The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to issue directions to the Allahabad High Court for the speedy disposal of a 13-year-old appeal, observing that high courts are not under its supervisory control and face significant constraints due to severe staff shortages.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made the remarks while refusing to entertain a plea seeking intervention from the apex court. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the case had been pending for over a decade and two applications for early hearing had already been filed in the high court.
Justice Nath responded: “The high courts are not under the supervisory control of this court. If the high courts are functioning on half the strength, how do you expect them to cope with all the matters as expeditiously as you want? There are older matters pending. Go and make a request.”
The bench permitted the petitioner to again approach the Allahabad High Court with a fresh application for early listing, noting that such requests would be considered in due course. Justice Nath, recalling his own years of practice at the Allahabad High Court, added candidly: “Two applications is nothing. You may have to file hundreds of applications to get your matter listed.”
The observations highlighted the mounting pressure on high courts functioning below sanctioned strength. According to the Law Ministry’s data, the combined sanctioned strength of judges in high courts across the country is 1,122, but as of September 1, only 792 judges are in place, leaving 330 vacancies unfilled.
This chronic shortage, the bench implied, directly impacts the ability of courts to handle pending cases efficiently, forcing litigants to wait for years for their matters to be heard.
The Supreme Court’s remarks underscore a systemic issue that has plagued the judiciary—delayed appointments and inadequate manpower in high courts—leading to massive case backlogs. While litigants continue to seek relief from the apex court, the bench reiterated that effective redress lies in moving applications before the concerned high court itself.
