36 HC judges for 60 posts, PIL warns of judicial crisis
NEW DELHI: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court highlighting the alarming 40 per cent vacancy in the court's sanctioned judicial strength, calling for immediate steps to address the crisis and prevent further erosion of justice delivery.
Filed by practising lawyer Amit Sahni on Thursday, the plea states that while the Delhi High Court is sanctioned to have 60 judges, 45 permanent and 15 additional, it is currently functioning with only 36 judges. The shortfall, according to the petition, is the result of recent retirements, inter-court transfers and the lack of timely appointments despite the binding constitutional process and Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).
'Several Judges, including Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, have retired recently. Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice C.D. Singh, and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma have been transferred to other High Courts. Further, two more retirements are expected in the coming months, which will reduce the strength to merely 34 judges—further exacerbating pendency and judicial delays,' as per plea.
This acute shortage, the petition contends, has delayed the adjudication of critical matters including bail pleas, writ petitions, appeals, and commercial disputes.The plea said that the burden on the existing judges has increased considerably, and the backlog of cases continues to rise.
The PIL further argues that judicial delays hurt economically weaker and marginalised sections the most, as they lack the resources to endure protracted legal battles or seek redressal elsewhere.
It also asserts that judicial vacancies should not be viewed merely as an administrative concern, but as a serious issue of fundamental rights and institutional trust.
Calling the situation untenable, the plea urges the court to treat the filling of vacancies as a matter of top constitutional priority, especially given the Delhi High Court's stature as a key constitutional court.t.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
HC quashes discharge order of jail warder
1 2 3 Cuttack: Orissa high court quashed the discharge order of a jail warder who was removed from service on allegations of suppressing criminal case details in his attestation form, which was submitted at the time of applying for the post. The vacation bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ruled that the discharge order of P Rajesh Reddy, issued by the senior superintendent of circle jail, Berhampur, on Feb 2, 2024, "is unsustainable in law". Reddy was appointed to the post of jail warder in Daspalla sub-jail on May 29, 2023. The authorities alleged that Reddy failed to disclose his involvement in two criminal cases registered at Chamakhandi police station. While seeking the HC's intervention, Reddy pleaded that he had no knowledge of the cases and was never implicated, detained, or arrested in connection with them. He claimed to be a victim of mistaken identity and stated that his name was wrongfully linked to the cases involving a protest over land acquisition. Upon examining the facts and legal position, Justice Mohapatra, in his May 26 order, ruled that the discharge order violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and was void from the beginning. The judge further observed that the petitioner (Reddy) did not suppress any material facts within his knowledge, and subsequent investigation showed he was not involved in either case. Setting aside both the discharge order and the subsequent rejection of the petitioner's representation dated July 18, 2024, Justice Mohapatra directed the senior superintendent of circle jail (Berhampur) to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential service and financial benefits. "Further, it is directed that the period of discharge be treated as 'on duty' and the financial benefits accruing in favour of the petitioner for the said period be also calculated and disbursed in favour of the petitioner," Justice Mohapatra specified, adding, "Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of two months. " Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Eid wishes , messages , and quotes !
India Today
5 hours ago
- India Today
Court orders to fix CLAT PG 2025 answer key, release revised results
The Delhi High Court has asked the consortium of National Law Universities (NLUs) to revise the CLAT PG 2025 answer key and release the final results. This came after students filed petitions highlighting errors in the key and demanding fair PG 2025 was conducted on December 1, 2024, and multiple students across the country raised objections regarding the correctness of several answers. After all related pleas were transferred to Delhi by the Supreme Court in February, the High Court has now issued its TO BE RE-EVALUATED FOR TWO QUESTIONSA bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela directed that marks be awarded as per the court's corrections for two questions. However, it rejected challenges to a third question, stating the answer was accurate. The court reviewed each objection in detail before deciding which needed correction. It then directed the consortium to update the answer key accordingly and release the revised results for CLAT PG QUESTIONS RS 1,000 OBJECTION FEEThe bench also flagged concerns about the Rs 1,000 fee charged per question for objections. While it acknowledged the consortium's concern about filtering frivolous claims, it called the fee 'excessive and disproportionate' compared to other court advised the consortium to review this issue with its advisory committee headed by Justice G Raghuram (retd) and take steps to avoid steep charges in future this decision, thousands of law aspirants can now expect their corrected results soon -- possibly giving some a fairer shot at admissions into top NLUs.(With PTI inputs)
New Indian Express
7 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Orissa HC directs govt to revise gradation list of secretariat ASOs
The bench of Justice AK Mohapatra noted that although Advertisement No. 08 was issued earlier in 2012, appointments from this list were delayed until October 2016 due to legal hurdles and administrative delays. In contrast, candidates under the 2015 advertisement were appointed on January 27, 2016 and May 18, 2016. Justice Mohapatra endorsed the principle that seniority in government service should be based on the actual date of appointment, not the date of the recruitment advertisement or recommendation, unless a rule explicitly states otherwise. While providing relief to candidates who were appointed earlier but placed lower in the seniority list, Justice Mohapatra ruled that the ASOs appointed earlier in 2016 under Advertisement No. 06 must be placed above those appointed later the same year under Advertisement No. 08 in the final gradation list published on June 11, 2020. The judge further ruled that promotees must be treated as en bloc senior to the direct recruits of the same calendar year and directed the Home department to revise the ASO gradation list in line with the court's directives, ensuring that seniority reflects the actual date of appointment. He also ruled that promotees must be treated as en bloc senior to the direct recruits of the same calendar year.
