Ministry of Law and Justice | Status of vacancies of Judges in High Court

Shri Kiren Rijiju Union Minister of Law and Justice, has informed that Judges of various High Courts are appointed as per the procedure laid down in the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) prepared in 1998 pursuant to the Supreme Court Judgment of October 6, 1993 (Second Judges case) read with their Advisory Opinion of October 28, 1998 (Third Judges case).  As per MoP, initiation of proposal for appointment of Judges in the High Courts vests with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court. Chief Justice of the High Court is required to initiate the proposal to fill up of vacancy of a High Court Judge six months prior to the occurrence of vacancy.  However, this timeline is often not adhered to by the High Courts. A statement showing High Court wise vacancy position as on 07.02.2022 is at Annexure below:

As on 07.02.2022, against the sanctioned strength of 1098 Judges in the High Courts, 687 Judges are in position, leaving 411 vacancies of Judges to be filled.  At present, 172 proposals are at various stages of processing between the Government and the Supreme Court Collegiums. Further recommendations from High Court Collegiums are yet to be received in respect of remaining 239 vacancies in High Courts.

While filling up of vacancies in the High Courts is a continuous, integrated and collaborative process requiring consultation and approval from various constitutional authorities, vacancies keep on arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of Judges. Government is committed to filling up of vacancy expeditiously in time-bound manner.

The sanctioned strength of Judges of High Court has increased from 906 in 2014 to 1098 in 2021. However, it may be mentioned that the pendency of cases in courts is not only due to shortage of judges in High Courts but also due to various other factors like increase in number of state and central legislations, accumulation of first appeals, continuation of ordinary civil jurisdiction in some of the High Courts, appeals against orders of quasi-judicial forums going to High Courts, number of revisions/appeals, frequent adjournments, indiscriminate use of writ  jurisdiction,  lack of adequate arrangement to monitor, tracking and bunching of cases for hearing, vacation period of Courts, assigning work of administrative nature to the Judges, etc.