Delhi HC disposes PIL on judge shortage, cites ongoing judicial measure
The court recognised that the judiciary is already aware of the problem and that administrative measures may be taken to resolve it.
During the proceedings, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) informed the court that the Supreme Court is actively monitoring the matter.
The court further observed that the issue is already under the Supreme Court's judicial consideration and permitted the petitioner to approach the apex court to seek inclusion as a party in the proceedings.
The bench, comprising Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, granted the petitioner permission to withdraw the writ petition and take his case to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the High Court determined that no additional adjudication was necessary and disposed of the petition.
During the hearing, the bench posed a pointed question: 'Do you think the Union of India and the Delhi High Court are not aware of the situation? Are they not cognizant of the problem?'
The plea was filed by practising lawyer Amit Sahni, who highlighted that although the sanctioned strength of the Delhi High Court is 60 judges, comprising 45 permanent and 15 additional positions, it is currently operating with only 36 judges, resulting in a significant 40 per cent vacancy.
This shortfall is attributed to retirements, inter-court transfers, and delays in judicial appointments, despite constitutional mandates and the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which requires that appointments be initiated well before vacancies arise.
The plea stated that several judges, including Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, have recently retired, while Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice CD Singh, and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma have been transferred to other High Courts.
Additionally, two more retirements are expected in the coming months, further reducing the number of sitting judges to 34. This decline is likely to worsen case backlogs and judicial delays.
The ongoing judicial shortage has resulted in an overwhelming accumulation of pending cases, excessive workloads for existing judges, and delays in resolving crucial legal matters, including writ petitions, bail applications, appeals, and commercial disputes. This situation significantly affects citizens' rights and undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
The plea emphasised that judicial vacancies disproportionately impact economically weaker and marginalised communities, who often face prolonged litigation and limited access to alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
The plea claimed that judicial vacancies pose a serious threat to fundamental rights, institutional integrity, and public trust in the judicial system. Given the Delhi High Court's national and constitutional significance, addressing these vacancies must be treated as an urgent priority. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
35 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. Supreme Court clears way for Trump's plans to downsize federal workforce
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 8, 2025) cleared the way for President Donald Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs. The Justices overrode lower court orders that temporarily froze the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency. The Court said in an unsigned order that no specific cuts were in front of the justices, only an executive order issued by Mr. Trump and an administration directive for agencies to undertake job reductions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenting vote, accusing her colleagues of a 'demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.' Mr. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE. Mr. Musk recently left his role. Downsizing of federal workforce Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trump's administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Illston's order, finding that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nation's food-safety system and health care for veterans. Illston directed numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the President's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston was nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton. The labor unions and nonprofit groups that sued over the downsizing offered the justices several examples of what would happen if it were allowed to take effect, including cuts of 40% to 50% at several agencies. Among the agencies affected by the order are the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labour, the Interior, State, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
How long can a suspect be kept in jail, HC asks Delhi Police in 2020 riots case
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned the Delhi Police as to how long accused persons can be kept in jail while remarking that five years have elapsed since the February 2020 riots, yet the arguments on the framing of charges have still not been concluded. A Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar made the remark while hearing the bail plea filed by Tasleem Ahmed, an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the north-east Delhi riots 'larger conspiracy' case. 'Five years have gone by. Even arguments on the charge have not been completed. In matters like this, with 700 witnesses, how much time can a person be kept inside [jail]?' said the Bench. The court's remarks came after the accused's advocate, Mehmood Pracha, sought relief for his client on the grounds of parity in relation to the co-accused in the trial. 'He [Ahmed] was arrested on June 24, 2020... He has already spent five years,' Mr. Pracha argued, citing the examples of co-accused Devangana Kalita, Asif Iqbal Tanha and Natasha Narwal, who were granted bail in 2021 on the grounds of delay in the trial proceedings. Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad contended that the prosecution could not be blamed for the delay, as there were several occasions when the matter was adjourned on the request of accused persons. The hearing will resume on Wednesday. 'Larger conspiracy' case The 'larger conspiracy' case is among the many pertaining to the riots and is so named because the Delhi police have claimed that the communal violence was part of a 'deep-rooted conspiracy'. Key accused in the case include former Delhi councillor Tahir Hussain and student activists Umar Khalid and Khalid Saifi.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
