Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has converted a case concerning judicial delays and overburdening of trial courts into a public interest litigation (PIL), highlighting the persistent shortage of judges and the non-implementation of Supreme Court directions regarding the expansion of the subordinate judiciary.

The decision was taken by the bench of Justice Rajeev Singh while hearing an application filed by Krishna Chandra Singh, seeking expeditious disposal of a criminal revision pending for 14 years.

The application had sought a direction to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich, to decide a criminal revision petition within a fixed timeframe. However, during the hearing, the court was informed that the matter had already been disposed of on July 23, 2024, rendering the application infructuous. Despite this, the court took suo motu cognizance of the broader issue of judicial vacancies and pending cases, referencing past Supreme Court rulings emphasizing the need for judicial reforms.

Court noted that the Supreme Court, in All India Judges' Association vs. Union of India (2002), had directed an increase in the judge-to-population ratio to 50 judges per million within five years. However, the current ratio in Uttar Pradesh remains significantly below this mark. The high court cited the apex court’s observation in Sonu Agnihotri vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. (2024), which highlighted that even the halfway mark of 25 judges per million had not been achieved.

Detailed affidavits submitted by top Uttar Pradesh government officials, including the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Law), acknowledged the severe backlog of cases and the necessity of increasing the number of trial courts. The affidavits revealed that while the high court had proposed the creation of 9,149 new courts, the state government had only taken preliminary steps to implement this in phases. As per the state’s plan, 2,693 new courts would be established in the first phase, followed by gradual additions over ten years.

Court found this approach inadequate, stressing that justice delayed is justice denied. Noting the numerous petitions filed for expeditious trial disposal, the high court observed that the failure to implement past directions had resulted in an overburdened judiciary struggling to cope with increasing litigation.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Neeraj Chaubey (2010), which allows conversion of individual cases into PILs in matters of public interest, the high court directed its registry to register the issue as a separate PIL and place it before the Chief Justice for further action.

Case Title: Krishna Chandra Singh @ Munna Singh Vs.State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And Other