14 Addl Judges Permanent 200+ Posts Vacant !

As many as fourteen High Court Additional Judges were made permanent, but Justice department figures indicate more than 200 posts remain vacant. 



Those vacancies as well as 3,000 other vacant judgeships at various levels officially reported a few months ago have been a cause of concern in a nation facing serious issues of discipline compounded by court delays and mounting pendency. 



Justices Krishnaswami Chandru, V Ramasubramanian, S Mani Kumar, A Selvam, P R Shivakumar, G Rajasuria, Thiruneelakantam Sudanthiram, Saminathan Nagamuthu, Shunmugavel Palanivelu, K K Sasidharan, M Venugopal, V Periya Karuppiah, R Subbiah and Meenakshi Sundaram Sathyanarayanan, in that order of seniority, were sworn in as Judges. 



But it would make little difference to the 26.41 per cent vacant judgeships in 21 High Courts across India.



In actual numbers, the 21 High Courts between them were reported by the department to have 234 of 886 High Court judgeships vacant.



The Subordinate Courts with a sanctioned strength of 16,721 had 2,998 vacancies and the Supreme Court had seven posts vacant out of 31, but two Judges have retired since.



The Indian courts between them are estimated to have as many as 30.76 million cases pending, which not only gives a glimpse of the unresolved conflicts citizens live with, but also a perspective on vacant judgeships the society can hardly afford. 



The issue has been acknowledged by the government at the highest level, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh having stressed the urgency of filling up Court vacancies.



‘The existing vacancies in High Courts are quite high in number and need to be filled up urgently,’ Dr Singh told a mid-August Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices.



Dr Singh stressed ‘quickly filling up these posts,’ and appointing ‘meritorious individuals.’ His reference to merit reflected yet another serious concern pertaining to a judiciary whose image has taken a beating now and then even though it appoints its own.



Taint has become another cause of concern, with Judges sometimes allegedly involved in misbehaviour that can hardly inspire confidence in their judging, not to mention the utter absence of a transparent system of accountability.



Law and Justice Minister M Veerappa Moily, briefing journalists a few weeks ago, spoke of government desire to steer clear of tainted persons in appointment of judges.



Efforts to fill vacancies are supposed to begin six months before a retirement is due.



But Dr Moily disclosed some time ago that at least eleven High Courts were yet to initiate proposals to fill up all the posts ‘that were vacant in 2007.’ The High Courts : Allahabad, Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana. 



Topping the list of 21 High Courts in vacancies was Patna with 20 out of 43 or 46.51 per cent posts vacant, official figures showed.



Allahabad, with 72 of 160 or 45 per cent posts vacant, came next.



They were followed percentage point-wise by the High Courts of Chhattisgarh, 44.44, Andhra Pradesh, 38.78, Gujarat, 35.71, Punjab and Haryana, 32.35, Jharkhand, 30, Calcutta, 29.31, and Orissa, 27.27, all of them above the national average.



On the next rung were Rajasthan, 25.00, Jammu and Kashmir, 21.43, Madhya Pradesh, 13.95, Kerala, 13.16, Gauhati, 12.50, Bombay, 12.00, Uttarakhand,11.11, Himachal Pradesh, 09.09, Delhi, 08.33, Karnataka, 7.32, Madras, 6.67, and Sikkim, nil.



Ministry officials explain that senior judicial appointments are a domain of a Supreme Court collegium taken over through a 1993 judgement in the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India.



If Judges appointing Judges was expected to improve the quality of jurisprudence, many have been disappointed, especially given the opacity of the process in place. Law scholars say what is sorely needed is transparency. 



‘It is very unfortunate,’ says Prof S N Singh, dean of Delhi University Law Faculty, ‘that the Chief Justices and senior Judges do not find time to fill the vacancies. 



‘The process perhaps results in bypassing many Judges with merit,’ Prof Singh said in a telephone interview with United News of India Special Correspondent Mukesh Jhangiani.



Asked about the 1993 Supreme Court judgement by then Justice J S Verma, Prof Singh said the situation became worse after the judgement which placed the selection process in the domain of judiciary.



‘Assuming, of course, there was merit in reducing executive role, it could well have been a move towards transparency and perhaps public participation in the process.



‘I see no reason why the system should not allow public input by circulating names of proposed candidates before appointment. Such measures do not require any Constitutional or legislative amendment.’ Experts acknowledge that with some 30 million cases pending in courts, many for decades, and just 17,602 judges sanctioned against a recommended 55,000 strength, vacancies may be the last thing the Indian courts can afford. 



Complicating matters are systemic delays in disposal of cases caused by inefficacious laws and procedures and uncontrolled costs, leading law professionals acknowledge.



Such factors, added to the shockingly low-- 6.5 per cent-- conviction rate in serious crimes, tells potential law breakers how easy-- 93.5 per cent chance-- it may be to get away-- hardly a deterrence to crime.



Notwithstanding instances of judicial misconduct or deviant behaviour surfacing from time to time, authorities have yet to institute an effective way to ensure judicial accountability, contributing to uncertainty.



The situation is causing serious hardship to litigants.



Experts interviewed in recent months indicate how the system is undermined in absence of remedy.



Bar Council of India Chairman SNP Sinha pointed out how ‘even important, urgent writ petitions, to be dealt with within days, sometimes take years to come up, and are infructuous.’ Former Attorney General Soli J Sorabjee saw vacancies as a result of not realising the seriousness of the matter, saying there was no other explanation, since the day a post is to become vacant is known well in advance. 



Vacancies are indeed hard to explain considering that the date of a Judges retirement is known at the time of appointment and a pool of qualified candidates can be created to draw on.



‘There is no question of vacancy,’ says former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan. ‘The process of appointment is scheduled to begin six months or so ahead of a vacancy and should not take more than a couple of weeks. So where is the question of vacancy ?’ Recalling his 28 month stint as Law Minister during 1977-79, Bhushan said there were more than 200 vacancies when he took office, but almost all were filled within a few months. ‘But of course, I had no favourites.’ The former Law Minister now practising as a senior advocate stressed transparency.



‘What is all this secrecy in judicial appointments? Transparency must be introduced. Where is the harm in announcing names of people being considered for judicial posts and allowing public input where available and acceptable in terms of norms that can be set.



‘I see no reason except perhaps a lack of seriousness, unless there is an inclination to try to push favourites, which benefits from having vacancies to accommodate them.’ About changes in the appointment system since 1993, Bhushan said collegium is supposed to democratise the process, but ‘I am afraid it may be contributing to growth of patronage.’