Reply to PIL on doubling no. of judges: SC to govt

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought response from the Centre on a PIL seeking a direction for doubling the number of judges as recommended by the Law Commission.

The petition filed by a Supreme Court lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay has also sought a direction to implement the resolution of the advisory council of the National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms. In his PIL, Upadhyay has referred to the abysmal population-judge ratio in the country.

Hearing the plea, a bench comprising Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice R Banumathi issued notices to the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ministry of Finance on the plea. “India has only about 11 judges per million population, which is among the lowest ratios in the world. The cases pending exceed about 30,000 per million population. Obviously, it is unrealistic to expect the law courts to deal with this abnormal caseload or to be accessible to people of India,” the plea said.

In a rare show of emotion the  Chief Justice TS Thakur on April 24 was teary-eyed during his speech at the Joint Conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts in Delhi. “It is not enough to criticise, you cannot shift the entire burden to the judiciary. If you compare performances of our judges to the other countries, we are head and shoulders above them,” Thakur had said.

The plea filed before the apex court draws from various reports of the Law Commission and seeks a direction to the Centre to implement the resolution passed in the 2013 conference of chief justices and chief ministers on increasing the number of judges. “Every accused is entitled to fair trial and speedy justice. Unexplained and inordinate delay of the trial for no fault of the accused is clearly a violation of the Article 21,” the plea states.

Upadhyay’s plea before the court mentions, “Fair trial and speedy justice is component of personal liberty and a procedure is void if it does not provide a fair trial and speedy justice. Inordinate delay in bringing an accused to trial or in preferring an appeal against his acquittal, are violative of the Article 21.”

It further said the number of judges be increased as it would prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial and minimise “anxiety and concern accompanying public accusation.