The Persistent Illusion of Judge-Strength

It is not always affordable to approach a Court of Law. Even if approached, it may be years before a final decision. Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 2 SCC 688 had a simple answer: “Pendency is merely a localized problem… it affects some High Courts far more than others.Imtiyaz Ahmed v. State of U.P., (2017) 3 SCC 658 added a little more complexity: “In 1958, 14th Report of Law Commission of India on Reform of Judicial Administration dealt with the issue of delay and arrears and identified inadequate Judge-Strength as the ‘root cause’. This perspective has been reiterated several times.” Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2018 SC 3635 had us note, again: “There can be no dispute, access to speedy justice is part of fundamental right. Law Commission in its 245th Report [July, 2014] noted, the system was unable to deliver timely justice because of huge backlog for which Judge-Strength was inadequate.” It is said, a Committee of Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court has been constituted to explore [Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (2017) 14 SCC 450].  But, the situation has only worsened as evidenced through piling pendency across all Courts [Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1]. All India Judges Association v. Union of India, 2002 (3) SCALE 291 was correct: “We feel it is our constitutional obligation to ensure, backlog of cases is decreased and efforts are made to increase disposal of cases… by directing increase, in first instance, in Judge-Strength.All India Judges Association v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989 is still pending before SC and was last heard on 22.09.2020.

Would a mere increase in number of Judges be an answer to undue delay in disposal of cases and to what extent would such increase be feasible?”, has been Referred to a Larger Bench in V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia, (2016) 7 SCC 686. V. Vasanthakumar v. H.C. Bhatia, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 36 of 2016 is still pending before SC and was last heard on 13.07.2016 and brought nothing on 30.08.2022.

Judge

As is with High Courts all over having immense burden of work but Judges fewer than Sanctioned Strength…”

Hon’ble Justice Dipankar DattaAjithkumar G.M. v. Canara Bank, [Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025] decided on 11.02.2025.