Parliament watch: Transparency and accountability in appointment of judges as important as augmenting judges strength in the SC: Ravi Shankar Prasad

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]HE Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad today informed the Lok Sabha that there were 403 vacancies in the various High Courts, whereas the Supreme Court of India had reached its full strength of 31 Judges for the first time since 2009.

Answering questions from Members of Parliament (MP) Adoor Prakash and Manicka Tagore, the Law Minister said that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi had sent a proposal for augmenting the strength of judges in the Supreme Court so that it could function efficiently and retain its goal of rendering timely justice to the litigant public. The CJI had also proposed the increase in the retirement age of high court judges for ensuring the continued availability of experienced judges, improving the vacancy position and reducing the pendency of cases, the minister said.

He said while the matter of augmenting the judges strength of the Supreme Court and the increase in the retirement age of high court judges needed to be considered,  measures to ensure transparency, accountability in the appointment of judges and court and case management for reduction in pendency of cases in the higher judiciary must also be taken into account, the law minister informed the Lok Sabha.

On the issue of pendency,  Prasad said as on July 1, 2019,  there were 59331 cases pending in the Supreme Court and 43.55 lakh cases in the high courts.

The delay in the disposal of cases in the higher judiciary, according to the law minister, was not only due to the shortage of judges, but also due to various factors such as:

(i)         increasing number of state and central legislation,

(ii)        accumulation of first appeals,

(iii)       continuation of ordinary civil jurisdiction in some of the High Courts,

(iv)       Appeals against orders of quasi-judicial forums goings to High Courts,

(v)        number of revision/appeals,

(vi)       frequent adjournments,

(vii)      indiscriminate use of writ jurisdiction and

(viii)     lack of adequate arrangements to monitor, track and bunch cases for hearing, and

(ix)       long vacation period of court,

(x)        assignment of administrative work to the judges, etc.

 

Read the reply here

[pdfviewer]https://cdn.theleaflet.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/10145213/Law-Minister_Lok-Sabha_CJI.pdf[/pdfviewer]