Uncategorized

Statement showing Sanctioned strength, Working Strength and Vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts

Posted on by staff
MASTI

Strength of Judges

Posted On: 24 MAR 2023 6:16PM by PIB Delhi

As on 21.03.2023, there is no vacancy of Judges in the Supreme Court. As far as the High Courts are concerned, against the sanctioned strength of 1114 Judges, 785 Judges are working and 329 posts of Judges are vacant. Against these 329 vacancies, 119 proposals

recommended by High Court Collegiums are at various stages of processing between the Government and the Supreme Court Collegium and recommendations against remaining 210 vacancies are yet to be received from the High Court Collegiums. TheHigh Court-wise detail of sanctioned strength, working strength and vacancy as on 21.03.2023 is at Annexure.

Appointment of Judges in higher judiciary is a collaborative and integrated process involving the executive and the judiciary. It requires consultation and approval from various constitutional authorities. Differences of opinion, if any, are mutually reconciled by the executive and the judiciary to ensure that only the apposite person is appointed to the high constitutional post of a Judge.

While every effort is made to fill up the existing vacancies expeditiously, vacancies of Judges in High Courts do keep on arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of Judges and also due to increase in the strength of Judges. Government is committed to filling up of vacancy expeditiously in time-bound manner.

During the period from May, 2014 to 2023 (till 21.03.2023), 54 Judges were appointed in Supreme Court of India, 893 fresh Judges were appointed in the various High Courts and 646 Additional Judges were appointed as Permanent Judges of High Courts.

The detailed statement of Pendency of Cases in Supreme Court and High Court for the past three years, showing the increase/decrease of pendency of cases in the respective courts is as below:

Year 2020 2021 2022
Supreme Court* 64,429 96,855 69,598
High Courts** 56,42,567 56,49,068 59,78,714

*Source: Supreme Court of India pendency as on 4.12.2020, 6.12.2021 and 1.12.2022 respectively.

**Source: National Judicial Data Grid pendency as on 31st December of respective years i.e. 2020, 2021 and 2022.

The pendency of cases in courts is not only due to shortage of judges in High Courts but also due to various other factors like (i) increase in number of state and central legislations, (ii) accumulation of first appeals, (iii) continuation of ordinary civil jurisdiction in some of the High Courts, (iv) appeals against orders of quasi-judicial forums going to High Courts, (v) number of revisions/appeals, (vi) frequent adjournments, (vii) indiscriminate use of writ jurisdiction, (viii) lack of adequate arrangement to monitor, tracking and bunching of cases for hearing, (ix) assigning work of administrative nature to the Judges, etc.

This information was given by the Union Minister of Law & Justice, Shri Kiren Rijiju, in a written reply in Lok Sabha today.

*****

ANNEXURE

Statement showing Sanctioned strength, Working Strength and Vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts (As on 21.03.2023)

Sanctioned strength Working strength Vacancies
A. Supreme Court  34 34 0
B. High Court Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl Total Pmt. Addl Total
1 Allahabad 119 41 160 82 21 103 37 20 57
2 Andhra Pradesh 28 9 37 26 5 31 2 4 6
3 Bombay 71 23 94 42 23 65 29 0 29
4 Calcutta 54 18 72 34 19 53 20 -1 19
5 Chhattisgarh 17 5 22 9 4 13 8 1 9
6 Delhi 46 14 60 45 0 45 1 14 15
7 Gauhati 22 8 30 14 9 23 8 -1 7
8 Gujarat 39 13 52 29 0 29 10 13 23
9 Himachal Pradesh 13 4 17 9 0 9 4 4 8
10 J & K and Ladakh 13 4 17 11 4 15 2 0 2
11 Jharkhand 20 5 25 20 1 21 0 4 4
12 Karnataka 47 15 62 40 13 53 7 2 9
13 Kerala 35 12 47 31 6 37 4 6 10
14 Madhya Pradesh 39 14 53 31 0 31 8 14 22
15 Madras 56 19 75 47 11 58 9 8 17
16 Manipur 4 1 5 3 0 3 1 1 2
17 Meghalaya 3 1 4 3 0 3 0 1 1
18 Orissa 24 9 33 21 0 21 3 9 12
19 Patna 40 13 53 32 0 32 8 13 21
20 Punjab & Haryana 64 21 85 38 27 65 26 -6 20
21 Rajasthan 38 12 50 33 0 33 5 12 17
22 Sikkim 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0
23 Telangana 32 10 42 30 2 32 2 8 10
24 Tripura 4 1 5 2 0 2 2 1 3
25 Uttarakhand 9 2 11 5 0 5 4 2 6
  Total 840 274 1114 640 145 785 200 129 329

