Judiciary Alone Can't Be Blamed For Case Pendency, Executive Also Responsible : Justice Dipankar Datta

Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court on Saturday remarked that the judiciary is often singled out and blamed for mounting case pendency because it is perceived as a "soft target", while the executive and the legislature are equally responsible for systemic delays arising from vacancies and budgetary neglect"Are we responsible for delayed justice? We are singled out. The judiciary is the soft target...When it comes to Courts, you will have to understand under what circumstances judges and judicial officers work," Justice Datta said, speaking at the 1st Supreme Court Bar Association National Conference' 2026 on 'Reimaging Judicial Governance'.Increasing posts without infrastructure defeats purposeJustice Datta said that numbers reveal that, as of August 2025, against 1112 sanctioned High Court judgeships, only 788 judges are working. 344 posts remain vacant as per the Minister of State. He also showed the pendency in District Courts as of December 31, 2024. Justice Datta told the audience that he was a member and also the chairman of the National Court Management System Committee of the Supreme Court. The committee had devised a formula to reduce pendencies, and the formula was forwarded to all the High Courts to find out what is the number of judges that is required. He took an example of the State of Maharashtra, which has now 56% vacanies, and said: "So far as Maharashtra is concerned, Justice Abhay Oka was the chairman of the committee. According to him, 13,000 judges' posts were required to bring down the vacancies. But his Lordship felt that 13,000 is absolutely absurd. So he kept it at a conservative 8,000. When I became the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, I impressed upon the executive about increasing the number of judicial posts."He added that, fortunately, Maharashtra was one such state that accepted the suggestions of the Chief Justice. The number of posts was increased by 2,500 in one go; yet, the pendency issue remained the same, since there was no corresponding increase in infrastructure."It was 3,000 earlier; it has become 5,469. What is the working strength? Working strength is the same. Vacancies have increased. Percentage increase is 56%. Now, why is it that this extra additional post cannot be filled up? First, there is no infrastructure, no court, no support staff. Secondly, where is the pool of law graduates from whom we will be filling up these posts? As it is, when it is 3,000, there is a vacancy of 5 to 10%. At one go, we have increased the posts,but without any infrastructure and without a pool of law graduates who can fill up these posts."He quoted Justice RV Raveendran, former judge of the Supreme Court, who had said: "When a judge has 300 to 500 cases, he feels let me deal with each case and do justice. But if a judge has 2000 cases, it becomes oppressive, and the judge starts thinking of disposing of cases rather than doing justice."Government delays in clearing recommendationsJustice Datta also criticised delays on the part of the government in processing judicial appointment recommendations forwarded by the collegium, saying such delays contribute directly to unfilled vacancies.Referring to a chart of vacancies in the High Court, Justice Datta said: "Now a question arises, why are posts not filled up? Now, most of the time, the blame is placed on the High Court Collegium and the Chief Justice. Chief Justice, you know when your judges are retiring, why don't you send names? Well, if names are sent, the names are kept pending at the governmental level at least for five to six months. Thereafter, the files move. "Sharing personal experiences, he said some advocates have declined consideration for judgeship due to uncertainty in the appointment process or concerns about financial viability. According to him, talented lawyers are increasingly reluctant to join the Bench because judicial salaries and service conditions may not meet their financial commitmentsJustice Datta shared four instances : "The first one, an advocate, was recommended when he was below 45. By the time the recommendation reached the Supreme Court, he was plus 45. Central government returned the recommendation of the Supreme Court on the ground that he was below 45. Next time, when the case came up for reconsideration before the High Court Collegium, he appeared with folded hands and said, Sir, two years is a big enough time. I've lost sufficiently well in practice. Please don't embarrass me. He goes out.Second incident, most of the High Court judges of a particular High Court feel that one particular advocate is suitable for being recommended as a judge. He comes up and seeks my advice. Please tell me, Sir, I'll take it that the High Court Collegium will clear my name. The Supreme Court Collegium will clear my name. Can you guarantee that the government will clear my name? I said no. Then he said, I don't want to put my head under the guillotine. I went to Bombay. I found three, four very...

Judiciary Alone Can't Be Blamed For Case Pendency, Executive Also Responsible : Justice Dipankar Datta

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Justice Datta flagged the Govts' delays in clearing appointments, failure to increase the judge-population ratio, and neglect of judicial infrastructure.

Tags