Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Supreme Court Mandates Expeditious Judicial Recruitment and Infrastructure Development Across States”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court of India has made significant strides towards addressing the longstanding issue of vacancies and infrastructural deficits in the judiciary of various states. The judgment, delivered on 30th November 2023, in Civil Appeal No. 1867/2006, focuses on the states of Jharkhand, Karnataka, and Kerala.

The apex court, comprising the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, underscored the urgency of filling judicial vacancies and improving court infrastructure. The court observed, “The timely filling of vacancies and enhancement of infrastructure is not just an administrative necessity but a constitutional obligation to ensure the right to speedy justice.”

In Jharkhand, the court ordered the notification and commencement of recruitment for 18 vacancies for Direct Recruitment of District Judges and 12 vacancies in the Limited Competitive Examination. The court also emphasized the need for expediting the construction of court halls and facilities, calling for a high-level meeting involving state officials and the High Court’s Building Committee.

Turning its attention to Karnataka, the Supreme Court noted that 19 vacancies for District Judges and 107 for Civil Judges (Junior Division) needed urgent filling. The court also highlighted infrastructure concerns, including pending proposals and ongoing construction, necessitating immediate action from the state government.

Regarding Kerala, the court expressed satisfaction with the ongoing recruitment processes but stressed the importance of their completion within the stipulated timelines. Additionally, the court directed the resolution of issues related to the NOC from the Jail Department affecting court center operations.

This judgment comes as a response to the chronic understaffing and infrastructure shortcomings in the Indian judiciary, which have been impediments to the timely dispensation of justice. The Supreme Court’s directives are expected to significantly impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial process in these states, ultimately contributing to the broader goal of ensuring justice for all.

The judgment, while focusing on administrative aspects, sends a strong message about the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional mandate of delivering timely justice. As the court poignantly remarked, “Efficient judiciary is the cornerstone of a robust legal system, and our efforts today are a step towards strengthening this foundation.” The decision has been widely welcomed by legal experts and is seen as a pivotal moment in judicial administration in India.

Date of Order: 30-11-2023

MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN & ANR. VS U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION  THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS

Similar News