The ECI does not have unfettered powers
The Election Commission of India (ECI) ordered a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, which will be facing Assembly elections in November. Political parties in the Opposition have alleged that the SIR is aimed at disenfranchising thousands of voters in Bihar by disqualifying them on the ground that they are not citizens of India. The ECI has denied this allegation and justified the revision. In the meantime, many petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the ECI's order. While the controversy centres on the motive behind this exercise being conducted just a couple of months before elections, especially when electoral rolls were revised in 2024, this article focuses on the legality of this exercise and the powers of the ECI to undertake it. Reasons for disqualification Article 326 of the Constitution declares that elections to the Lok Sabha and the Assemblies shall be held on the basis of adult suffrage. This means every adult person is entitled to be a voter provided they are not disqualified on certain specified grounds. There are two essential qualifications of being an elector under this Article: the person should be citizen of India and should be aged not less than 18. The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950, lays down disqualifications for registration as an elector. These are namely unsoundness of mind as declared by a competent court, and disqualification from voting as provided in Section 11A of the 1951 RPA. Conditions for registration as a voter are laid down in Section 19 of the RPA: the person should not be less than 18 years of age and they should be ordinarily resident in a constituency. The term 'ordinarily resident' is explained in Section 20, which says a person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident merely because they own or possess a dwelling house in that constituency. Also, a person does not cease to be ordinarily resident if they absent themselves temporarily from their ordinary place of residence. The ECI enjoys enormous powers in respect of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections to Parliament, the State Legislatures, and to the offices of the President and Vice President. Article 324 of the Constitution, which empowers the ECI to undertake these tasks, is characterised by the Supreme Court as a 'reservoir of power'. Since the conduct of free and fair elections is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution, the ECI needs to be vested with all the necessary powers to complete its task. Nevertheless, it is inconceivable that the Constitution should confer on any authority unfettered powers. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the ECI can exercise all powers in its discretion in areas which are not covered by any statute but shall act in accordance with the law wherever it exists. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), the Court stated the law as follows: 'Firstly when Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions but where such law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of pushing forward a free and fair election with expedition.' The qualifying date Let us look at the relevant provisions of the the RPA to get a perspective on the powers of the ECI in regard to revision of the electoral rolls. Section 21 of the 1950 RPA deals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. It speaks of four stages of revisions: (1) before elections to the Lok Sabha or Assembly; (2) before each by-election; (3) on the direction of the ECI in any year; and (4) a special revision for a constituency or part of a constituency with the ECI recording reasons for doing so. All revisions except (4) are done with reference to a qualifying date, which, under Section 14, is the first day of January. The only exception is (4): no qualifying date is mentioned because it can be done any time. The ECI order of June 24 mentions the qualifying date as 01/07/2025 and is a direction under Section 21(2)(b) of the RPA. It can be assumed that the revision being done in Bihar is under the same Section. But under this provision, the qualifying date should be 01/01/2025. The revision then should have been done from January 1, 2025. The qualifying date mentioned in the ECI order has no sanction under the law. Similarly, the term 'special intensive revision' is not found in the law. The only case where a special revision can be ordered by the ECI at any time is in relation to a constituency or a part of it and not in relation to an entire State. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the SIR in Bihar is not in conformity with the provisions of the RPA. The ECI has claimed in its order that it has power under Section 21 to undertake the exercise. True, but that power is limited to a constituency or part of it under Section 21(3) of the Act. While enjoying enormous powers under Article 324, the ECI is responsible to the rule of law and should be amenable to the norms of natural justice as per the Supreme Court. Electoral registration officers cannot summarily reject applications on the ground that foolproof documents are not being furnished to prove citizenship. Rule 8 of the Registration of Electors Rules clearly state that information shall be furnished 'to the best of ability' of the citizens. The ECI cannot ignore this statutory stipulation.
