Holding

Until NCMSC formulates a scientific method, judge strength shall be computed using the interim weighted disposal approach, and the Union's 90% vacancy‑fill stipulation is rejected.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the chronic delay in disposal of serious criminal cases in district courts, noting that many stays were issued by High Courts under Art. 226 of the Constitution and Sections 397/482 of the CrPC. It evaluated the Law Commission's "rate of disposal" method and the criticisms thereof, and considered the interim weighted disposal approach proposed by the National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC). The Court accepted the Union government's broad agreement with the NCMSC approach but rejected the stipulation that new judicial posts could be created only after 90% of sanctioned strength was filled. It directed that, until a scientific method is formulated by NCMSC, judge strength for each state shall be computed using the interim weighted disposal methodology. The Court also ordered the Union Ministry of Law and Justice to circulate the NCMSC interim report to all High Courts and State Secretaries, and mandated State Governments to act within three months to enhance judge strength and infrastructure. Finally, the Court set timelines for NCMSC to submit its final report by 31 December 2017 and for the High Courts to provide real‑time pendency data.

Issues considered

The appropriate method for determining the required judge strength of district courts
Whether the Union government's stipulation that new posts be created only after 90% of sanctioned strength is filled is constitutionally acceptable
The adequacy and limitations of the Law Commission's rate of disposal method
The need for real‑time data on case pendency from High Courts
The implementation of interim weighted disposal approach pending a scientific assessment

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. Sec. 397, s. Sec. 482
Constitution of Indias. Art. 21, s. Art. 226
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

Subjects

judicial delayjudge strengthdistrict judiciaryNCMSCrate of disposal methodweighted disposal approachaccess to justiceinfrastructureFourteenth Finance Commission

Judgment

[2017] I S.C.R. 305

JMTIYAZ AHMAD A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 254-262of2012)
JANUARY 02, 20 l 7 B

[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.]
Judiciary - Subordinate judiciary -Administration ofjustice -
Long delay in disposal of cases - Creation of new posts in district
;udiciary - Held: Report by Chairperson, National Court
c
Management Systems Commillee (NCMSC) that in the long term,
the judge strength of the district judiciary to be assessed by scientific
method and in the interim, weighted disposal approach, suggested -
Acceptance of the approach by Union government - However,
stipulations by Union government - First stipulation that' the High D
Courts must make available real time data on the pendency of various
categories of cases accepted, however, the second stipulation that
new posts should be created only after 90% of the sanctioned
strength has been filled up, cannot be accepted - Filling up of
vacancies in the district judiciary is an on-going process - Many
E
of the delays are not in the control of the High Courts-Furthermore,
it is necessary to provide for the required judge strength in every
State district judiciary to facilitate the creation of infrastructure -
Hence, scientific assessment of the required judge strength would
form the basis of ensuring that the State Governments put into place
the infrastructure required fr» tackling judicial delays - Issuance F
of directions that until NCMSC formulates a scientific method for
determining the required judge strength of the district judiciary,
iudge strength to be compllled for each State, in accordance with
the interim approach - Constitution of India.
The cases were pending before the High Courts where G
proceedings were stayed at the stage of registration of FIR,
investigation, framing of charges or during trial, in exercise of
power conferred by Art. 226 of the Constitution or Sections
397/482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This Court took
judicial notice of long pendency of serious criminal cases like
H
305
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.

A murder, rape, kidnapping and dacoity, due to grant of stay orders
by High Court. The Law Commission was requested to address
on the· basis of a scientific study, the issue of setting up additional
courts and providing additional infrastructure for ensuring access
to justice and speedy disposal of cases. The Law Commission
suggested rate disposal method to assess the judge strength
B
required in the district judiciary to clear the backlog of cases as
well as to ensure that a fresh backlog is not created. The
Chairperson of National Court Management Systems Committee
(NCMSC) expressing concern about the rate of disposal method,
proposed an interim approach which augments the disposal rate
c method of the Law Commission with the prevailing unit system
of the High Courts to attribute a weightage to cases based on
their nature and complexity. Hence, the present matter.
The Court:
HELD: 1.1 The criticism that the rate of disposal method
D places an incentive on lower disposals in certain courts has its
own limitations. A lower rate of disposal may not necessarily reflect
upon the efficiency with which a judge has conducted the court.
Trials are held up because of a paucity of public prosecutors.
Witnesses cited by the State, particularly police personnel, remain
E absent on dates fixed for trial, resulting in delays. Service of
summons is delayed because of the laxity of police. In several
northern States, particularly, the State of UP soaring summer
temperatures have in the absence of basic infrastructural facilities
including continuous power supply resulted in the
institutionalization of morning courts in several districts. The
F convenience of ordinary litigants and witnesses_ with limited
resources, who travel from afar without proper means of
transportation cannot be disregarded by the presiding judicial
oQicer. The functioning of courts which lack even rudimentary
infrastructure is affected, as a result. There are impediments
G faced by the district courts including strikes of lawyers and
abstention from work for causes unrelated to the functioning of
the judge or court concerned. The loss of mandays on account of
such causes results in a wastage of productive judicial time.
Hence, it would not be correct to assert that the rate of disposal
method places an incentive upon the unproductive or inefficient
H
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 307

