Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Monday, April 29, 2024

CJI Ranjan Gogoi Demonstrates His Firm Resolve And Firm Commitment To Expeditiously Fill Up Judicial Vacancies In Lower Courts

Posted in: Supreme Court
Sat, Nov 10, 18, 13:17, 6 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4290
It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously

It is most reassuring, refreshing and re consoling to note that for the first time in at least my memory have I ever noticed a Chief Justice of India who even before assuming office outlined his priorities very clearly and courageously - to fill up judicial vacancies especially in lower courts which are at an all time high and also in the high courts and even the Supreme Court and to ensure that justice is accessible to the poor, needy and deprived. We have seen for ourselves how many decades are consumed in deciding a very small petty case what to talk about complex cases like the one of Ayodhya which has been lingering since last more than 65 years. This must now come to an end and CJI Ranjan Gogoi appears fully committed to ensure this.

To be sure, the Supreme Court on November 1 cautioned the States and the High Courts that it will resort to a "centralised selection mechanism" if they do not act promptly to fill the over 5,000 judicial posts lying vacant in the lower judiciary. The Apex Court did not pull back punches in reprimanding the States and also the High Courts for their inefficiency in filling the vacancies in the subordinate judiciary which is staggering at an all time high. It is a national shame that it takes many decades for cases to be decided even in lower courts and despite all this, the judicial vacancies are not filled up and it takes many months for the results of Preliminary exams to come and when it does come then another few months are consumed in conducting Mains and then months in interview and then again a lot of time in declaring the final merit list. Even after the final merit list is declared, it still takes a lot of time for successful candidates to ultimately join. This is especially true in big states like UP which has maximum pending cases and where maximum judges vacancies arise every year.

Not just this, what is noticed is that some High Courts even attach minimum marks with interview for qualifying even though Supreme Court in Himani Malhotra v NCT (State of Delhi) and in other cases also clearly held that there would be no minimum marks for interview as it is whimsical, arbitrary and subject to the whhims and fancies of a single individual. Even vacancies are not notified for many years as we saw in Delhi where no vacancy was notified for HJS from 2010-2013 and in some other states like Haryana, Rajasthan etc the situation was much worse. Worst of all, arbitrary conditions are attached like candidate desiring to appear in exam must have minimum salary of few lakhs in a year as we saw in Haryana from 2014 onwards which deprives those bright lawyers from appearing in exam just because they don't earn in few lakhs which under no circumstances can ever be justified because money can be no criteria for appearing in an exam for judge. Even eminent lawyers like KTS Tulsi did not get cases for initital few years in Supreme Court so was he not treated as lawyer and how can this be a handicap for barring him to appear in an exam for becoming Judge? By the way, money minded lawyers never want to become judge with few exceptions because for them money is first and top priority and as a Judge their salary is very miniscule when compared to their salary as a lawyer where they can mint money as much as they like by dint of their expertise and skills. This must all end and this is exactly what the CJI wants and very rightly so.

Bluntly put, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justice UU Lalit and Justice KM Joseph lambasted the High Courts and the States for not doing enough to fill up judicial vacancies in the lower judiciary both in the PCS and HJS. They held that, "We are telling all high courts and states that we are keeping you under constant gaze. If you cannot fill vacancies, then we will take over and have a centralised exam. We want our judges to be in place."

As it turned out, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi rebuked the states and high courts for not filling up vacancies. The CJI minced no words in putting across his firm and blunt message by observing that, "Our gaze is on all states. If the vacancies cannot be filled by you, we will take over and do what is needed....There are hordes of applications by candidates who are deserving and what are you doing? Nothing was initiated to address the issue till we began monitoring. Our recurring queries have also not yielded any definite replies."
What is even more disquieting to note is that even Centre itself is not happy with all this. The Centre has proposed a centralised examination to fill them up, pointing to a staggering 2,76,74,499 cases pending in subordinate courts. Statistics reveal that there are 5,223 vacancies in trial courts. Why still have states and high courts miserably failed in filling up vacancies in time and in ensuring that results are declared in time and soon fresh vacancies are notified? Why was there no sense of urgency? With what face will now they accuse Centre of meddling in their domain when they have just not ensured the filling up of judicial vacancies in time? What is the point in now opposing the suggestion?

