50% vacancies, mounting pendency: The Allahabad High Court's growing judicial crisis

The Allahabad High Court is functioning at just under 50% of its sanctioned strength of 160, with only 79 judges (including the Chief Justice) hearing cases.

Despite the alarming pendency of 11,41,687 cases before the High Court as of January 1, 2025, not much has been done to fill these vacancies on a war footing.

In December 2024, the Supreme Court Collegium made one recommendation for Advocate Praveen Kumar Giri to be appointed as a judge and his name was approved by the Central government on January 23.

No other recommendations were made despite the awareness of the pendency and shortage of judges. Last year, data shows that mostly transfers were made, or additional judges were appointed as permanent judges. (here, here, here and here).

Speaking to Bar & Bench, former Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Govind Mathur said that this issue has been ongoing for a long time.

"Long ago, Justice PN Bhagwati stated that the Indian judicial system was on the verge of collapse. While there must have been strong reasons for this statement forty years ago, today it is not just the judges but also the general public who believe that the health of the Indian judiciary is severely compromised," he remarked.

A major contributing factor to this issue is the failure to fill judicial vacancies in the High Courts, he emphasised. According to him, the Allahabad High Court frequently recommends names, but the government fails to act in time.

"The highest number of judges in this Court was 112 in November and December of 2018. This situation is not unique to the Allahabad High Court; other High Courts face similar challenges. For instance, the Rajasthan High Court, which has a total strength of 60 judges, has never had more than 39 judges. This shortage of High Court judges continues to add to the growing backlog of cases," he underscored.

To put things in perspective, the Kerala High Court has had more appointments in the last five years than the Allahabad High Court, despite having less than 1/3rd the sanctioned strength. As of January 2025, the Kerala High Court has only 2 vacancies and a working strength of 45 judges.

For the sake of clarity, we look at how exactly High Court judges are appointed.

The Chief Justice and judges of High Courts are appointed by the President, according to Article 217 of the Constitution. The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) available on the Department of Justice website states that High Court appointments should follow a timely schedule.

As per the MoP, when a vacancy is expected, the Chief Justice of a particular High Court should communicate recommendations to the Chief Minister at least six months in advance. These recommendations must include details about candidates and should be discussed with two senior colleagues for their written opinions.

The process usually begins with the Chief Justice initiating a proposal, but the Chief Minister can also suggest candidates. Copies of proposals should be sent to the Governor, the Chief Justice of India and the Union Minister of Law to expedite the process. The Governor, advised by the Chief Minister, must forward recommendations to the Union Minister within six weeks. If no response is received in this time, it will be assumed there are no further comments.

The Union Minister will review the recommendations and relevant reports before sending them to the Chief Justice of India for advice. The Chief Justice of India, with the Collegium of two senior-most Supreme Court judges, will form an opinion on appointments, after considering input from the High Court's Chief Justice and consulted judges.

After consultations, the Chief Justice of India recommends names to the Union Law Minister within four weeks. Once these names are considered, they should not be sent back to state authorities unless necessary. The Union Minister will then present the recommendations to the Prime Minister, within three weeks.

All correspondence in this process should be documented, and once the President approves the appointment, the Secretary of the Government of India will inform the Chief Justice of the High Court. The selected candidate must then provide medical and birth certificates.

Once the appointment warrant is signed, the Chief Justice will be notified, and the appointment will be published in the Gazette of India.

Justice Mathur stated that although there is a complete procedure in place, there are still delays in the appointment process. He also noted that it is typically the names of lawyers that experience the longest delays.

"Three names approved by the Supreme Court Collegium in 2020 - Dhruv Mathur, Imran Ullah, and Manu Khare - have been pending with the government for a long time," he highlighted.

Notably, the name of Mathur was recommended again by the Supreme Court Collegium in 2021, along with others. While the Central government cleared ten names for appointment, Mathur and two others were overlooked.

Due to the shortage of judges, there is a huge pendency of cases as well. As of January 1, 2025, the number of cases pending at the Principal Bench in Allahabad High Court is 9,29,607, while the Lucknow Bench has 2,12,080 pending cases.

The high number of pending cases indicates significant delays in the judicial process, affecting the timely delivery of justice.

In recent years, terms like "not listed" and "not reached" have emerged to describe cases that remain unlisted or untaken, said Justice Mathur.

"In large High Courts, it is common to have more than 300 cases scheduled each day. It is humanly impossible for a single judge to address all these cases. The overwhelming number of new cases leaves no time for courts to hear and resolve older cases."

As per information taken from the official High Court website, on January 16, the cause list for a single bench in Courtroom number 73 had 825 fresh cases and 202 additional cases (total 1,027 cases).

Similarly, the combined cause list for January 17, which ran over 2,218 pages, showed more than 200 fresh cases listed in almost every court, in addition to the cases already scheduled for hearing.

