Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Increase Judge To Population Ratio

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a PIL seeking to ehance the judge to population ratio to 50 judges per million to curb case pendency across the country. The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R Mahadevan was hearing the PIL filed by Forum for Fast Justice. At the outset, the CJI, seemingly disinclined to entertain the plea, pointed out that the matter to be considered by the administrative side of the Court. "We do not require a PIL for this issue. I know how to handle it administratively." Advocate Anjani Kumar Mishra, appearing for the petitione,r however, stressed that there were only 10.5 judges per million persons in the country and there was a need for enhancement of the judges-to-people ratio. Noting that the issue demands an administrative consideration by the Supreme Court in consultation with other High Courts, the PIL was dismissed. The PIL had sought a stricter implementation of the directions passed in Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh where the Supreme Court directed the adoption of a scientific method to enhance the judge to population ration , and asked the National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC) to formulate policy to increase number of judges and processes to reduce pendency of cases in different courts in the Country. The plea also highlighted the previous directions in All India Judges Association Case 2002 where directions were passed to "increase judge strength fivefold from 10.5 to 50 per million, to fill up existing vacancies by 2003, to create ad-hoc posts of judges and commensurate infrastructure by 2007, and yet these directions still await implementation by the respective governments.The plea states that the President of the Forum proposed to go on an indefinite fast. The petitioners had approached the Bombay High Court previously but the PIL was not entertained. The following reliefs were sought : A. Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of India and State Governments to implement the specific directions passed by this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Appeal No. 254-262 of 2012 titled 'Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others' and All India Judges Association (2002) 2002 (2) SCR 712 by framing a time-bound National Judicial Manpower Plan to achieve 50 judges per million population.;B.Direct the NCMSC to formulate a scientific method for determining the basis for computing the required number of judges for the High Court and the Supreme Court of India on urgent basis in addition to the required number of judges in the District Courts on an ongoing basis every 5 years; andC. Direct the respondents to formulate a master plan of 5 years to finish the pending litigations in various courts by suitable means such as employing and taking assistance of the suitable retired judicial officers, suitable members of the Bar and other legal experts by appointing them as ad-hoc judges, if so required; andD. Direct the Union and State Government to assess year wise progress of judicial infrastructure and facilities in the Courts and making available the required infrastructure, services, facilities, technology tools, equipment and suitably trained manpower that meets the needs and expectations of the litigants for a fast, transparent, efficient and cost effective justice without burdening the judicial officers with unbearable, unmanageable and irrational workload; andE. Direct the Government of India and State Governments to allocate adequate budgetary support to the judiciary, legal aid systems and alternative disputes settlement mechanisms; andF. Appoint expert panel of legal luminaries (watchdog) to advice and suggest necessary ways and means to improve condition of judiciary and its infrastructure considering ground realities and current needs and aspirations of the people of India; andG. Direct application of appropriate state of the art technology tools including blockchain, Artificial Intelligence and other information and communication technology tools to impart speedy, transparent, fair and efficient justice delivery system to the people of India; andH. Make the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, or any other designated authority considered appropriate for the purpose, responsible and accountable for monitoring and exercising regulatory control, superintendence and discipline over the organs involved in the planning of speedy and effective administration of justice.Case Details : FORUM FOR FAST JUSTICE AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS| W.P.(C) No. 48/2026Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Increase Judge To Population Ratio

Anmol Kaur Bawa

The CJI observed that the Court knew how to deal with the issue administratively.

Tags