working. Ground realities cannot be ignored merely on the basis A
of statistics. [Para 16] [322-B-F]
1.2 While prescribing units for disposal, a robust attempt
must be made by the High Courts to ensure that due importance
is given to the disposal of ·old cases. The units prescribed for
disposal must provide adequate incentives to attend to complex B
and time consuming cases. Failing this, the out-turn proscribed
for the district judiciary is attempted to be achieved without due
attention being given to the disposal of those cases which remain
pending for long as a result of their complexity, the number of
witnesses involved and such other factors. The High Courts
should look into this aspect in consultation with the district c
judiciary. District judges with long years of experience in the
service are in a position to appreciate practical realities and to
indicate the manner in which the unit system can be revised in
each state to encourage judges at both the trial and the appellate
level to take up those cases which consume judicial time and D
which should not be placed on the back-burner for fear that the
judge will not be able to fulfill the units expected. The Chief
Justices should initiate the process of revising unit based norms
in relation to their States. Each State has its own requirements
specific to it which have to be borne in mind. The unit system
must be framed so as to recognize the output of judicial officers E
in disposing of thos,e cases which clog the system. [Para 17] [322-
G-H; 323-A-B]
1.3 In prescribing the judge strength it is necessary to
ensure that a backlog does not result in the future as a result of
an increase in annual filings. The rate of increase in future filings F
has to be anticipated. Anticipation of what the future holds is an
estimate. One method of estimating the extent of the increase in
future filings is to have regard to the increase reflected over a
comparable period in the past for which data is available. Those
figures can be extrapolated to determine the increase in annual G
filings. The enhancement in the strength .of the district judiciary
should be such that a 'five plus zero' pendency is achieved (wiping
out the backlog within a target period of five years). [Para 18]
[323-C-D]
1.4 The report submitted to this Court by Chairperson, H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.

A National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMSC)
observes tbat in the long term, the judge strength of the courts
in the district judiciary will have to be assessed by a scientific
method to determine the total number of judicial hours required
for disposing of the case load of each court. In the interim, a
weighted disposal approach, has been suggested. Since the Union
B
government is broadly in agreement with this approach, it is
appropriate and proper to permit it to be utilized at this stage for
the purpose of determining the required judge strength of the
district judiciary. The Union government has, however, suggested
two stipulations, firstly that all the High Courts must nlake
c available real time data on the pendency of various categories of
cases. In this regard, both the NCMSC as well as E-Committee
are actively engaging with the High Courts. An endeavour should
be made to ensure that real time data is duly compiled and made
available online by the High Courts as part oftbe National Judicial
Arrears Grid. There is no inclination to accept the second
D
stipulation that new posts should he created only after 90 per
cent of the sanctioned strength bas been filled up. Filling up of
vacancies in the district judiciary is an on-going process. In many
States, the process of filling up posts is pursued in conjunction
with the State Public Service Commissions. Many of the delays
E are not in the control of the High Courts. Moreover, it is
necessary to provide for the required judge strength in every
State district judiciary so as to facilitate the creation of
infrastructure. In several States, the available infrastructure is
inadequate and insufficient to meet even the existing judge
strength. Hence, a scientific assessment of the required judge
F
strength would form the basis of ensuring that the State
governments put into place the infrastructure required for tackling
judicial delays. (Para 20) (324-B-F]
1.5 The Fourteenth Finance Commission endorsed the
proposals of the Department of Justice and urged the State
G Governments to use the additional fiscal allocation prOl·ided in
the form of tax devolution to meet the requirements of the State
judiciaries. Following the joint conference of Chief Justices of
High Courts and Chief Ministers of States held in April 2015, the
Union Minister of Law and Justice addressed letters to the Chief
H Justices and Chief Ministers in June 2015 requesting them to
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 309

