'Administrative Issue' : Delhi High Court Disposes of PIL on Judicial Vacancies

Terming the judicial vacancies an administrative issue, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, 14 May 2025, disposed of a PIL seeking urgent judicial intervention in light of the "alarming and chronic" shortage of judges in the court.

A bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated, "On an observation made by the Court, the nature of the issue raised in this petition concerns every stakeholder in the justice dispensation system. The Court is of the view that the issue may be considered administratively. The petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition. Mr Sharma has stated that proceedings are broadly considered by the Supreme Court. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid terms."

At the outset, Advocate Amit Sahni, appearing as petitioner-in-person, submitted before the court that there is a 40% shortage of judges in the Delhi High Court, adding that the seriousness of the situation has been acknowledged in a recent order passed by the single judge of this court.

Hearing this, Chief Justice Upadhyaya observed, "Everybody is aware of the issue that you have raised. We would request you to understand that this is an administrative matter. These are high constitutional offices, not ordinary public service recruitments."

He further added that both the Union of India and the Delhi High Court are aware of the situation. Therefore, he requested that the Sahni leave the matter to be addressed through the administrative process.

The Chief Justice then asked ASG Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union Government, as to what steps can be taken to address the issue.

In response, ASG Chetan Sharma said, "My friend first goes to the press before he comes here. This is a publicity interest PIL. As rightly pointed out, this is not a normal appointment but a constitutional appointment."

Chief Justice Upadhyaya then remarked, "But Mr. Sharma, nonetheless, this does not dilute the issue."

In response, ASG Chetan Sharma submitted that a similar matter has already been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Advocates Association of Bengaluru v. Barun Mitra. He added that the petitioner may choose to approach the Supreme Court.

Pursuant to this, Advocate Amit Sahni sought liberty to withdraw the petition, stating that he would approach the Supreme Court instead.

Filed by Advocate Amit Sahni under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the plea highlighted that while the sanctioned strength of the Delhi High Court is 60 judges, including 45 permanent and 15 additional, the court is currently functioning with only 36 judges, resulting in a 40% vacancy.

Noting that a serious shortfall has arisen due to retirements and court transfers, the PIL stated that Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta have retired recently. On the other hand, Justice Yashwant Varma, Justice C.D. Singh, and Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma have recently been transferred.

Pointing out that two more retirements are expected in the coming months, the PIL asserted that this would reduce the strength to merely 34 judges, which will exacerbate pendency and judicial delays.

Therefore, the petition sought the indulgence of the court, seeking directions to the concerned authorities for expeditious action in filling the judicial vacancies by elevating eligible District Judges and Advocates from the Bar, thereby ensuring effective functioning of the Hon'ble High Court.

Stressing that such shortages hit the middle and lower socio-economic classes the most, the plea stated that these groups often face significant delays in accessing justice due to the overburdened court system.

Lastly, the PIL underscored that the appointments would not only serve the larger public interest but would also reduce the workload of sitting judges.

"Not only does the issue raised in the petition benefit the public at large, but the Hon'ble Judges as well because the excessive caseload on the existing benches adversely affects the health, morale, and judicial efficiency," it added.

Case Title: Amit Sahni v Union of India