Supreme Court Directs Filling of Existing Judicial Vacancies Before Increasing Posts

Court emphasizes prioritizing the appointment of judges to vacant posts and refers Law Commission recommendations for judicial strengthening

In a significant judgment delivered on March 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of vacancies in the judiciary and the proposal to increase the number of judicial posts. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking directions to the Union of India for immediate steps to fill judicial vacancies and enhance judicial infrastructure.

The Court observed that a large number of judicial posts at various levels remain unfilled, which hampers the delivery of timely justice. It noted that the Government has already examined the matter concerning the increase in the number of posts at the High Court level and has recently ordered an increase. Further, the Court referred to its recent judgment in Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P., which dealt with the manner of increasing posts in subordinate courts up to the district level.

The Court made it clear that the question of increasing the number of judicial posts will only arise after the existing vacancies have been filled. It called for a "first step" approach where the current backlog of vacancies must be addressed before new posts are created. The Court expressed satisfaction that steps are underway to fill existing vacancies and thus found no reason to keep the petitions pending. However, it granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court again for similar relief after the initial step of filling vacancies is completed.

In another related petition, the Court directed that the recommendations of the 245th Law Commission Report concerning increasing judicial strength and improving infrastructure be considered by a Committee of Supreme Court judges constituted for this purpose. The Court disposed of this petition with a direction to place the pleadings before the Committee for consideration.

The Court also allowed petitions filed by the petitioner in person to argue without legal representation but dismissed one petition where no sufficient grounds for interference under Article 32 of the Constitution were made out.

This judgment reiterates the Supreme Court’s stance on strengthening the judiciary by first filling existing vacancies to ensure efficient dispensation of justice, before embarking on increasing the number of judicial posts. It also underscores the importance of implementing Law Commission recommendations to improve judicial infrastructure and capacity.

Statutory provisions

Article 32, Constitution of India, 1950

---

This news report captures the essence of the Supreme Court’s decision, highlighting the prioritization of filling existing judicial vacancies before increasing the number of posts, and the referral of Law Commission recommendations for further strengthening the judiciary.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 840805