Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2017 DIGILAW 460 (SC)

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India

2017-03-20

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2017
ORDER : W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2016 and W.P.(C) No. 624 of 2016 The application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed in W.P.(C) No. 624 of 2016. 2. Heard Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for the Union of India in W.P.(C) No.295 of 2010. We have also heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person in W.P. (C)No. 624 of 2016. 3. The issue of increasing the number of vacancies, at the High Court level, has been examined at the level of the Government, and an increase in the number of posts was ordered recently. Insofar as the subordinate courts, upto the district level are concerned, this Court has recently rendered a judgment in connection with the manner of increasing the posts at the said subordinate level (Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors. - 2017 (1) Scale 164 ). 4. It is not in dispute, that a large number of unfilled posts of Judges, at various levels, are pending, and a rigorous process for filling them is in progress. The question of increasing the number of posts, as has been suggested in these petitions, will arise only after the existing vacancies have been filled up, and the proposals made by this Court are adopted, which we are of the view, should be the first step in the process of increasing the vacancies and filling them. 5. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the prayers made in the instant writ petitions are in the process of implementation. Such being the position, we find no reason to retain the same on the board of this Court. Accordingly, the instant petitions are disposed of. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach this Court for a similar relief, if they are so advised, at a later juncture, after the implementation of the first step, indicated herein above. 6. In view of the disposal of the main petition, nothing further survives in the application for intervention and the application for permission to amend the prayer, and the same are disposed of as such. W.P.(C) No. 625 of 2016 7. 6. In view of the disposal of the main petition, nothing further survives in the application for intervention and the application for permission to amend the prayer, and the same are disposed of as such. W.P.(C) No. 625 of 2016 7. The petitioner has made the following prayers in the instant writ petition: "a) a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the Respondent to take immediate steps to facilitate filling up of the existing vacancies in the judiciary across the country; and (b) a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Respondent to consider the recommendations given by the 245th Report of the Law Commission and to increase the Judges strength and infrastructural facilities to achieve the objective set out in the Preamble to the Constitution of India; and (c) issue Rule nisi in terms of prayers (a) and (b) above; and (d) pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper." 8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Insofar as prayer `(a)' is concerned, the same has been dealt with by us while disposing of W.P.(C)No.295 of 2016 and W.P. (C)No.624 of 2016, decided on 20.03.2017 (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Anr.). As such, prayer `(a)' is disposed of, in terms of the order referred to herein above. 10. So far as prayer '(b)' is concerned, a Committee of Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court has been constituted, to look into the matter. The instant petition is disposed of with the direction, that the pleadings of the instant case, be placed for consideration, before the Committee set up for the purpose. 11. In view of the disposal of the main petition, nothing further survives in the application for intervention, and the same is disposed of as such. W.P.(C) No. 210 of 2016 12. The application for permission to appear and argue in person is allowed. 13. Heard the petitioner, who has appeared in person. 14. No ground for interference is made out, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 15. The instant petition is accordingly dismissed.