- (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. This writ petition has been filed by the Adhiwakta Parishad and another. The relief sought in the petition is that a mandamus he issued to the Union of India to review the strength of judges at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and refix the strength of judges of this High Court commensurate with the need to fulfil the State obligation of providing speedy justice. The theme of the writ petition is that it there were more judges, regard being had to the docket explosion at the Allahabad High Court, then, the increased strength of judges will see finality of cases and reduce the arrears. The contention of the petitioners in the case is that one simple solution to all this problem of arrears would be to appoint more judges. The petitioner dwells on other ill, which afflict the Court, but primarily pleads that if more judges, were appointed, then the additional strength will effectively be in a position to move matters and enter decisions on more cases.
(2.) THE Government of India had been issued notice on this petition on 2 February, 1994, almost two and a half years ago to file a counter-affidavit, but, as of date, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Regard being had to the nature of controversy in the writ petition, it would not be proper that this matter be adjourned further to await the affidavit of the Union of India. Basically on what the petitioners contend, there is no issue that if there were more judges it would make a difference to the pending cases at the Allahabad High Court. But, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. P. Goyal, concedes that this factor alone may not move matter in clearing the arrears or the dockets which are filed in Court and await hearing. If the Court were certain that an increased strength of the High Court in proportion to either the population or the litigation would resolve the matter to clear the arrears, then, a mandamus the like of which has been sought by the petitioner can be issued is But, increased strength of judges is not the solitary criteria which may be responsible for clearing the arrears at the Allahabad High Court. Truly, it is accepted and cannot be denied that the issues raised in this writ petition relate to the Allahabad High Court us a Court of Record under the Constitution of India. The contention of the petitioners in the writ petition is that (a) pending arrears bog the judicial system in this High Court; (b) a large number of Benches are engaged in receiving and considering fresh matters or cases for admission leaving no capacity or time to deal with other subjects in which litigation is pending like Second Appeals, Sales Tax Revisions, Criminal Appeals, First Appeals, First Appeal From Orders, Civil Revisions, Income-tax References, Miscellaneous Criminal Cases, Criminal Revisions besides Writ Petitions (c) backlog of every year piles up like a spiral and the cumulative arrears never clear; (d) while the High Court is engaged in doing fresh work only, the cases listed for hearing do not surface for years and thousands of expedite applications are awaiting consideration for being taken up and thousands of expedite cases have yet to appear on the list.
(3.) THE Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and has hesitation in issuing a mandamus which may turn out to be a futile writ for the simple reason that a solitary factor may not be the solution to clear the arrears of the High Court and to keep this institution working in an ideal state so that the input of cases and the output of it, i. e. , between the filing and the decision, there is no inordinate delay. It is the considered opinion of this Court that no amount of judges can clear the arrears of pending cases and yet half the strength may be sufficient to effectively see things moving. May be the entire arrears may not be wiped out by one stroke. The Court has already expressed its views in an order which it gave in the matter of Gangotri Builders v. State of U. P. (1996) 27 All LR 131 and is reiterating some passages from it: "4. The entire Court system today has concentrated its efforts on admission cases and seemingly forgotten the need for hearing. The time has come for the Court as a whole to sit down and discuss what has gone wrong with the management of the flow of cases over the years, as this cannot go on indefinitely. Of todays cause list which the Court has perused, it appears that Court after Court is weighed own by listed admission cases, even excluding the ones which come afresh everyday. The question has to be answered; what has happened to normal hearing of cases? Today the High Court in the transaction of its judicial business is pressed under the weight of 'admission' why? 5. An 'admission' is leave granted by a Superior Court of Record that a writ petition is certified fit for the issue of a prerogative writ. Thereafter the High Court accepts the case for hearing. Today's phenomenon of writ cases ready for hearing, but out of sight, and writ pending admission without a certificate of leave tube heard is not of today's making. It has happened over the years. Fewer than 10,000 writ petitions were filed in a year two decades ago; today the number has crossed the 25,000 mark, and the year is only half over. How will the Judicature manage to decide, and not merely 'dispose of' the perhaps 50,000 writ petitions which will be filed? 6. There are no short cuts of a qualitative public justice delivery system. In a democracy it is imperative that the Court determine issues and causes and arrive at solutions, based on the procedure established by law. A system which will ignore cases languishing for hearing, or the Court's not having an occasion for hearing or being prevented from hearing cases, is serious cause for concern.;