As things stand, the situation in Delhi and Haryana was discussed as an example. It was pointed out by the Bench that Delhi had taken at least a year to fill up just 200 vacancies. Pulling up the Delhi High Court, the CJI said that, "It is taking over a year to complete the selection and recruitment when the number of posts is only 200. This casual attitude is not justified."

As if this was not enough, in Haryana, the Bench revealed that the examination held in 2015 for filling up 60 posts of Judges was announced and 19,000 law graduates applied but it was cancelled and the fresh advertisement issued in 2018 attracted a huge rush with 13,000 more candidates applying which understandably led to collapse of the official website on the last date of application. No wonder, CJI Ranjan Gogoi was constrained to remark that, "All high courts and public service commissions (agency that holds exams) have been very casual." All High Courts and Public Service Commissisons which is the agency that holds exams must seriously do a lot of self-introspection because it is none other than the CJI and 2 Judges of the Apex Court also along with him who have come to this unpalatable conclusion which is a stark reality and cannot be bruhed away lightly.

Not stopping here, CJI added that nothing was initiated to address the issue till the Supreme Court began monitoring it on the administartive side. Even then, he rued, recurring queries have not yielded any definite replies. Both States and high Courts have a lot of explaining to do on this count.

It may be recalled that it was on October 22 that the Bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi took up the matter on its own volition under Article 142 of the Constitution and ordered all state governments and High Courts to update it on the status of recruitment of lower court Judges and whether the timeline for selection as laid down by the top court in a 2006 verdict by a Bench headed by the then CJI YK Sabharwal in April 2006 in the Malik Mazhar Sultan case was being followed. As per the order, appointment of new Judges to subordinate courts has to be completed in nine months. The vacancies must be notified by March 31 and they must be filled up by October 31.

Be it noted, passing a suo motu order in the wake of the alarming number of vacancies for the post of Judges in the subordinate judiciary across the country, CJI Gogoi had required all the High Courts to relay to the registry of the Apex Court the following information by October 31-
·The dates on which the recruitment processes for lower and higher judicial services have been initiated and are expected to be completed;

·Whether the time taken or likely to be taken is beyond the schedule prescribed by this court in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. UP Public Service Commission (2006). If yes, the reasons be furnished by the concerned registries;

·Whether time expected to be taken to complete the ongoing process can be shortened to comply with the guidelines in Malik Mazhar which the court undertstands to be prescribing the outer time limit and not the minimum period;

·The number of vacancies which have occurred in respect of the civil judge and the higher judicial services cadre since the date of issuance of advertisement of vacancies till the date on which the processes are expected to be completed;

·Whether the infrastructure and manpower in different states are adequate if all posts which are borne in a cadre are to be filled up.

It would be imperative to mention here that deciding to examine the status in batches, the Bench summoned in person the Registrar General and authorized representatives of the Chief Secretaries of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Delhi and the North-Eastern states on November 15 to be present for fast forwarding recruitment process. It would certainly not be an exaggeration to conclude that this is the most historic and commendable step taken by the CJI for which the whole nation must stand indebted to him instead of targeting him for not focusing on issues which in his opinion are not as important as this. The Bench of Apex Court headed by CJI has also asked the Registrars General of the concerned High Courts, the Secretaries of the State Public Service Commissions as well as the Authorized Officer(s) of the States concerned to interact with senior and eminent lawyer Shri Shyam Divan who is Amicus Curiae in this vital case to present the result/position before the Court in as precise a manner as possible.

