Report No. 14

Table No. 1

Statement Showing The work Done in The High Court of Allahabad During The Year 1948-1956

Year		1948	1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956	Remarks
No. of Judges		20	20	20	20	20	19	21	23	24
First Appeals	I	529	338	468	549	533	417	602	552	731
	D	454	305	269	363	342	352	373	283	426
	P	2407	2440	2639	2825	3016	3081	3310	3579	3384
Second Appeals	I	2673	2016	2773	2862	2793	2915	2682	2967	3010	I-Institution
	D	1625	2502	3398	1788	2073	1670	1738	2570	2378	D-Disposal
	P	7195	6709	6084	7158	7878	9123	10067	10464	11096	P-Pendency
Appeals	I	425	509	457	214	405	689	412	436	440
	D	441	621	396	190	230	294	307	424	407
	P	927	815	876	900	1075	1170	1284	1296	1329
Letters Patent Appeals	I	20	41	46	102	56	90	221	509	344
	D	26	56	38	33	43	64	125	222	300
	P	136	121	129	227	240	266	362	649	693
Civil Revisions	I	1189	1408	1700	1858	1701	1742	1663	1807	1899
	D	26	56	38	33	43	64	125	222	300
	P	136	121	129	227	240	266	362	649	693
Writ Petitions	I	..	..	384	8876	776	1175	1564	1461	5025
	D	1259	1864	1129	848	4928	1072	1427	1681	1601
	P	2042	1586	2187	3167	3940	4610	4854	4980	5278
Criminal Appeals	I	1062	1474	1486	1433	1889	2385	2438	2392	2453
	D	1046	1294	1147	842	1131	1609	1724	2177	3127
	P	828	1008	1347	1938	2696	3472	4186	4401	3727
Confirmation Cases	I	147	149	142	166	185	211	241	246	244
	D	119	139	124	176	200	185	240	239	289
	P	61	71	89	79	64	90	108	115	70
Criminal Revisions	I	1807	2278	2442	2918	2752	3093	2655	2878	2094
	D	1743	2334	2055	2186	2234	2654	2771	3251	1931
	P	731	675	1062	1794	2312	2756	2640	2267	2031

Inadequacy of judicial strength.- This statement shows the very heavy congestion of work in the High Court. There has actually been an enormous increase in the institutions during the past four decades. In 1930, the total number of proceedings instituted in the Allahabad High Court and Chief Court of Oudh was 7,449, in 1940 the number rose to 9591, in 1950 to 19,131 and in 1957 to 24,980. In every class of proceeding, whether it be First Appeals, or Second Appeals, Writ Petitions or Criminal Appeals, there has been a gradual but unmistakable rise in the quantum of work the institutions always exceeding the disposals.

But unfortunately, in spite of the rising institutions, there has been no correspondingly adequate increase in the strength of the High Court. Thus, while the institutions in 1950 were twice the volume in 1940, the strength of the High Court was raised only by 3 judges, from 17 in 1940 to 20 in 1950. It is obvious, therefore, that one major factor responsible for the alarming accumulation of arrears, carried over from year to year, during the past many years, is the continuous shortage of judges in the High Court.

It is quite apparent, that with the present strength of 25 judges, it will be impossible for the High Court to control its file. The magnitude of the problem of arrears can be best appreciated, by estimating the period of time which will be required to clear the existing accumulations.

Taking the disposal in the year 1956 as the basis, when with the maximum strength of judges available in the High Court the disposing capacity of the High Court was perhaps the greatest, it would roughly take the High Court more than 9 years to finish the regular First Appeals, 41/2 years for the regular Second Appeals, 3 years for appeals against orders and civil revisions, 2 years for Letters Patent Appeals and more than one year for criminal appeals and criminal revisions, on the hypothesis that all the judges are employed exclusively to the work of clearing the existing arrears. The gravity of the problem will be perceived from the statement (Table No. 2) which indicates the year in which the matters pending at the close of 1956 were instituted.

These colossal arrears did not show any sign of abatement even during the last year, that is, 1957; actually the number of pending matters further rose from 37,686 to 41,512. This picture of the Court's struggling year after year with swelling arrears is distressing. When we visited Allahabad in December 1956, we were informed that the First Appeals instituted in 1944-45 were still awaiting decision. An instance was also brought to our notice when a criminal revision was heard and the accused was acquitted after he had served out a sentence of 18 months imprisonment. It is difficult to describe the disposal of cases after such delays as the administration of justice.

Table No. 2

Nature of Proceeding	Year of Institutions
	1944 and earlier	1945	1946	1947	1948	1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956	Total
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Regular First Appeals	28	100	195	173	248	188	343	381	363	361	396	513	595	3884
2. Regular Second Appeals	..	2	1	10	26	92	843	1372	1527	1565	1536	1968	2154	1306
3. Appeal against Orders	6	..	4	2	5	17	24	34	152	167	257	313	346	1327
4. Letters Patent Appeals	1	..	1	2	..	5	11	50	42	62	70	71	44	359
5. Civil Revisions	1	1	5	4	11	21	118	703	715	778	786	913	1222	5278
6. Writ Petitions	..	....	..	..	..	..	..	1	..	1	28	143	3121	3294
7. Criminal Revisions	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	3	40	295	1408	1981	3727
8. Criminal Revisions	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	..	2	23	877	1129	2031