Report No. 121
Statement of Replies Received from Various High Courts
|I.||Recruitment to lowest cadre of Judiciary by P.S.C.||Yes.||1. Yes. Magisterial Service: New Rules from 1973. After 1973 no selection has been made by P.S.C. The matter is pending in H.C. Judicial Service: From 1975-85 no appointments were made. In 1985. 1400 applicants for 60 posts. In 1986, 15030 applicants for 128 posts.|
|(i) Does it get adequate response?||(i) Yes.||Yes.
(i) 10 posts to be filled by direct recruitment. At present about 388 applicants for 6 vacancies Grade I is filled by promotion from Grade II.
|(ii) Is the Zone large enough to select the good candidates and reject the unwanted.||(ii) Deterioration of standard of education so ideal candidates not available. To attract Sound Talent sources at national level have to be tapped and AILS has to be created. Zone large but quality no' available.|
|(iii) If the response is not adequate then reasons for the same.|
|II.||Whether provision for direct recruitment at the middle level of Judiciary? If yes;|
|(i) Quota.||(i) I/3rd by direct recruitment but for last 8 years no direct recruit on a dispute with the Govt. over rules. Govt. want a body other thin H.C. for appointing Judges contrary to Article 234.|
|(iii) Period of recruitment.||(iii) As and when vacancies occur.|
|(iv) Adequacy of response.||(iv) and|
|(v) Good candidates whether available? If not-reasons||(v) In view of (i) cannot answer. But understands no quantitative hurdle, quality also ample.|
|III.||1. Whether able lawyers with good practice willing to accept judgeship in High Court?||1. Yes.||1. No.|
|2. Revised emoluments if sufficient attraction||2. Yes.||2. Not necessarily.|
|IV.||Relevant considerations for appointment to High Court.|
|(i) Income.||(i) Objective indication of the work and status of a lawyer.||(i) Yes.|
|(ii) Standing at the Bar.||(ii) Long standing at the Bar irrelevant younger men should be picked up who should have a long and meaningful tenure.||(ii) Yes.|
|(iii) Caste.||(iii) No.||(iii) No.|
|(iv) Reservation principle, if any or any other consideration.||(iv) No. Some attempts to bring parity w.r.t. minorities, women and backward classes.
No transferred judge would be compensated by Transfer allowance entitling him to visit his home town twice a year by air. Some lawyers eager to be employed outside so that later on they can practice in their Home State.
|(iv) No. but it is borne in mind that candidates from under privileged section should be given representation on High Courts.
Not so far as this High Court is concerned. Assessment orders of the three preceding years are asked for.
|V.||1. Whether power to transfer under Article 222 and as interpreted by SC in Sankal Chand Gupta's case has acted as a dampener? If yes-illustrate.||No. Transferred Judge would be compensated by Transfer Allowance initiating him to visit his hometown twice a year by air. Some lawyers eager to be appointed outside so that later on they can practice in their house state,||No. so far as this High Court is concerned Assessment orders for the three preceding years are asked for.|
|2. Income-tax Assessment Order if insisted on.|
|VI.||1. Whether present strength of Judges adequate to deal with inflow of cases and backlog?||1. Yes. Recently increased strength adequate to deal with inflow of cases but may not be sufficient to reduce the backlog but disposal rates vary with Judges in the way. Some Judges do not pull their weight to face the problem.||1. No.|
|2. Strength fixed as to?||2. Yes.||2. Number of cases Pending and the normal disposal per year per Judge.|
|(i) Institution of cases.|
|(ii) Population basis.|
|(iii) Area of the state.|
|3. Is the strength reviewed? If yes-at what interval?||3. No foxed interval.||3. Not at any particular interval.|
|4. When was it last reviewed?||4. 1984.||4. 1986.|
|VII.||1. Under Article 224, whether additional Judges are appointed?||1. Yes, but since 1982 all additional Judges converted into permanent. Disfavours Article 274 after S.P. Gupta and others in stances where terms of Additional Judges are sought to be extended for short term favours ad hoc Judges under Article 224A for backlog.||1. At the moment all Judges are permanent.|
|2. Time lapse in confirmation-whether anyone not confirmed.||2. In Punjab and Haryana. Shib Chandra Prasad not confirmed in 1960. Harbans Singh's period was allowed to lapse but later on he was confirmed.||2. Generally after two years. All confirmed.|
|VIII.||Enormous delay in filling vacancies.|
|(i) Causes.||1. Delay in filling vacancies. In 1982-86, 14 vacancies in High Court-still 7 vacancies and four new to arise this year. State political processes treat the vacancies as a matter of patronage and attempt to have appointees of their choice which is resisted by Chief Justice and a statement occurs.||1. Inordinate delay in filling up the vacancies. Delay at the government level in the State and Centre High Court completely in dark as to why proposals not processed and the ground on which a particular proposal not acceptable.|
|(ii) At what end delay occurs.||2. At Chief Minister's level. Despite repeated, reminders recommendations are allowed to lie even upto two years. The Union Government's directive that recommendation of Chief Justice should be forwarded within a month not observed.||2. Inordinate delay in filling up the vacancies. Delay at the government level in the State and Centre High Court completely in dark as to why proposals not processed and the ground on which a particular proposal not acceptable.|
|(iii) Whether CJ recommends promptly in view of anticipated vacancy.||3. Yes. Six months in advance but the promptness loses all meaning if Chief Minister's office does not corroborate.||3. Sometime proposals made in anticipation of vacancies.|
|(iv) Trace the movement of file containing recommendations.||4. Chief Justice-Chief Minister' Governor Law Minister-Chief Justice of India- reprocessed in Law Ministry-P.M.'s Secretariat-President follows the same process to and fro with added objections and queries.||4.-|
|(v) Whether personal division discussion between CJ & CM.||5. Yes. But names should always originate from Chief Justice since he knows the candidates' ability better.||5. Rarely.|
|(vi) If helpful.||6. Personal discussion is of limited utility. Trend is to bargain over corresponding names which has an insidious effect. Wrong appointments can have deleterious effect on the character and working of the Court.||6. Not much.|
|(vii) Whether CM recommends names.||7. Yes. Chief Minister invariably recommends names.||7. So far one name received from the C.M.|
|(viii) Illustrate, if recommendation approved, by GJ, CM, CJI by/but rejected by Union Govt.||8. Innumerable instances, without relevant papers can't recall names. In Punjab and Haryana High Court. In Patna G.C. Bharukha not appointed for three years and then he withdrew his name.||8. This information easily available from the flies of Union Government.|
|IX.||Delay in filling vacancies from 1980 till date.|
|X.||Solutions to make the system more resilient, flexible and result oriented.|