Collegiums main culprits for rising vacancies in HCs: Government

NEW DELHI: Blamed for not filling up vacancies in high courts, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that HC collegiums were the main culprits as there was inordinate delay on their part, in some cases going back to more than five years, in recommending names for judgeship after the vacancy arose.
Placing a detailed analysis of the vacancies in HCs and the reasons for delay in filling up the posts, the Centre told a bench of Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph that no names were forwarded by HCs for 199 out of 396 vacancies, some of which occurred way back in 2014. The sanctioned strength of judges in 25 HCs is 1,079 but the working strength, as on February 1, was 683. Some HCs like Patna and Rajasthan have more than 50% vacancies.
Attorney general K K Venugopal told the court, which is examining reasons for delay in appointment of judges, that the Centre was waiting for recommendations from HC collegiums which were yet to forward names for 199 vacancies —134 from the bar and 65 from the judicial service.
Agreeing with the AG’s submission, the bench said, “There is an important aspect which the attorney general emphasises by referring to a chart submitted before us showing the inordinate delay in making recommendations to fill vacancies by high courts. The situation in some high courts is more alarming than the others but it is no better than the others, including the court in the capital of the country.
“Needless to emphasise that chief justices of HCs must endeavour to recommend names against the vacancies as early as possible, even if they are not made at one go. We may also note that there appears to be some hesitation in some courts to recommend names without the earlier list being cleared. We understand that there is no such impediment and it should be a continuing process of recommending names without waiting for the result of the earlier recommendations. Otherwise, the time period to process names is such that by the time appointments take place, another set of vacancies arise which brings the problem of vacancies to square one.”
Blaming HC collegiums for the delay, Venugopal urged the court to issue notice and seek explanation from HCs. But the bench refrained from issuing notice and said, “We desist from doing so at present but call upon registrars of different high courts to send us the vacancy position as on date, when did they arise and number of vacancies likely to arise in the next six months, explaining as to what is the time period within which one can expect recommendations to be made.”