Supreme Court Proposes 26 Judges for Allahabad High Court

Fast Summary

• Judicial Appointments: The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended 26 judicial officers and advocates to address vacancies in the Allahabad High Court, indias most understaffed High Court.
• Vacancy Details: As of september 1, Allahabad high Court had 76 vacancies out of a sanctioned strength of 160 judges, leaving it with just 84 working judges.
• Recommendations Breakdown:

– Judicial Officers (14): Names include Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, Prashant Mishra-I, Tarun Saxena among others.
– Advocates (12): Includes senior women lawyers Garima Parshad and Swarupama Chaturvedi from the Supreme Court Bar.

• Comparison with Other Courts: Bombay HC reports 26 vacancies out of its sanctioned strength; Calcutta HC has 24 vacancies; Punjab and Haryana HC faces similar issues with a gap of 25 judges.
• Recent Movements by Collegium:

– On August 27, proposals were made for transferring/repatriating judges across nine state High Courts including Delhi, Madras, and Rajasthan.

published on September 3rd.
Read More

indian Opinion Analysis

The Supreme Court Collegium’s ample proposal to appoint new judges addresses a glaring issue-vacancies in several High Courts nationwide that threaten judicial efficiency. The Allahabad High Court exemplifies this challenge as it struggles to function at nearly half its approved capacity amid rising case backlogs. Timely appointments such as these are crucial steps toward alleviating delays in justice delivery.

Regional disparities persist across India’s judiciary system. While replenishing Allahabad’s bench is critical due to its acute vacancy level (highest nationally), other courts like Bombay and Calcutta also face significant shortages. these numbers point to systemic delays either in appointment processes or administrative procedures that deserve sustained attention.

Moreover,depiction matters-the inclusion of senior women advocates among the proposed names could enhance diversity within an institution criticized for limited inclusivity historically. safeguarding judicial independence while expediting recruitment will be essential for ensuring uninterrupted legal services across states.