The Allahabad High Court is set to hold a crucial hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the prolonged delay in filling 81 vacant judicial positions, which constitute nearly half of the Court’s sanctioned strength of 160 judges. The PIL, filed through Advocates Shashwat Anand and Syed Ahmad Faizan, by petitioner-Senior Advocate Satish Trivedi, seeks binding directions from the Court for the immediate appointment of judges to safeguard judicial independence, judicial review, and the fundamental right of citizens to access justice.
Majority of Judicial Positions Vacant, Worsening the Judicial Crisis
The Allahabad High Court, the largest High Court in the country, is currently functioning with 81 out of 160 sanctioned judicial positions vacant, significantly hampering its efficiency and crippling the judicial system. The petitioner argues that judicial independence and review, which form the bedrock of the Constitution’s basic structure, become meaningless when the judiciary itself is unable to function effectively or is rendered half-powerless and half-active.
Chief Justice Recused Himself from the Case on March 6
Earlier, on March 6, 2025, when the matter was listed before the Division Bench presided over by the Chief Justice, Senior Advocate S.F.A. Naqvi appeared for the petitioner and contended that the institutional integrity of the High Court was under grave threat due to the staggering judicial vacancies. However, as the Chief Justice heads the High Court Collegium, which is directly responsible for the judicial appointment process, he recused himself from the case and directed that it be listed afresh before another Bench.
Case Listed Before the Wrong Bench Today, Now Set for Correct Hearing
Today, on March 17, 2025, the case was erroneously listed before a Bench comprising Justice M.K. Gupta (the seniormost Collegium member after the Chief Justice) and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta. However, upon verification, it was revealed that the case had already been assigned to another Bench, making its listing before Justice M.K. Gupta’s Bench incorrect. The error has now been rectified, and it has been confirmed that the case will be heard by the Bench to which it was originally assigned.
Nomination of the Case to Justice M.C. Tripathi’s Bench
On March 11, 2025, the Chief Justice nominated the case to a Bench presided over by Justice M.C. Tripathi, the seniormost non-Collegium judge of the Allahabad High Court. Justice Tripathi currently heads a Division Bench with Justice Prashant Kumar, and the matter is now set to be listed before his Bench in the coming days.
High Court Collegium and the Issue of Judicial Appointments
The Allahabad High Court Collegium, responsible for recommending judicial appointments, consists of:
• Chief Justice (Head of the Collegium)
• Justice M.K. Gupta (Seniormost after the Chief Justice)
• Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra (Second seniormost after the Chief Justice)
However, Justice M.C. Tripathi is currently the seniormost non-Collegium judge in the High Court, making his Bench a neutral and independent forum to decide this constitutional crisis.
Constitutional Crisis and Demand for Immediate Appointments
The PIL demands that the judicial appointment process be completed within a strict, time-bound framework. The key demands of the petition include:
• More than 81 names should be sent to prevent any procedural delays in appointments.
• The entire process must be completed within three months to avoid further executive delays.
Potential Impact of the PIL
With the case now set to be heard by Justice M.C. Tripathi’s Bench, this PIL is expected to set a landmark precedent for judicial independence and constitutional compliance. The verdict could not only impact Allahabad High Court but also reshape the judicial appointment process across the country.
As the largest High Court in India, the Allahabad High Court’s ability to function at full strength is a constitutional necessity, not a matter of administrative discretion. The upcoming hearing will determine whether the judiciary can reclaim its institutional integrity or continue to struggle against executive inaction and procedural roadblocks
