Supreme Court Seeks Responses Of HCs To NCMSC Report On Aspects Of Judge Strength, Case Load, Infrastructure
Mehal Jain
7 July 2021 8:01 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Wednesday called for the responses of all High Courts to the suggestions and recommendations of the NCMSC on the aspects of judge strength, case load and infrastructure.The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah passed this direction in connection with the Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of UP matter, where on January 2, 2017, the court had ordered that until the National...
This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers
Subscribe Premium 
INR 1099+GST
Your support helps us to bring you more content at
an affordable subscription scheme !!!
All payment options available
The Supreme Court on Wednesday called for the responses of all High Courts to the suggestions and recommendations of the NCMSC on the aspects of judge strength, case load and infrastructure.
The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah passed this direction in connection with the Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of UP matter, where on January 2, 2017, the court had ordered that until the National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC) formulates a scientific method for determining the basis for computing the required judge strength of the district judiciary, the judge strength shall be computed for each state, in accordance with the interim approach indicated in the note submitted by the Chairperson, NCMSC. The NCMSC had suggested that the clearance of backlog is not the sole or central basis for determining judge strength, but the following parameters were also to be considered viz. (i) rate of case clearance: the number of cases disposed of as a percentage of institution; (ii) on time disposal rate – the percentage of cases resolved within an established time frame; (iii) pre-trial custody periods wherein an under-trial is in custody pending trial of a criminal case; and (iv) trial date certainty – the proportion of important case processing provisions that are held according to the schedule finalised. On January 2, 2017, the Court had also requested the NCMSC to endeavour to submit its final report by December 31, 2017.
Pursuant to the Court's orders dated 02.01.2017, the National Court Management Systems Committee (NSMSC) sent its report in five volumes to the Supreme Court Registry through the Secretary General. On January 20, 2020, the Court permitted the Union of India to file its response to the report submitted by the Committee presided over by Justice A K Sikri, former Judge of the Supreme Court. The State of UP and the Delhi Administration were also at liberty to file their responses and suggestions.
On Wednesday, Senior Advocate Vibha Dutt Makhija submitted that the report gives thumb rules on how to calculate the judge strength, the parameters for computing the adequate judge strength. She suggested that a committee may be constituted, comprising inter alia the finance secretary and the law secretary, for making the calculations and implementation of the report across states.
ASG K. M. Nataraj also pointed out that the increase of lower judiciary strength has a financial bearing on states and that the states may have to be heard on this aspect.
"In pursuance of the order of January 2, 2017, the committee headed by Justice Sikri has submitted its report in 5 volumes. The UOI has filed its response to the report. But it appears that the state of UP and NCT of Delhi have yet to file responses. We allow 4 weeks finally to the aforesaid to do the needful, after which no adjournment will be granted for that purpose. Ms. Makhija has proposed a roadmap in terms of report of the committee headed by Justice Sikri to compute judge strength in every state. Mr. Natraj has committed to seek instructions as to the roadmap for the future", recorded the bench in its order.
Justice Shah pointed out that the number of judges is only one problem, the second being with regard to infrastructure, which, the judge said, is the main problem. "There are 8,900 judges need in UP. I saw this in Bihar also and certain other states. But there is no court building, no staff! Financial aid has to be there from the state government. Unless infrastructure is created, there is no use and purpose of only increasing the strength", observed Justice Shah.
Justice Shah noted that it is necessary to also call for responses from the High Courts as every High Court has a state management committee and ultimately, the constant monitoring and supervision of the infrastructural and other issues pertaining to the subordinate judiciary is their responsibility.
The bench then added the issues of "infrastructure" and "case-load" to "judge-strength" in its order.
"A copy of the recommendation in the report be circulated to all High Courts together with relevant parts of the report pertaining to each High Court. The Registry shall make the same available in electronic form to the Secretary General or Registrar General of the High Court. The High Courts shall also file responses to the suggestions and recommendations in 6 weeks", added the bench in its order.
Interestingly, when the matter first came up for hearing before the bench on Wednesday, an adjournment was sought. At this, Justice Chandrachud remarked, "If left to the Union of India and the states, no work would happen at the Supreme Court. The government is the largest litigant and in every matter, with few exceptions, there is an application for time"
Click Here To Download/Read order
Next Story