**Executive Summary**
This document presents the Indian government's response to an unstarred question in Lok Sabha concerning additional benches of the Patna High Court in Bihar. The response acknowledges Bihar's status as the second most populous state and addresses the number of pending cases, disposal rates, judge vacancies, and proposals for establishing new benches. The answer was provided on February 13, 2026.
**Key Points / Main Content**
* **Confirmation of Facts:**
* The Government is aware that Bihar is the second most populous state in India.
* Bihar has only one bench of the Patna High Court in Patna.
* **Pending Cases and Vacancies:**
* The number of pending cases and disposal rate of High Courts as of 10.02.2026 are detailed in Annexure-I.
* Sanctioned strength and vacancies across various High Courts are detailed in Annexure-II.
* **Appointment of Judges:**
* Appointments are made under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution and as per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP).
* Initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in the High Courts vests with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
* High Courts are required to make recommendations at least 6 months before a vacancy occurs.
* Views of concerned State Governments are obtained in accordance with the MoP.
* Recommendations of the High Court Collegium, State Governments and the Government of India are forwarded to the Supreme Court Collegium (SCC) for advice.
* Only those persons whose names have been recommended by the SCC are appointed as Judges of the High Courts.
* **Establishment of High Court Benches:**
* High Court Benches are established in accordance with the recommendations made by the Jaswant Singh Commission and judgment pronounced by the Apex Court.
* Requires a complete proposal from the State Government providing necessary expenditure and infrastructural facilities.
* Requires the consent of the Governor of the concerned State.
* There is no complete proposal pending with the Government of India to establish High Court Bench(es) in Bihar.
**Impact Analysis**
**Impact: Judiciary**
* **Impact:** The Judiciary, particularly the Patna High Court and the Chief Justice of India, are impacted. The document outlines the current state of pending cases, disposal rates, and judicial vacancies. It also sets out the procedure for appointing judges to the High Courts and the process for establishing additional High Court Benches.
* **Action Required:** The Chief Justice of the Patna High Court needs to initiate proposals for appointments of judges in consultation with two senior-most puisne Judges of the High Court. The concerned High Courts are required to make recommendations at least 06 months before the occurrence of a vacancy.
**Impact: Government of Bihar**
* **Impact:** The Government of Bihar is impacted as the state lacks additional High Court benches despite its large population and pending cases. The State government also has a role in providing expenditure, infrastructural facilities and consent from the Governor of the concerned State.
* **Action Required:** To establish additional High Court Benches, the State Government needs to submit a complete proposal providing necessary expenditure and infrastructural facilities.
**Impact: Central Government**
* **Impact:** The Central Government is responsible for forwarding recommendations to the Supreme Court Collegium for advice on judicial appointments.
* **Action Required:** The Central Government needs to consider recommendations from the High Court Collegium, the State Governments, and forward these to the Supreme Court Collegium (SCC) for advice. The Government is also committed to the disposal of cases and reducing pendency.
Key Entities Referenced
Ministry of Law and Justice: The primary ministry responsible for the subject matter of the unstarred question.
Patna High Court: The specific High Court mentioned in the question regarding the establishment of additional benches in Bihar.
Bihar: The State where the establishment of additional benches of Patna High Court is being discussed.
Memorandum of Procedure (MoP): Governs the appointment of judges to the High Courts and Supreme Court.
Jaswant Singh Commission: Commission whose recommendations are used in establishing High Court Benches.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
LOK SABHA
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 2312
TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 13th FEBRUARY, 2026
ADDITIONAL BENCHES OF PATNA HIGH COURT IN BIHAR
2312. SHRI MANOJ KUMAR:
Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:
(a) whether the Government is aware that Bihar, with an area of 94,163 sq. km.
and a population of over 13 crore across 38 districts, is the country’s second most
populous State;
(b) if so, whether it is a fact that Bihar has only one Bench of the Patna High
Court at Patna and that other States like Tamil Nadu, MP, UP and Assam have
more Benches;
(c) if so, the number of pending cases and the average disposal rate of the High
Courts;
(d) the sanctioned strength of judges and existing vacancies, State and High
Court Bench wise details;
(e) whether the Government has set a timeframe to fill all vacancies, if so, the
details thereof; and
(f) whether any proposal has been received or any plan exists to establish new
Benches at Sasaram (Shahabad–Magadh), Darbhanga (Mithila–Koshi), and Purnea
(Seemanchal-Ang Pradesh), and if so, the details and current status, if not, the
reasons therefor?
ANSWER
MINISTER OF STATE (INDEPENDENT CHARGE) OF THE MINISTRY
OF LAW AND JUSTICE; AND MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY
OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS
(SHRI ARJUN RAM MEGHWAL)
(a) and (b): Yes Sir.(c) to (f): The number of pending cases and the disposal rate of the High Courts as
on 10.02.2026 is at Annexure-I. The sanctioned strength & vacancies across
various High Courts is at Annexure-II.