institute a mechanism for regular interaction to resolve A
outstanding issues particularly those relating to infrastructure
and man-power needs of the judiciary. At the Conference of Chief
Justices of High Courts held in April 2016, the resolution was
adopted in this regard. [Fara 21) [326-C-E)
1.6 The said directions are formulated in the following B
terms: i) Until NCMSC formulates a scientific method for
determining the basis for computing the required judge strength
of the district judiciary, the judge strength shall be computed for
each state, in accordance with the interim approach indicated in
the note submitted by the Chairperson, NCMSC; ii) NCMSC is
requested to endeavour the submission of its final report by 31 c
December 2017; iii) A copy of the interim report submitted by
the Chairperson, NCMSC shall be forwarded by the Union
Ministry of Law and Justice to the Chief Justices of all the High
Courts and Chief Secretaries of all states within one month so as
to enable them to take follow-up action to determine the required D
judge strength of the district judiciary based on the NCMSC
interim report; iv) The State Governments shall take up with the
High Courts concerned the task of implementing the interim
report of the Chairperson, NCMSC and take necessary decisions
within the stipulated period for enhancing the required judge
strength of each state judiciary accordingly; v) The State E
Governments shall cooperate in all respects with the High Courts
in terms of the resolutions passed in the joint conference of Chief
Justices and Chief Ministers in April 2016 with a view to ensuring
expeditious disbursal of funds to the state judiciaries in terms of
the devolution made under the auspices of the Fourteenth Finance F
Commission; vi) The High Courts shall take up the issue of
creating additional infrastructure required for meeting the existing
sanctioned strength of their state judiciaries and the enhanced
strength in terms of the interim recommendation of NCMSC;
and vii) The final report submitted by NCMSC may be placed for
consideration before the Conference of Chief Justices. [Para 22) G
[328-C-H; 329-A-B)
All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2002) 4
SCC 247 : (2002) 2 SCR 712; Brii Mohan Lal v. Union
of India (2012) 6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305 -
referred to. H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] I S.C.R.

A Case Law Reference
[2002) 2 SCR 712 referred to Para7
J2012J 5 SCR 305 referred to Para8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
B Nos. 254-262 of20!2.
From the Order dated 09.04.2003, 29.04.2003, 30.04.2003,
10.10.2003, 07.05.2004, 26.05.2005, 19.09.2006, 27.09.2006, 06. l 0.2006,
and 18.12.2008 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. W.
P. No. 1786 of 2003.
c Maninder Singh, ASG, Ranjit Rao, Ajay Bansal, V. Madhukar,
Mukesh K. Giri, Suryanarayana Singh, Edward Belho, AA Gs, Ms. Vibha
Dutta Makhija, A. Mariarputham, Sr.Advs.,Ajay Kumar Singh, Sameer
Kumar Tiwari, T. A. Khan, Ms. Sadhna Sandhu, Ms. Disha Yaish, M.
K. Maroria, D. S. Mahra, B. V. Balaram Das, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Yusuf
Khan, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Abhisth Kumar,
D
Abhishek Kumar Singh, Sudeep Kumar, Gaurav Yadav, Ms. Anvita
Cowshish, Kuldip Singh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Gopal Singh, Shivam
Singh, Ms. Varssha Poddar, J. K. Bhatia, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ms.
Pragati Neekhra, Annam D. N. Rao, Annam Venkatesh, Sudipto Sircar,
Rahul Mishra, Abhinav Goyal, Kaushak Sindhu, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms.
E Prerna Singh, Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Priya Aristotle, Ms. K.
Priyadarshini, Bharat Sangal, Ms. Vernika Tomar, Ms. Vidushi Garg,
Ms. Spandana Reddy, Krishnanand Padeya, Tpesh Kumar Singh, Mohd.
Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, Mahaling Pandarge, Nishant Katneshwar,
Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Kshatrshal Raj, Ms. K. Enatoli Serna, Amit Kumar
Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Elix Gangmei, Ms. Hematika Wa:hi, Ms.
F
Puja Singh, Ms. Aagam Kaur, C. K. Sasi, Manikrushnan, Ashok K.
Srivasatava, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, Ms. Charudatta
Mahindrakar, Sunil Fernadese, Puneeth K. G., Mis. Parekh & Co.,
Abhishek Chaudhary, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Kamal Mohan Gupta, T. V.
Ratnam, T. G. Narayanan Nair, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. These Appeals arise from
a batch of interlocutory orders of the Allahabad High Court in a criminal
writ petition (1786 of2003). On 9 April 2003 a learned Single Judge of
the High Court admitted a writ petition filed by the second and third
H
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 311
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