For the single bench hearing in Courtroom number 77 on January 17, there were 306 fresh cases and 200 additional cases (total 506 cases). Similarly, for Courtroom number 73, there were 617 fresh cases and 202 additional cases (total 819 cases).

It is easy to imagine the immense burden on the current judges and understand why it takes months for fresh matters to be heard.

Many lawyers currently practicing in the High Court revealed that this situation has led to frustration among the judges, who feel overburdened, while the lawyers themselves feel helpless.

"Every day, I face clients who come to me with hope, entrusting their lives and futures to the system, only to watch their cases linger in limbo for years and their hopes teetering under the shadow of delay," said lawyer Shashwat Anand, who practices before the Allahabad High Court.

Cases meant to be resolved in months now stretch into years, and justice -meant to be swift and resolute - feels like a fading promise, he added.

"We can adopt some best practices from other jurisdictions or employ judicial and legislative mechanisms of our own. But if we don’t act now, we risk turning our courts into monuments of unfulfilled promises. Justice delayed is not only justice denied; it is justice abandoned, and with it, the faith of those who need it the most."

Another lawyer practicing in High Court expressed,

"Litigants are suffering immensely due to the lack of judges in the High Court. On an average, approximately 150-200 cases are listed before each court at Lucknow and approximately 300–400 cases are listed before each court at Allahabad. Out of the cases listed, only fresh matters (top 10 matters) are being taken up and the rest of the cases are generally not heard due to paucity of time."

Advocate Yash Giri, who practices in Delhi and often appears before the Allahabad High Court, said that the situation adversely affects the quality of justice.

"Judges, constrained by time and workload, cannot dedicate sufficient time to hear arguments at length. Consequently, hearings are often rushed, and decisions are based on quick formulas or set templates, rather than detailed deliberations."

So who is to be blamed or held accountable for the lack of timely appointments?

In 2023, a question was raised in the Lok Sabha pointing out that the Allahabad High Court had the highest number of vacancies among the High Courts.

In response, then Law Minister Kiren Rijiju stated that 27 proposals recommended by the Allahabad High Court Collegium for the appointment of judges are at various stages of processing, while recommendations for 37 vacancies have yet to be received from the Collegium.

This response from the Law Ministry suggested that the High Court doesn't recommend enough names to the Centre for the appointment of judges.

Justice Mathur, on the other hand, opined that most High Courts are prompt in making recommendations for appointments. However, the Supreme Court and the Central government often delay acting on these recommendations, he said.

"While not stipulated in the Memorandum of Procedure, the Supreme Court Collegium has taken to interviewing or interacting with candidates recommended for High Court judgeships, which casts doubt on the efficacy of the High Court Collegium. Similarly, the Central government often delays clearing the recommendations made by the Supreme Court for extended periods, sometimes withholding approval for candidates without providing any explanation."

The lack of coordination among the three tiers of the appointment system is a significant reason for the delay in filling up judicial vacancies in High Courts, he said.

"It would be prudent to harmonise the appointment process to ensure that no judicial post remains vacant for more than a week under any circumstances, including retirements. Furthermore, the system must ensure that the sanctioned strength of judges in every High Court is met in its entirety," Justice Mathur suggested.

He further said that in 2018, 28 judges were appointed in one go, and during that time, everyone could see the Allahabad High Court functioning smoothly.

On more than occasion, the Supreme Court of India has expressed concern over the functioning of the Allahabad High Court when it comes to listing of cases.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh made this remark while hearing a plea filed by Uttar Pradesh MLA Abbas Ansari, who claimed that his property dispute was not being heard by the High Court:

"We don't want to comment. Some of the High Courts we don't know what will happen and this is one of the High Court which really one should be worrisome about," Justice Surya Kant remarked.

On January 8, the apex court expressed shock over the Allahabad High Court's delay in deciding the bail application of an accused in a murder case.

The accused told the top court that he has been in custody for about six years now and despite that, his application for bail was adjourned 16 times by the High Court.

"We are shocked to learn from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the bail application filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad bearing Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 40542 of 2020 is still pending as on date," the Court had said.

The High Court itself, in a recent order dated January 8, painted a bleak picture on how things were working. While granting bail to an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, observing that there was heavy pendency of appeals and acute shortage of judges to hear the case in time.

"...in view of heavy pendency of appeals before this Court, coupled with the fact that there is acute shortage of Judges in the High Court, there is no likelihood of the present appeal being heard in near future."

The chronic shortage of judges in the Allahabad High Court, coupled with the ever-growing pendency of cases, has placed immense pressure on the judiciary and severely affected the justice delivery system in Uttar Pradesh.

To restore faith in the judiciary and ensure timely justice, it is imperative for all stakeholders - the Supreme Court and High Court Collegiums, as well as the Central and State governments - to collaborate and expedite appointments, so that the working strength at least comes close to the sanctioned strength.