Supreme Court Urges Timely High Court Judge Appointments to Fill Vacancies

The Supreme Court addressed the high vacancies in High Courts, emphasizing the need for prompt recommendations by Chief Justices to fill the 40% vacancies. It discussed the appointment process of Judges under relevant constitutional provisions, stressing timely actions at all stages. The Court proposed specific timelines in the Memorandum of Procedure to expedite appointments and ensure efficient justice delivery. Ultimately, the judgment directed adherence to the proposed timelines and highlighted the collaborative effort required for a timely appointment process to achieve the overarching goal of timely justice dispensation.

---

---

Issues:
1. High vacancies in High Courts
2. Appointment process of Judges
3. Timelines for appointment process

High vacancies in High Courts:
The Supreme Court highlighted the crisis situation in High Courts due to almost 40% vacancies, with many larger High Courts operating below 50% of their sanctioned strength. The Attorney General presented the appointment status, revealing 664 appointed Judges against the sanctioned 1080, with 416 vacancies. The Court emphasized the importance of Chief Justices recommending vacancies promptly, noting the delay in recommendations for existing and upcoming vacancies.

Appointment process of Judges:
The Court discussed the appointment of ad hoc Judges under Article 224A and the process under Articles 217 & 224 of the Constitution. It stressed the need for Chief Justices to recommend vacancies promptly, even if not in one go, without waiting for earlier recommendations' results. The Court addressed the delay in processing recommendations pending with the Government and the Supreme Court Collegium, urging timely actions at every stage of the appointment process.

Timelines for appointment process:
The Court examined the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for the appointment of Judges, highlighting specific timelines for different stages. It proposed additional timelines to expedite the process, including deadlines for the Intelligence Bureau's report, forwarding recommendations to the Supreme Court, and making appointments promptly after due consideration. The Court emphasized collaboration and promptness in the appointment process to ensure timely dispensation of justice.

The judgment concluded with the Court issuing directions to follow the proposed timelines and emphasized the collaborative nature of the appointment process to facilitate the larger goal of ensuring timely justice delivery.

---