respondents and stayed an order dated 7 December 2002 of the Additional A
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, directing the registration
of a case against them. The case was adjourned before the High Court
on several dates on which it was listed. As a result of the adjournments,
on the date of the institution of the Special Leave Petitions, the writ
petition was pending in the High Court for six years.
B
2. This Court was concerned with the pendency of similar cases
before the High Courts, where proceedings were stayed at the stage of
the registration of an FIR, investigation, framing of charges or during
trial, in exercise of the power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution
or Sections 397/482 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. Hence this
Court, by an order dated 8 January 2010 called for reports from the
c
Registrars General ofthe High Courts, in regard to serious cases involving:
(i) murder; (ii) rape; (iii) kidnapping; and (iv) dacoity. On the basis of
the data received, reports were presented to the Court by the amicus
'curiae. These reports were considered in an order dated I February
2012 by a Bench of two learned Judges, including one of us (the learned D
ChiefJustice oflndia). In the order of this Court dated 1 February 2012
the findings in the second report submitted by the amicus curiae were
summarized thus :
"(a)As high as 9% of the cases have completed more than twenty
years since the date of stay order; E
(b) Roughly 21 % of the cases have completed more than ten
years;
(c) Average pendency per case (counted from the date of stay
order till July 26, 2010) works out to be around 7.4 years;
F
(d) Charge-sheet was found to be the most prominent stage where
the cases were stayed with almost 32% of the cases falling under
this category. The next two prominent stages are found to be
"appearance" and "summons", with each comprising 19% of the
total number of cases".
G
3. During the course of the hearing of these proceedings, the
Union Government has been impleaded as a party to the proceedings
having regard to the fact that seminal issues are involved directly impacting
upon the administration ofjustice. This Court has assumed jurisdiction
since the long delays in the disposal of cases, particularly criminal cases,
H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.

A has a serious impact both on the rule of law and on access to Justice
which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
4. In 1958, the fourteenth Report of the Law Commission oflndia
on the Reform of Judicial Administration dealt with the issue of delay
B and arrears and identified inadequate judge strength as the "root cause"
of the problem. This perspective has been reiterated in several successive
reports, including of the Law Commission. These include the 77m Report
of the Law Commission oflndia on "Delay and arrears in trial courts",
November, 1978 (Ministry of Law and Justice, Government oflndia);
78"' Report of the Law Commission oflndia on "Congestion of under
c trial prisoners in jails", February, 1979 (Ministry of Law and Justice,
Government oflndia); 79m Report of the Law Commission oflndia on
"Delay and Arrears in High Courts and other Appellate Courts", May,
1979 (Ministry of Law and Justice, Government oflndia); 121" Report
of the Law Commission oflndia (method ofreview ofjudge strength at
D regular intervals), 1987; 124'" Report of the Law Commission oflndia-
The High Court Arrears - A fresh look, 1988; Report of The Arrears
Committee (Three Chief Justices Committee : Kerala, Calcutta &
Madras), 1989-90.
5. The 120., Report of the Law Commission on Manpower
E ·Planning in the Judiciary (1987) suggested a formula for the fixation of
judge strength, adopting a demographic approach. The Report suggested
that demographics should be the basis for fixation ofjudge strength. Its
rationale was set out thus :
"As to the possible accusation that the working out of the ratio of
F Judges strength per million oflndiaffpopulation is a gross measure,
the Commission wishes to say that this is one clear criterion of
manpower planning. If legislative representation can be worked
out, as pointed out earlier, on the basis of population and if other
services of the State - bureaucracy, police etc. - can also be
similarly planned, there is no reason at all for the non-extension of
G this principle to the judicial services. It must also be frankly stated
that while population may be a demographic unit, it is also a
clemocratic unit. In other words, we are talking of citizens with
democratic rights including right to access to justice which it is
the duty of the State to provide."
H
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 313
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

