From the Editor's Desk

The Supreme Court on Tuesday 27^th January, declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking an increase in the judge-to-population ratio to 50 judges per million, citing that the issue is best addressed on the administrative side.

A three Judge Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and R. Mahadevan, was hearing the petition filed by the Forum for Fast Justice. At the outset, the CJI indicated the Court was not inclined to take up the plea, observing that such matters are to be dealt with institutionally and administratively.

“We do not require a PIL for this issue. I know how to handle it administratively.”

Also Read: Registry Cannot Make Inroads Into Judiciary’s Exclusive Domain By Seeking Reasons For Impleading A Respondent: Supreme Court

Advocate Anjani Kumar Mishra, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that India has only about 10.5 judges per million people and argued that the strength of the judiciary must be enhanced to curb pendency.

The Bench noted that issues concerning judicial strength require administrative consideration by the Supreme Court in consultation with the High Courts. Holding that the petition did not warrant judicial intervention through a PIL, the Court dismissed it.

The plea sought stricter implementation of earlier directions, including in Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Supreme Court had called for adoption of a scientific method to determine judge strength and asked the National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC) to frame policy measures to increase the number of judges and reduce pendency.

It also relied on the directions in the All India Judges Association case (2002), highlighting that recommendations to increase judge strength fivefold from 10.5 to 50 per million, fill vacancies within stipulated timelines, and create ad-hoc posts along with adequate infrastructure have still not been implemented by the respective governments.

The petition further stated that the Forum’s president had proposed to go on an indefinite fast and noted that the petitioners had earlier approached the Bombay High Court, where their PIL was not entertained.

The following reliefs were sought:

• A writ/direction (mandamus) directing the Union and State Governments to implement the Supreme Court’s directions in Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others (Criminal Appeal No. 254–262 of 2012) and All India Judges Association (2002) 2002 (2) SCR 712, by framing a time-bound National Judicial Manpower Plan to achieve 50 judges per million population.

• A direction to the NCMSC to urgently formulate a scientific method for computing the required number of judges for the High Courts and the Supreme Court, in addition to determining the required number of judges in District Courts on an ongoing basis every five years.

• A direction to formulate a five-year master plan to dispose of pending cases across courts, including by taking assistance of retired judicial officers, members of the Bar, and other legal experts, and appointing them as ad-hoc judges if needed.

• A direction to the Union and State Governments to assess year-wise progress on judicial infrastructure and facilities, and ensure availability of required infrastructure, services, technology tools, equipment, and trained manpower to deliver fast, transparent, efficient, and cost-effective justice, without imposing an unmanageable workload on judicial officers.

• A direction to the Government of India and State Governments to provide adequate budgetary support to the judiciary, legal aid systems, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Also Read: ‘Doctor’ Title Not Exclusive To Medical Professionals; Kerala High Court Permits Physiotherapists And Occupational Therapists To Use ‘Dr.’ Prefix

• Appointment of an expert panel of legal luminaries (watchdog) to advise and recommend measures to improve the condition of the judiciary and its infrastructure, keeping in view ground realities and present needs.

• A direction to apply state-of-the-art technology tools, including blockchain, Artificial Intelligence, and other ICT tools, to enable speedy, transparent, fair, and efficient justice delivery.

• A direction making the Supreme Court of India (or any other designated authority) responsible and accountable for monitoring and exercising regulatory control, superintendence, and discipline over bodies involved in planning speedy and effective administration of justice.

Case Title: Forum for Fast Justice and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.,

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 48/2026.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice R Mahadevan