Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

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

Latest Legal News