The Report indicated that though the US in 1981 had one-third of A
India's population, it had a judge to population ratio ofone hundred seven
judges per million, while in India it was only ten judges per million. The
Law Commission suggested that the judge to population ratio be
immediately increased from ten judges to fifty judges per million. The
Report suggested that by 2000 India should achieve a target of one
B
hundred and seven judges per million (which the US had in 1981).
6. If these recommendations had been acted upon India would
have judge strength of 1,10,071 in 2000 (with the population of 1028
million) and 1,36, 794 as on 31 December 2015. However, the sanctioned
strength of the judiciary at all levels on 31December2015 was only
21,607. c
7. This Court in a judgment delivered on 21 March 2002 in All
India Judges Association v. Union of India' endorsed the views of
the Law Commission in its 120'" Report and directed that a judge to
population ratio of fifty judges per million be achieved within a period of
five years and not ,l11ter than ten years in any case. This Court observed: D

"The increase in the Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh
people should be effected and implemented with the filling up of
the posts in phased manner to be determined and directed by the
Union Ministry of Law, but this process should be completed and
the increased vacancies and posts filled within a period of five E
years from today. Perhaps increasing the Judge strength by 10.
per 10 lakh people every year could be one of the methods which
may be adopted thereby completing the first stage within five
years before embarking on further increase if necessary".
The Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Arrears F
in Courts (2002) supp"' ;cd the application of the demographic norm as
the starting point for determination ofjudge strength. In a letter dated 2
April 2013, the then Prime Minister of India also accepted th,e
recommendation of the Chief Justice of India to double the existing
number of courts. When this issue was·taken up at the Joint Conference G
of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices in 2013 it was resolved to create
new posts ofjudicial officers with requisite staff and infrastructure.
8. In order to address the issue of arrears, a policy decision was
taken by the Union government to constitute fast track courts and funds
'(2002) 4 sec 247
H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R.

A were allocated under the Eleventh Finance Commission for a period of
five years (2000-05). When the issue of the discontinuation of fast-
track courts came up, this Court in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union oflndia'
held that the policies of the State should not derogate from undermining
judicial independence and ifa policy was counter-productive or liable to
increase the case load, the court intervene judicially. Though this Court
B
desisted from interfering with the policy decision in regard to discontinuing
fast track courts, keeping in mind the huge pendency of cases, a direction
was issued for the creation of additional posts in the district judiciary to
the extent often per cent of the total regular cadre within a stipulated
period.
c 9. In a recent Report prepared by the Centre for Research and
Planning of the Supreme Court oflndia titled "Subordinate Courts of
India : A Report on Access to Justice 2016" a detailed analysis has been
made of the pendency of cases in the district judiciary. The following
table which has been compiled in the Report shows the figures of
institution, disposal and pendency in the district judiciary for 2013-15 :

- -
D
Yor q,,;,,, l:;,n.I Rnirey ~
Bllln:e °""""'
llm5't\"s
Oimml
""'"
Gd °"""""
llm5't\"s
Gd
9nolJI> 9nolJI>
""l'

lll5 2,ffi,fIJ,(f§J l,'Xl,41,877 1.83,18,256 2,7J,76,(f)9 62,01,1'1 -0,19.19.l ll,558 1~176 4.382
lll4 2,fB,Y)7fJJ 1.92,81.971 1,93)8,283 2,61,811,4'.ll 61.29,011 44.13.011 ll,174 1~;'!5 4.5!ll
E llll 2,(f),<n)52 1.86.~907 l,!tl,37.745 2,61\ll\851 S!>Jll,100 41,8J.216 19,5>5 15J28 4.l'll

Based on its analysis of the figures for institution, disposal and
pendency of cases, the Report concludes thus :
"The 2013-20I5 statistics show that the judicial system is able to
tackle the flow of fresh cases. In 2013, the institution was 1.86
F crore with the disposal of 1.87 crore cases. In 20 I 4 the institution
stood at 1.92 crore and disposal at 1.93 crore cases and in 2015
the figure of institution was 1.90 crore while disposal was 1.83
crore. Over the last 3 years period, the pendency has remained
at 2.68 crores, 2.64 crores, and 2. 74 crore cases respectively. In
G contrast to these figures, the Indian subordinate judiciary has a
sanctioned judicial workforce of merely 20,558 officers and a
working strength of 16, 176 officers. Keeping these figures in
mind, it is simple arithmetic to conclude that the existingjudicial
'officers are not sufficientto keep pace with the existing situation".