Needless to say, if what has been commendably and courageously undertaken by CJI to fill up all judicial vacancies in the lower courts in next nine months is undertaken expeditiously, it would be the biggest revolution in judiciary ever witnessed till now and it will certainly witness the huge pending cases coming down considerably. Who will not like this to happen? Only those who place vested interests above national interets. Not even a single Judge post should ever be vacant under any circumstances just like the post of MP and MLAs are never kept vacant and immediately bye elections are held whenever the seat becomes vacant due to any reason like death of sitting MP or MLA etc. With CJI Ranjan Gogoi at the helm of affairs we all have every reason to be pretty confident that the filling up of all vacancies in lower courts will no longer be a mirage or utopia and will certainly translate into palatable reality by expeditiously filling up the vacancies for which the CJI undoubtedly deserves full credit as it is his firm resolve and firm commitment that he right from the day he assumed office has demonstrated that he means action and will not tolerate status quo of any kind as long as he is the CJI. Very rightly so.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
In the light of the latest judgment provided by the SC for commuting the death penalty of former pm Rajiv Gandhi’s assassins to life imprisonment on the ground of excessive wait on govt and President’s part to decide their whim pleas
Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India.
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, let me begin at the very beginning by first and foremost expressing my full and firm support to the growing perfectly justified demand that seeks chemical castration for child rapists
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and another v Union of India has upheld the validity of Aadhaar for availing government subsidies and benefits and for filing income tax returns! The lone dissenting Judge in this landmark case is Justice Dr DY Chandrachud. He differed entirely from the majority and struck down Section 139AA.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Narendra Damodardas Modi dismissed a string of petitions seeking an independent probe into the 2015 Rafale deal, for registration of FIR and Court-monitored investigation by CBI into corruption allegations in Rafale deal.
Judgement by the Supreme Court about energy conservation and infrastructure laws in the state of Himachal Pradesh.
In a major and significant development, the Supreme Court which is the highest court in India has for the second time designated 37 lawyers as Senior Advocates.
On 17th October 2018, the Cannabis Act came into force and Canada became the largest country in the world with a legal marijuana marketplace.
Why Only Lawyers Are Held Liable For Accepting Foreign Funding And Not Politicians? Why is it that under our Indian law only lawyers are held liable for accepting foreign funding and not politicians? Why politicians are mostly never held accountable for accepting foreign funding?
Finally Hindus Get The Right To Worship At Entire Disputed Land And Muslims Get 5 Acre In Ayodhya
I am a student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth University studying LLB. I am currently majoring in 3 yrs LLB Course from New Law College, and have started with my last year from July 2019.
230th report of Law Commission of India, it will certainly produce more diamonds like the Chief Justice of India designate Sharad Arvind Bobde who is most invaluable and even Kohinoor diamond stands just nowhere near him
Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court Of India vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the office of Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the Right to Information Act
Sections 126 to l29 deal with the privilege that is attached to Professional Communications between the legal advisors and their clients. Section 126 and 128 mention the circumstances under which the legal advisor can give evidence of such professional communication.
National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice & Anr. Vs. UOI Notifications for establishing the Gram Nyayalayas to issue the same within four weeks.. It was considering a PIL filed by National Federation Of Societies For Fast Justice.
Madhuri Jajoo vs. Manoj Jajoo has allowed the first petition for divorce by mutual consent, through the virtual hearing system.
Reepak Kansal vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court Of India has taken a stern view of the increasing tendency to blame the Registry for listing some cases more swiftly as compared to others.
upheld the Shebait rights of the erstwhile royals of Travancore in the administration, maintenance and management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice R Banumathi had assumed the role of a Supreme Court Judge on 13 August 2014. She is the sixth women to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India
Judges cannot speak out even if they are humiliated. How long can the Supreme Court and the Judges suffer the humiliation heaped regularly?
Neelam Manmohan Attavar vs Manmohan Attavar that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be maintainable in order to challenge an order which has been passed by the High Court in the exercise of its judicial powers.
