The Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court has recused himself from hearing a PIL concerning judges’ appointments. The petition was filed by senior advocate Satish Trivedi. Following the recusal, the case will be reassigned. Another division bench, without the Chief Justice, will now hear the matter.
Pryagraj: The Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Arun Bhansali, recused himself on Thursday from hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) that demands timely appointments for 81 judges in the high court.
This vacancy represents more than half of the court’s sanctioned strength of 160 judges. With his withdrawal, the PIL, filed by senior advocate Satish Trivedi, will be taken up by a different division bench that does not include the Chief Justice.
Also Read: Judicial Appointments Announced For Multiple High Courts: Centre
During the proceedings, senior advocate SFA Naqvi represented the petitioner.
The petition described the current situation in the high court as the “gravest crisis in its history,” calling for binding guidelines to streamline judicial appointments and urging strict adherence to the timelines set out in the memorandum of procedure (MoP).
It highlighted the critical shortage of judges in the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing that with Uttar Pradesh’s population of 24 crore and 1,155,225 pending cases, there is only one judge for every 30 lakh people. Each judge is managing an average of 14,623 cases.
The PIL contended that the high court is experiencing a “state of functional paralysis,” operating at less than 50 percent of its sanctioned strength, which has resulted in a backlog of over 11 lakh cases and is severely impacting judicial efficiency.
Judicial appointments in India, especially in high courts, follow the Collegium System, where a panel of senior judges recommends candidates for elevation. However, the process has often been criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability. Several PILs have been filed in the past, challenging aspects of the selection process, seeking reforms, or demanding greater scrutiny in the appointment of judges.
The PIL in question, filed by Trivedi, reportedly highlights procedural lapses and calls for reforms to ensure a more transparent selection mechanism. While the specific details of the petition remain undisclosed, the issue has reignited discussions about the effectiveness of the current appointment system.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