H
2 (2012) 6 sec so2
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 315
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Analysing the data from the National Crime Records Bureau, the A
report notes that the present strength of judicial officers is able to
complete trial in approximately thirteen per cent of cases brought for
trial under the Indian Penal Code during each year. The ratio of cases
brought for trial to the number of cases in which trial is completed stands
close to the figure of seven over the past five years.
B
I 0. During the course of the hearing, the Union Government has
fairly dealt with the issues which have been debated in the case in a
non-adversarial manner, accepting that access to justice is a constitutional
right. Initially, in the counter affidavit on behalf ofthe Union Ministry of
·Law and Justice, reference was made to the measures which were
adopted by the Government to secure speedy justice and reduce delays. c
Among them were the following :
I. Appointment of Court Managers in High Courts and Sub-
ordinate·Courts.
II. Vision Statement and Action Plan adopted by the National D
Consultation for Strengthening the Judiciary towards
Reducing Pendency and Delays .
III.
•
Preparation of National Arrears Grid.
IV. National Mission for Justice De!iyery and Legal Reforms.
E
v. National and State Legal Service Authorities constituted
under Legal Servic.e Authorities Act, 1987.
VI. National Court Management System (as proposed by the
Chief Justice oflndia).
The terms ofreference of the 19th Law Commission (adverted to. F
by the Union government in its affidavit dated 18 January 2012) were
broad enough to include consideration of the steps necessary for tackling
judicial arrears. Clause (h) of the terms ofreference was:.
"H. To consider and to convey to the Government its views on
any subject relating to law and judicial administration that may be G
referred to it by the Government through Ministry of Law and
Justice (Department of Legal Affairs)".
Hence, the Union Government urged that the Law Commission
.. could be requested to address on the basis of a scientific study, the issue
H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] l S.C.R.

A of setting up additional courts and providing additional infrastructure for
ensuring access to justice and speedy disposal of cases. The Law
Commission was requested by the order of this Court dated l February
20 12 to inquire into the matter and to endeavour to submit its report
within six months. Three interim progress reports were received from
the Law Commission. By an order dated 5 July 2013 this Court noted
B
that the fourth and final progress report had also been received. On I
May 2014, this Court recorded the receipt of the final report and
recommendations of the Law Commission and sought a response of the
states to the report including on the "rate of disposal" method proposed
as a basis for determining vacancies required for - (i) clearance of
c arrears in different states; and (ii) for break.even between institution and
disposal of cases in the future. Subsequently, by an order dated 20
August 2014, the National Court Management Systems Committee ·
(NCMSC) was requesteq to examine the recommendations made by
the Law Commission and to formulate its recommendations to this Court
on the subject. Professor Dr G Mohan Gopal, Chairperson ofNCMSC
D
has submitted a note for calculating the required judge strength for the
district judiciary while also formulating his response to the rate of disposal
method suggested by the Law Commission. '
11. The rate of disposal method suggested by the Law Commission
seeks to assess the judge strength required in the district judiciary to
E
clear the backlog of cases as well as to ensure that a fresh backlog is
not created. Under this method, the Law Commission seeks to address·
two concerns :
i) the large existing backlog of cases; and

F ii) the number of judges required. to ensure that new filings
aredisposed of in such a manner t~at a further backlog is not
created.
The expression "backlog" is defmed as the difference between
institution and disposal of cases. The Law Commission has set down a
G goal of ensuring that there are no pending' cases at the end of each
review· period.
The rate of disposal method suggested by the Law Commission
can best be explained from the following extract of its final report of
February 2014:
H
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STAfE OF U.P. & ORS. 317
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