Jugut Ram vs. Chhattisgarh the fact that a lathi is also capable of being used as a weapon of assault, does not make it a weapon of assault simpliciter.
Sagufa Ahmed vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd the said order extended only the period of limitation and not the period upto which delay can be condoned in exercise of discretion conferred by the statute
the legendary Kesavananda Bharati whose plea to the Apex Court is considered the real reason behind the much acclaimed Basic Structure doctrine propounded in 1973
Amar Singh vs NCT Of Delhi conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness so long he is found to be wholly reliable.
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulalthe governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed. In other words, it is high time and all the governments in our country both in the Centre and the States must now
Madhya Pradesh vs. Bherulal the governments taking for granted the period of limitation prescribed.
the manner in which Bombay High Court handled the Arnab Goswami case. A vacation Bench comprising of Justices Dr DY Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee of the Supreme Court is currently hearing the petition filed by Republic TV anchor Arnab Goswami
Indian Olympics Association vs. Kerala Olympic Association civil original jurisdiction dismissed Indian Olympics Association's (IOA) plea seeking transfer of a writ petition before Kerala High Court to Delhi High Court.
In Arnab's case, Justice Dr DY Chandrachud had minced no words to say that: There has to be a message to High Courts – Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty
It is most shocking, most disgusting and most disheartening to read that criminals are ruling the roost and making the headlines in UP time and again
Parveen vs. State of Haryana while setting aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the plea of a man in view of absence of his counsel has observed in clear, categorical
Madras Bar Association vs Union of India that exclusion of advocates in 10 out of 19 tribunals, for consideration as judicial members is contrary to the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Madras Bar Association
Inderjeet Singh Sodhi vs Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board the dismissal of special leave petition is of no consequence on the question of law. We all must bear it in mind from now on
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaixhu Xie the practice of pronouncing the final orders without reasoned judgments.
It cannot be denied by anyone that government is the biggest litigator in courts and is responsible to a large extent for the huge pending cases in different states all across the country. The top court is definitely not happy with the state of affairs and the lethargic and complacent motto of Sab Chalta Hain attitude of the governments in India.
Centre has finally decided to get its act together and constitute the All India Judicial Service (AIJS) about which we have been hearing since age
Prashant Dagajirao Patil vs. Vaibhav@Sonu Arun Pawar a High Court, while exercising bail jurisdiction cannot issue directions which will have a direct bearing upon the trial.
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle-B, Bharatpur vs M/s Bhagat Singh in exercise of itsextraordinary appellate jurisdiction that a statute must be interpreted in a just, reasonable and sensible manner
Pravat Chandra Mohanty vs Odisha refused the plea seeking compounding of offences of two police officers accused in a custodial violence case.
Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No.182/392 of 2014, acquitting the Respondents from charges under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/S Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties.
Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal and another v. Maharashtra in page 386 of the citation that: The quantum of bribe is immaterial for judging gravity of the offence under PC Act. Proceedings under PC Act cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in conclusion particularly where the accused adopted dilatory tactics.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has proposed to introduce the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, 2021.The new proposal would amend the Cinematograph Act of 1952 to grant the Centre "revisionary powers" and allow it to "re-examine" films that have already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
I have not come across a single person in my life who has not complained of milk being not up to the mark and even in my own life I don't remember how many times my mother
Akhila Bharata Kshatriya Mahasabha v/s Karnataka barring installation of statues or construction of any structure in public roads, pavements, sideways and other public utility places.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India has made it clear that State won't get a free pass by mere mention of national security.
State of MP vs Ghisilal the civil courts has no jurisdiction to try suit relating to land which is subject-matter of ceiling proceedings, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Deserving cases in Supreme Court also don't get listed in time and keep pending for a long time and not so deserving cases get listed most promptly when backed by eminent law firms and senior lawyers
Top