******

Appointment to the post of President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)

Posted on by staff
MASTI

Immediate
No 14/5/2023-E0(SM II)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
Secratariat of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet
North Block, New Delhi 18 10 2023

The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet has approved the proposal of the Department of Legal Affairs for appointment of Justice Chandrakant Vasant Bhadang retired Judge, Bombay High Court to the post of President, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the salary of Rs 2,50000 p m for a period of 04 years, or till attaining the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier

(Arvind Thakur) Under Secretary (EO-SM II) Tel 2309 3913
Department of Legal Affairs (Dr Niten Chandra, Secretary). Shasta Bhawan New Delhi
Copy forwarded for information to
1 Prime Minister’s Office (Shn Hrisheekesh Arvind Modak, Director) 2 Cabinet Secretariat (Ms Kavita Singh Joint Secretary) 3 Guard File

(Arvind Thakur) Under Secretary (EO-SM II) Tel 2309 3913

Appointment of Judges/Additional Judges in the High Courts

Posted on by staff
MASTI
Ministry of Law and Justice

Press Communique

Posted On: 18 OCT 2023 7:48PM by PIB Delhi

In exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution of India, the President of India, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint the following Judges/Additional Judges in the High Courts:

 

Sl.

No.

 Name (S/Shri) Details
1. Harinath Nunepally, Advocate  

Appointed as Additional Judges of Andhra Pradesh High Court
2. Smt. Kiranmayee Mandava Alias Kiranmayee Kanaparthy, Advocate
3. Smt. Sumathi Jagadam, Advocate
4. Nyapathy Vijay, Advocate
5. Abhay Jainarayanji Mantri, Judicial Officer Appointed as Additional Judges of Bombay High Court.
6. Shyam Chhaganlal Chandak, Judicial Officer
7. Neeraj Pradeep Dhote, Judicial Officer
8. Johnson John, Judicial Officer Appointed as Additional Judges of Kerala high Court
9. Gopinathan U. Girish, Judicial Officer
10. C. Pratheep Kumar, Judicial Officer
11. Ms. Shalinder Kaur, Judicial Officer Appointed as Additional Judges of Delhi High Court
12. Ravinder Dudeja, Judicial Officer
13. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Appointed as an Additional Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court.
14. Vimal Kanaiyalal Vyas, Judicial Officer Appointed as a Judge of Gujarat high Court.
15. K. V. Aravind, Advocate Appointed as an Additional Judge

of Karnataka High Court
16. Sabyasachi Datta Purkayastha, Judicial Officer Appointed as a Judge of Tripura

High Court
17. Biswajit Palit, Judicial Officer Appointed as an Additional Judge

of Tripura High Court.

Taxation of lotteries: Supreme Court clarifies the law whether State Legislatures have legislative competence to impose tax on lotteries conducted by other States in their State

Posted on by staff
MASTI

In STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR VERSUS STATE OF MEGHALAYA & ANR CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10466-10476 OF 2011 the Supreme Court answered the important question whether the State Legislatures of Karnataka and Kerala had legislative competence to impose tax on the lotteries conducted by other States in their State (in the State of Karnataka and Kerala respectively). The High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka had held that the respective State Legislatures had no legislative competence to impose tax on the lotteries conducted by other States in their State. This view has been reversed by the Supreme Court.

The conclusions of the Apex Court can be summed up as follows: –

(i) That the subject ‘betting and gambling’ in Entry 34 of List II is a State subject.

