Parliament Question: Sanctioned Strength of Judges in High Courts

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 3307 TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY, THE 07th AUGUST, 2026 SANCTIONED STRENGTH OF JUDGES IN HIGH COURTS 3307. PROF. SOUGATA RAY: Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state: (a) whether the Government has taken note of the growing pendency of cases in various High Courts despite periodic increase in the sanctioned strength of Judges, if so, the details thereof; (b) whether the Government proposes to substantially increase the sanctioned strength of Judges in all High Courts, on the lines of the recent increase in the sanctioned strength of Judges of the Supreme Court; (c) if so, the details thereof including the proposed increase and the timeline for implementation, High Court-wise; (d) whether the Government has undertaken any assessment of the additional number of Judges required in each High Court based on pendency, institution and disposal of cases, judge-to- population ratio and regional requirements, if so, the details thereof; and (e) the measures being taken by the Government in consultation with the judiciary to ensure timely filling of vacancies, strengthening of judicial infrastructure and reduction of pendency in the High Courts? 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) to (e): The Judges of the High Courts are appointed under Article 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). 1As per the Memorandum of Procedure (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. Appointment of Judges 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. Only those persons whose names have been recommended by the SCC are appointed as Judges of the High Courts. The Judge strength of the High Courts is increased from time to time. The strength of High Courts has increased from 906 in 2014 to 1122 Judges in 2026. Disposal of cases pending in various courts lies within the domain of the judiciary. Timely disposal of cases in courts depends on several factors which, inter-alia, include availability of adequate number of judges and judicial officers, supporting court staff and physical infrastructure, complexity of facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of stake holders viz. bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants. However, the Government is fully committed for speedy disposal of cases and reducing pendency. The Government has taken several initiatives to provide an ecosystem for faster disposal of cases by the judiciary which, inter-alia, includes amalgamation of latest technologies for increasing access to justice and greater transparency under the e-Courts Mission Mode Project, better infrastructure for courts, increase in strength of subordinate judiciary, policy and legislative measures in the areas prone to excessive litigation, enactment of New Criminal Laws, promoting Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism and emphasis on human resource development. *** 2