An Edited Excerpt from S.P. Gupta Judgment
Article 216
We may first examine the true meaning and import of Article 216 which provides for the constitution of High Courts. This article when originally enacted in the Constitution consisted of the main provision and a proviso but the proviso was deleted by Section 11 of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956 with the result that since November 1, 1956 when the amending Act came into force, this Article consists of only one clause which reads as under:
Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint.
This article confers power on the President to appoint such number of Judges in a High Court as he may deem necessary.
The Data that was placed before Supreme Court
The Union of India has placed before us figures showing that as on March 18, 1981, the aggregate sanctioned strength of permanent and Additional Judges was 308 and 97 respectively while the aggregate actual strength was only 277 and 43 respectively. The figures given by the Union of India also show the large arrears pending in the different High Courts and it is clear from these figures that the total number of pending main cases has been steadily rising from 6, 13,799 on December 31, 1978 to 6,78,951 on December 31, 1980.
The average rate of disposal per Judge per year fixed at one of the Chief Justices’ Conference was 650 but the figures produced by the Union of India show that the average rate of disposals of main cases per Judge per year during the years 1978-1979 and 1980 was higher namely, 860.
It is obvious that even on the basis of the average rate of disposal per Judge per year being taken at the higher figure of 860; if no judicial reform is brought about and the present system continues as it is without any change, many more Judges would be required than the total sanctioned strength of permanent and Additional Judges in order to dispose of the pending cases which include not only main cases but also interlocutory and miscellaneous cases which do take the time of the Court.
The Contention of the Petitioners
It was therefore contended on behalf of the petitioners that the President has failed to discharge his constitutional duty under Article 216 by not appointing the requisite number of Judges necessary for the purpose of disposing of the pending cases. The argument was that the President was under a constitutional obligation to apply his mind to the question as to how many Judges were necessary to be appointed in each High Court for the purpose of disposing of the cases pending in the that High Court, but the President had failed to apply his mind to this question and not taken the necessary steps for the purpose of appointing the requisite number of Judges in each High Court.
Prayer of the Petitioners
The petitioners therefore sought a writ of mandamus against the Union of India requiring the Union of India to refix the strength of Judges in each High Court having regard to the number of pending cases in that High Court and on the basis of the average rate of disposals per judge per year.
Decision of the Court
We do not think we can issue such a writ of mandamus against the Union of India for fixing a particular strength of judges in each High Court. The fixation of the strength of judges in each High Court is a purely executive function which is entrusted by Article 216 to the President, that is, the Government of India and it is entirely for the government of India to decide in the exercise of its judgment as to what shall be the strength of judges in each High Court.
How many judges are necessary to be appointed in a particular High Court is left to the discretion of the Government of India and there are no judicially manageable standards for the purpose of controlling or guiding the discretion of the union of India in that respect. In is not possible for this Court to lay down any standards or norms on the basis of which it can require the Union of India to appoint a certain number of Judges in a particular High Court.
The fixation of the number of judges necessary to be appointed in a particular High Court does not depend upon the application of a mathematical formula dividing the number of pending cases by the average rate of disposal per judge per year. It is a singularly complex problem and merely increasing the number of judges in a High Court would not necessarily solve the problem of disposal of pending cases.
Sometimes when the number of judges in a High Court is increased, the law of diminishing returns beings to operate and the disposals of cases do not increase commensurately with the addition to the number of judge. Sometimes it is difficult to recruit competent judges and no useful purpose is served by appointing mediocre judges who ultimately would not be able to make any impact so far as the arrears of pending cases are concerned and who would dilute the quality of justice administered in the High Court.
Then there are also problems of finding court rooms for the new judges who might be appointed because at most places the High Court buildings are heavily congested and there is hardly any space which can be spared. There may also be many other constraints operating with the Government of India which may dissuade it from taking a decision to increase the number of judges in a High Court.
The Government of India may legitimately feel that increasing the number of judges in a particular High Court may not solve the problem of arrears of pending cases but that some other strategies may have to be adopted for that purpose, such as the setting up of administrative tribunals or reducing the number of appeals etc.
There would therefore be many policy considerations which would influence the Government of India in taking a decision as to what number of judges are necessary to be appointed in a particular High Court. It would not be possible to lay down any judicially manageable standards with reference to which the Government of India could be directed to appoint a particular number of judges in a High Court.
What should be the number of Judges necessary to be appointed in a particular High Court must essentially remain a matter within the discretion of the Government of India and if the Government of India does not appoint sufficient number of judges, the appeal must be to the legislature and not to the Court. All that the Court can do is to express the hope that the Government of India will periodically review the strength of judges in each High Court and appoint as many judges as are found necessary for the purpose of disposing of arrears of pending cases.
Reference
SP Gupta & Others v. Union of India & another (1981)