"For the present, and based on the information we currently have, A
the Commission has used the Rate of Disposal Method to calculate
the number of additional judges required to clear the backlog of
cases as well as to ensure that new backlog is not created. Under
this method, two concerns are addressed : (a) There is a large
existing backlog of cases and (b) New cases are being instituted
B
daily which are adding to the backlog ..
In order to address both these concerns, we use the Rate of
Disposal Method to provide for two sets of judges : (a) Number
of judges required to dispose -of the existing backlog and (b)
Number of judges required for ensuring that new filings are
disposed of in a manner such that further backlog is not created. c
Under the Rate of Disposal Method, the Commission first looked
at the current rate at which juages dispose of cases. Next we
determined how many additional judges working at a similar level
of efficiency would be required so that the number of disposals
equals the number of instiiutions in any one year time frame. As D
long as the institution and disposal levels remain as they currently
are, the Courts would need these many additional judges to keep
pace with new findings in order to ensure that newly instituted
cased do not add to the backlog ..
Second, working with the current rate of disposal of cases per E
judge, we also looked at how many judges would be required to
dispose of the current backlog. We have defined the backlog as
those cases which have been pending in the system for more than
a year."
The method has been explained thus : F
"(!)The method calculates the number ofjudges required in each
cadre of subordinate Court judges, i.e., Higher Judicial Service,
Civil Judge Senior Division and Civil Judge Junior Division. For
each of these three cadres we have separately analyzed figures
for institution, disposal and the working strength ofjudges, from G
2010toend-2012.
(2) Disposals for one cadre ofjudges (e.g., Higher Judicial Service)
is divided by the working strength ofjudges in that cadre. Working
strength refers to sanctioned strength minus vacancies and
H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R.

A deputations. This division gives us the annual Rate of Disposal
per judge in a cadre for each year from 2010 to 2012. The average
of this annual rate.of disposal figures gave us the Average Rate
of Disposal per judge in that cadre.
(3) We take an average of the annual institutions before each
B cadre of judge for the years 2010-12. The average institution is
divided by the Average Rate of Disposal per judge for that cadre
to give us the number of judges required to keep pace with the
current ti ling, and ensure that no new backlog is created. We call
this figure the Break Even Number.
c (4) Subtracting the current number ofjudges from the Break Even
Number gives us the Additional Number of Judges required to
ensure that the number of disposals will equal the number of
institutions.
(5) The backlog for a particular cadre of judges (defined as all
D cases pending before that cadre of judges for more than a year)
is then divided by the rate of disposal for that type ofjudge. This
gave us the numberofjudges required to clear the backlog within
a year. Dividing this number by 2 gives the number of judges
required to clear the backlog in 2 years, and so forth."
E Therefore, the formula for determining the Additional Number of
Judges for Breakeven can be represented as follows :

ARD= [(Dzo10/J201o)+(Dzo11/J2011)+ (D2012/J2012)]/3
BEJ=(Al/ARD)-J •
F
Where,
BEJ= Additional No. of Judges required to Break Even.
Al= Average Institution
ARD= Average Rate of Disposal
D2010, D2011. D2012 ""Annual Disposal for that year
G
J20 IO, J:?0 t I . J~O I~ - :\nnual \rorklng Strength of Judges for that year
J~ Current Working Strength of Judges

The fonnula for determining the ~umbtr or Judges for disposing or Backlog required to dispose of

pending case$ within a given time period is:

AJBk= (B/ARD)/t
H
JMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 319
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Where,
A

AJBk"" No_ of Judges for disposing of Backlog

8'" Backlog, defined as the number of cases pending for more than a year.

t"' The time frame. in number of years, within which the backlog needs to be cleared"

12. The Law Commission has noted that in the past, it was B
suggested that judges required to dispose of the backlog are needed only
until the backlog is cleared. Hence, it was proposed that short-term, ad-
hoc appointments should be made from amongst retired judges for clearing
the backlog, However, the previous experience of the functioning of ad
hoc appointments in the district judiciary reflected serious concern
especially of the lack of accountability in their functioning and
c
performance. Moreover, additional infrastructure would be required to
be created even for ad-hoc judges appointed in the system. The proposal
to have a shift system has been resisted by the Bar since it results in an
increase in the working hours.
D
13. The note submitted by Professor Dr G Mohan Go pal raises
certain concerns about the rate of disposal method suggested by t.he
Law Commission. These concerns as set out in the note submitted by
him, are summarized belo~:
i) The definition of backlog (difference between institution and
disposal) does not take into account the fact that every case requires a E
reasonable period for its disposal based on the nature of the dispute
involved. in that case. Under the above definition, even cases which
have been filed towards the end of a year must be disposed of by 31
December to eliminate the backlog. In the absence of established time
frames in our system for disposal of cases the elimination ofa backlog is F
virtually unimplementable since it is impossible for courts to dispose of
cases filed days or weeks before the end of a specified reference period;
ii) The rate of disposal method unintentionally incentivizes lower
disposals because lower the rate of disposal, the greater the number of
additional judicial positions which that court will get under this G
methodology. The method proposed by the Law Commission is (according
to the critique) not designed to improve productivity nor does it concern
itself with judge to case ratio;
iii) The rate of disposal method does not give weightage to cases
based upon their nature and complexity and all types of cases are treated
H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] I S.C.R.