(ii) From the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court, it is clear that ‘lotteries’ is a species of gambling activity and hence lotteries is within the ambit of ‘betting and gambling’ as appearing in Entry 34 List II.

(iii) The expression ‘betting and gambling’ is relatable to an activity which is in the nature of ‘betting and gambling’. Thus, all kinds and types of ‘betting and gambling’ fall within the subject of Entry 34 of List II. The expression ‘betting and gambling’ is thus a genus it includes several types or species of activities such as horse racing, wheeling and other local variations/forms of ‘betting and gambling’ activity. The subject ‘lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of a State’ in Entry 40 of List I is a Union subject. It is only lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of State in terms of Entry 40 of List I which are excluded from Entry 34 of List II. In other words, if lotteries are conducted by private parties or by instrumentalities or agencies authorized, by Government of India or the Government of State, it would come within the scope and ambit of Entry 34 of List II.

(iv) Thus, the State legislatures are denuded of their powers under Entry 34 of List II only to the extent of lotteries organised by the Government of India or the Government of a State, in terms of Entry 40 of List I. In other words, except what is excluded in terms of Entry 40 of List I, all other activities which are in the nature of ‘betting and gambling’ would come within the scope and ambit of Entry 34 of List II. Thus, ‘betting and gambling’ is a State subject except to the extent of it being denuded of its powers insofar as Entry 40 of List I is concerned.

(v) Entry 62 of List II is a specific taxation Entry on ‘luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling’. The power to tax is on all activities which are in the nature of ‘betting and gambling,’ including lotteries. Since, there is no dispute that lotteries, irrespective of whether it is conducted or it is organised by the Government of India or the Government of State or is authorized by the State 121 or is conducted by an agency or instrumentality of State Government or a Central Government or any private player, is ‘betting and gambling’, the State Legislatures have the power to tax lotteries under Entry 62 of List II. This is because the taxation contemplated under the said Entry is on ‘betting and gambling’ activities which also includes lotteries, irrespective of the entity conducting the same. Hence, the legislations impugned are valid as the Karnataka and Kerala State Legislatures possessed legislative competence to enact such Acts.

(vi) Thus, the scope and ambit of lotteries organised by Government of India or Government of State under Entry 40 of List I is only in the realm of regulation of such lotteries. The said Entry does not take within its contours the power to impose taxation on lotteries conducted by the Government of India or the Government of State.

(vii) The Court also held that lottery schemes by the Government of other States are organised/conducted in the State of Karnataka or Kerala and there are express provisions under the impugned Acts for registration of the agents or promoters of the Governments of respective States 122 for conducting the lottery schemes in the State of Karnataka and the State of Kerala. This itself indicates sufficient territorial nexus between the respondents– States who are organising the lottery and the States of Karnataka and Kerala.

(viii) In view of the aforesaid conclusions, the Supreme Court held that Division Benches of the High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka were not right in holding that the respective State Legislatures had no legislative competence to impose tax on the lotteries conducted by other States in their State (in the State of Karnataka and Kerala respectively).

Appointment of 5 Chief Justices Of High Courts | Notifications

Posted on by staff
MASTI

The Department of Justice has issued Notifications with regard to the appointment of 5 Chief Justices to the High Courts.

(TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART 1 SECTION 2)
No.K-13014/02/2018-US.1

Government of India
Ministry of Law and Justice
(Department of Justice)

Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, NEW DELHI-110 011, dated 24th October, 2018.

NOTIFICATIONS

Shri Justice Naresh Harishchandra Patil appointed Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Naresh Harishchandra Patil, Judge of the Bombay High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

(Rajinder Kashyap)
Joint Secretary to the Government of India
Tele: 2338 3037

Shri Justice Debasish Kar Gupta appointed Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Debasish Kar Gupta, Judge of the Calcutta High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Shri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan appointed Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan, Judge of the Hyderabad High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Shri Justice Ajjikuttira Somaiah Bopanna appointed Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Ajjikuttira Somaiah Bopanna, Judge of the Karnataka High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Shri Justice Vijai Kumar Bist appointed Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Vijai Kumar Bist, Judge of the Uttarakhand High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Sikkim High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.