2021 (4) TMI 1268 - SC - Customs

Filing of vacancies of the High Court - there are almost 40% vacancies in the High Courts, with many of the larger High Courts working under 50% of their sanctioned strength - HELD THAT - Learned Attorney General did not differ with the requirement of time bound schedule for filling the vacancies at every stage though he emphasised that the trigger for filling up of the vacancies is the recommendations made by the Chief Justices of the High Courts. However, once the recommendations are made, there are two stages at which the matter rests with the Government the first when the Ministry processes the names; and the second post the Collegium of the Supreme Court taking a call in recommending such of the names as are approved by the Collegium. Insofar as the Judiciary is concerned, the second stage after the recommendations are made by the Collegium of the High Courts is the time period taken by the Collegium of the Supreme Court in consulting the consultee Judge(s) to take a call on those names. It would be advisable to follow the timelines prescribed - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. High vacancies in High Courts
2. Appointment process of Judges
3. Timelines for appointment process

High vacancies in High Courts:
The Supreme Court highlighted the crisis situation in High Courts due to almost 40% vacancies, with many larger High Courts operating below 50% of their sanctioned strength. The Attorney General presented the appointment status, revealing 664 appointed Judges against the sanctioned 1080, with 416 vacancies. The Court emphasized the importance of Chief Justices recommending vacancies promptly, noting the delay in recommendations for existing and upcoming vacancies.

Appointment process of Judges:
The Court discussed the appointment of ad hoc Judges under Article 224A and the process under Articles 217 & 224 of the Constitution. It stressed the need for Chief Justices to recommend vacancies promptly, even if not in one go, without waiting for earlier recommendations' results. The Court addressed the delay in processing recommendations pending with the Government and the Supreme Court Collegium, urging timely actions at every stage of the appointment process.

Timelines for appointment process:
The Court examined the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for the appointment of Judges, highlighting specific timelines for different stages. It proposed additional timelines to expedite the process, including deadlines for the Intelligence Bureau's report, forwarding recommendations to the Supreme Court, and making appointments promptly after due consideration. The Court emphasized collaboration and promptness in the appointment process to ensure timely dispensation of justice.

The judgment concluded with the Court issuing directions to follow the proposed timelines and emphasized the collaborative nature of the appointment process to facilitate the larger goal of ensuring timely justice delivery.