Full court meetings are stage-managed; only 16 meetings in last 10 years: Allahabad High Court

In a startling comment on the administrative functioning of the Allahabad High Court, sitting Justice Vinod Diwakar has said that full court meetings of the High Court are many times stage-managed very much like a government "whips" majority in a confidence vote.

Justice Diwakar added that proceedings of the full court do not record the concurrence or dissent of individual Judges.

"It was given an impression that last two full court meetings of this Court were stage-managed in the manner of a government whipping its members through a confidence vote, and this affronts the dignity of a Judge's office. Where a collegiate body resolves without recording the views of its members, the deliberation which the forum exists to secure is not evidenced on its record," the Court said.

The Court made the comment while reflecting on the pattern of "procedural stagnation" before the district courts in Uttar Pradesh. The comments form part of a judgment delivered on a batch of petitions highlighting inordinate delay in the adjudication of trial court proceedings,

Justice Diwakar said no effective attention has been paid to the problem at the level of the High Court.

He revealed that over the past ten years, only 16 full court meetings have been convened by the Chief Justice.

"The High Court Rules mandate that general policy matters and matters affecting the powers and status of the Court, as well as the consideration of the general annual report on the administration of justice to be submitted to the Government, shall be placed before the Full Court, at least quarterly. However, for last ten years no general policy matter affecting the powers and status of the Court has ever been placed before the ‘Full Court’ meetings," the Bench said.

Justice Diwakar has also raised questions over the functioning of chief justices at the High Court. He said for the past decade,annual reports on the administration of justice have neither been laid before the full court nor forwarded to the government, as required under the rules.

“This fact alone is sufficient to indicate the prevailing state of functioning, working, and administrative culture in the High Court,” the judge said.

The Court further said minutes of various important committees or any of the committees constituted by the Chief Justice on the administrative side have never been communicated to the ‘full court’.

This gives an impression that their functioning is independent of the High Court itself, the judge said.

“Consequently, there exists no institutional forum within the High Court to raise such issues, except by addressing them through judicial orders. Otherwise, the Judges would left to endure and lead a frustrating professional life in an environment that is neither conducive to judicial work nor reflective of the dignity of this great institution,” the Court said.

The Court said this unstructured discretion to the Chief Justice and the committees has resulted into the acute shortage of staff in the district judiciary, which is functioning with a shortfall of 7,834 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 28,552 posts.

The State currently has only 2,603 judicial officers against the existing sanctioned strength of 4,625. 900 of these judicial posts were sanctioned in September. 

“As on September 2026, there are a total of 10,352 vacancies in the High Court Registry and the District Judiciary, comprising 1,122 vacancies in the Judicial Officers cadre, 7,834 vacancies in the District Judiciary staff, and 1,396 vacancies in the High Court Registry,” the Court said.

The Court also highlighted that the written examination for 83 posts of the highest judicial service, advertised in December 2023, was conducted in August 2026 but the result is still awaited. No appointment has been made to higher judicial service since September 2022. 

“The last notification for Civil Judge (Junior Division) was issued on 10.12.2022 for 303 posts, and the result was declared on 30.08.2023. No recruitment has been conducted for Civil Judge (Junior Division) since 30.08.2023,” the judgment states.

The position stands in instructive contrast to the procedure for the appointment of Judges of the High Court, which is accorded institutional priority, Justice Diwakar said.

These details demonstrate that the absence of a structured framework governing the exercise of administrative discretion has significant consequences, including its bearing upon the administration of justice in the High Court and in the district courts, the judge added.

The Court directed that its judgment – reflecting on the functioning of the High Court - be placed before the Chief Justice for his examination and for such further steps as he may deem fit and appropriate.

Further, the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be also be transmitted to the secretary of Department of Justice of the Union Law Ministry who may place it before the Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Law and Justice for consideration. 

The Court said a copy of the note of the issues highlighted by it may also be forwarded to the cabinet secretary of Union of India.

[Read Judgment]