Appointment of Judges to High Courts is made under Articles 217 and
224 of the Constitution of India and according to the procedure laid down in
the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) prepared in 1998 pursuant to the
Supreme Court Judgment of October 6, 1993 (Second Judges case) read with
their Advisory Opinion of October 28, 1998 (Third Judges case). As per the
MoP, the responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in
the Supreme Court vests with the Chief Justice of India, while the
responsibility for initiation of proposals for appointment of Judges in the High
Courts vests with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, in
consultation with two senior-most puisne Judges of the High Court. As per the
MoP, the High Courts are required to make recommendations at least 06
months before the occurrence of a vacancy. However, this time limit is rarely
observed. For appointments to the High Courts, the views of concerned State
Government are obtained in accordance with the MoP. The recommendations
also have to be considered in the light of such other reports as may be
available to the Government in respect of the names under consideration. The
recommendations of the High Court Collegium, the State Governments and the
Government of India are then forwarded to the Supreme Court Collegium
(SCC) for advice.
Filling up of the vacancy in the higher Judiciary is a continuous, integrated
and collaborative process between the executive and the judiciary. It requires
consultation and approval from various Constitutional Authorities both at State and
Central level which are obtained in accordance with the MoP. The
recommendations also have to be considered in the light of such other reports as
may be available to the Government in respect of the names under consideration.
The recommendations of the High Court Collegium, the State Governments andthe Government of India are then forwarded to the Supreme Court Collegium
(SCC) for advice. Only those persons whose names have been recommended by
the SCC are appointed as Judges of the High Courts.
Pendency of cases in courts arise due to several factors which inter alia,
include complexity of the facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of
stakeholders, viz., bar, investigation agencies, witness and litigants, the availability
of physical infrastructure, supporting court staff, etc. besides the shortage of
judges. The disposal of cases is within the exclusive domain of the judiciary.
However, the Central Government is committed for speedy disposal of cases and
reducing pendency as mandated under Article 21 of the Constitution and has taken
several initiatives to provide an ecosystem for faster disposal of cases by the
judiciary.
High Court Benches are established in accordance with the
recommendations made by the Jaswant Singh Commission and judgment
pronounced by the Apex Court in W.P. (C) No. 379 of 2000 and after due
consideration of a complete proposal from the State Government which has to
provide necessary expenditure and infrastructural facilities and the Chief Justice
of the concerned High Court who is required to look after the day-to-day
administration of the High Court. The proposal to be complete should also have
the consent of the Governor of the concerned State.
At present there is no complete proposal pending with the Government of
India to establish High Court Bench(es) in Bihar.
***ANNEXURE -I
Pending Cases & Disposal Rates of Various High Courts as on 10.02.2026
No. of Cases Cases Disposal
High Court Pending Instituted Disposed Rate (%)
Cases since 2018 since 2018
Allahabad 1207325 2535189 2228638 87.91
Andhra Pradesh 249222 439550 355722 80.93
Bombay 665754 1331691 1136940 85.38
Calcutta 195918 491020 525331 106.99
Chhattisgarh 75990 340675 324536 95.26
Delhi 126114 395486 341293 86.30
Gauhati 64076 234078 207042 88.45
Gujarat 174537 625241 553320 88.50
Himachal Pradesh 104139 400796 330469 82.45
Jammu & Kashmir and
43291 112470 135986 120.91
Ladakh
Jharkhand 73000 333927 349607 104.70
Karnataka 329810 744467 633042 85.03
Kerala 249495 727259 660138 90.77
Madhya Pradesh 481480 1131327 961057 84.95
Madras 549937 2502092 2484699 99.30
Manipur 5933 22375 21001 93.86
Meghalaya 1760 11391 10605 93.10
Orissa 162205 761193 764499 100.43
Patna 219597 944381 867846 91.90
Punjab & Haryana 413963 1141947 1083928 94.92
Rajasthan 670681 1587045 1652106 104.10
Sikkim 295 1449 1363 94.06
Telangana 235767 511580 464608 90.82
Tripura 1390 18904 20308 107.43
Uttarakhand 60497 157050 128582 81.87
Source: National Judicial Data GridANNEXURE-II
Sanctioned strength, working strength, vacancies of Judges in High Courts (As on
09.02.2026)
Sanctioned Working
B. High Court Strength Strength Vacancy
1 Allahabad 160 109 51
2 Andhra Pradesh 37 32 5
3 Bombay 94 80 14
4 Calcutta 72 43 29
5 Chhattisgarh 22 15 7
6 Delhi 60 44 16
7 Gauhati 30 25 5
8 Gujarat 52 35 17
9 Himachal Pradesh 17 12 5
10 J & K and Ladakh 25 14 11
11 Jharkhand 25 14 11
12 Karnataka 62 46 16
13 Kerala 47 40 7
14 Madhya Pradesh 53 42 11
15 Madras 75 53 22
16 Manipur 5 3 2
17 Meghalaya 4 4 0
18 Orissa 33 19 14
19 Patna 53 38 15
20 Punjab & Haryana 85 61 24
21 Rajasthan 50 39 11
22 Sikkim 3 3 0
23 Telangana 42 28 14
24 Tripura 5 4 1
25 Uttarakhand 11 10 1
Total 1122 813 309