases in the state, there is currently only one judge for every 30 lakh people, with each judge handling an average of 14,623 pending cases.
The PIL has stated that the high court is in a “state of functional paralysis” as it is operating at less than 50 percent of its sanctioned judicial strength, and this has led to an insurmountable backlog of over 11 lakh cases.
The petition further argues that even if the court’s strength reaches the sanctioned 160 judges, there will still be only one judge for every 15 lakh people, and each judge will have approximately 7,220 pending cases to address.
“These are not mere statistics. Each vacancy represents a courtroom that should have been fully functional, every unfilled seat represents a judge who should have been delivering justice, and most importantly, numerous litigants who should have been receiving justice and not waiting indefinitely,” the PIL plea submitted further.
The PIL plea further adds that the vacancies, leading to enormous mounting pendency, put an insurmountable burden and hardship – not just upon the litigants who are made to endlessly await hearing in their cases – even upon the Judges.
“If the judiciary, the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, is rendered non-functional due to lack of manpower, then the fundamental principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, judicial independence and judicial review— all forming part of the basic structure doctrine—are effectively dismantled; making the Constitution itself, sterile and nugatory. A high court functioning at half its sanctioned strength is not independent – it is a weakened and incapacitated institution, unable to discharge its role as the guardian of constitutionalism,” the PIL added.
It further stated that the vacancies, if left unaddressed, risk crippling the administration of justice and eroding public confidence in the judiciary. Hence, the PIL plea calls for an expeditious, transparent, and collaborative approach to restore the strength and stature of this esteemed constitutional court.
Against this backdrop, the PIL suggested that the high court should establish a mandatory accountability mechanism through judicial guidelines. These would require the names of at least 20 potential candidates for judicial elevation to be recommended six months before any vacancy arises.
The PIL suggested that this process should be expedited so that when a vacancy occurs or a judge retires, a successor is immediately ready, ensuring the court functions at its full strength of 160 judges without any gaps.
