Nearly 46 lakh cases pending in High Courts; 3.19 crore in lower courts

Nearly 46 lakh cases are pending before 25 High Courts across the country where 396 posts of judges, out of a sanctioned total of 1079, are vacant.

Among the 25 High Courts, the pendency of cases in the highest in Allahabad HC – the biggest High Court of the country – at 7.32 lakh cases, followed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (5.41 lakh), Rajasthan (4.72 lakh). As many as 2.48 lakh cases are pending in the Karnataka High Court.

The least number of cases pending are in the Sikkim High Court (237 case), followed by Meghalaya High Court (1,114 cases).

In the lower courts, the pendency of cases is an astounding 3.19 crore where there are 5,443 fewer judges than the sanctioned strength of 23,597 judges.

In the Supreme Court, 59,670 cases were pending as of February 1 as against 58,029 cases for the corresponding period last year. The apex court is the only court where the number of judges is almost equal to the sanctioned strength.

There are 33 judges in the apex Court against the sanctioned strength of 34.

“There is no conspicuous reason which can be depicted for pendency of cases. However, with the increase in the population of the country and awareness of their rights amongst the public, filing of fresh cases is increasing year after year,” Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad had told Parliament.

Another reason for pendency of cases is inadequate judges/population ratio in the country and also the insufficient strength of Judges, Prasad had said.

Prasad said challenges faced for timely disposal of cases in courts include availability of adequate number of judges, supporting court staff and physical infrastructure, complexity of facts involved, nature of evidence.

It also required co-operation of stake holders viz. bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants and proper application of rules and procedures, he said.

The government had refused to commit a time frame for filling up of vacancies in High Courts noting that the exercise was a collaborative and integrated process, between the Executive and the Judiciary.

“It requires consultation and approval from various Constitutional Authorities both at the Centre and State. Hence total time taken in the process of appointment cannot be indicated,” Prasad had told Parliament.