A at par. Complex cases require greater amounts ofjudicial time and effort
than simple cases;
iv) The rate of disposal method does not take into account the
reasonableness of the work load of judges. Any assessment of judge
strength must take due account of the "maximum permissible reasonable
B work load" for a judge before mental and physical fatigue start impairing
the quality of working;
v) Merely focusing upon the reduction of backlog is not adequate
since what is required is a scientific method to assess the judge strength
needed to deal with the backlog as well as the flow of new cases.
c 14. NCMSC has suggested that the clearance of backlog is•not
the sole or central basis for determining judge strength. Several other
critical parameters include· (i) rate of case clearance: the number of
cases disposed of as a percentage of institution; (ii) on time disposal rate
- the percentage of cases resolved within an established time frame;
D (iii) pre-trial custody periods wherein an under-trial is in custody pending
trial of a criminal case; and (iv) trial date certainty-the proportion of
important case processing provisions that are held according to the
schedule finalized. Professor Dr G Mohan Gopal suggests that the rate
of disposal method does not make a substantial departure from past
approaches that have not yielded desired results.
E
15. The Chairperson ofNCMSC has proposed an interim approach
which augments the disposal rate method of the Law Commission with
the prevailing unit system of the High Courts to attribute a weightage to
cases based on their nature and complexity. Under the unit system the
High Courts have established disposal norms for the district judiciary
F based on units allocated for disposal of different cases. On the basis of
the units prescribed"' performance is rated from "excellent" and 'very
good' to 'unsatisfactory'. The approach which has been suggested, based
on the unit system, is as follows :
"Applying The Unit System to Assess Required Judge
G Strength
~

1. Number of.judges required to dispose of the annual "flow"
of new cases ("break even")
25. Every court should calculate in units its average annual filing
over the previous five years for all types of cases.
H
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 321
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHU.D, J.]

26. Divide the annual filing units above by the number of annual A·
units required to be disposed of by a judge for VERY GOOD
·performance.
27. This will give for each court, the numberofjudgesrequired to
ensure "break even", i.e., disposal equals the number of new cases
filed every year in that court. B
ii. Number of judges required for disposal of backlog of cases
28. First, every court should calculate in units its "backlog'.', i.e.
the number of cases of all categories pending for more than the
maxinium time standard set by it for disposal (e.g., three years)
c
29. Second, a suitable time period may be established within which
this "backlog" should be cleared (e.g. 5 years).
30. Third, divide the total backlog in units by the number of years
withirrwhich it has to be cleared (e.g., 5 years). This will give the
·required annual disposal of"backlog". D
31. Fourth, divide the required annual disposal of backlog by the
number of annual units required to be disposed of by each judge
(units required for VERY GOOD performance).
32. This gives the number of judges required to dispose of "the
backlog" within the prescribed time frame. E
33. The judge strength so assessed should be monitored annually.
34. Needless to say, it will be desirable· th~! unit systems are
rationalized and strengthened'with as much uniformity of approach
across the country as feasible, addressing variations and limitations
of systems currently in plac(.;. F

iii. Total number ofjudges required for achieving "break even"
plus "disposal of backlog"
35. Add the number of Judges·required for "break eve("to the
number of Judges required for disposal of backlog, as determined · G
above.
iv. Trigger for creation of new courts
36. When for any court, the total numbe~of units required to be
disposed annually ("breakeven" plus bac~lbg, if any) is greater
H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R.

A than 1.5 times the disposal norm for a "very good performance"
judge, a new court would need to be. created."
· 16: While evaluating the limitations of the rate of disposal method
suggested by the Law Commission which have been noted in the report
submitted by the Chairperson, NCMSC, certain aspects would have to
B be borne in mind. The criticism that the rate of disposal method places
an incentive on lower disposals in certain courts has its own limitations.
A lower rate of disposal may not necessarily reflect upon the efficiency
with which a judge has conducted the court. Trials are held up because
of a paucity of public prosecutors. Witnesses cited by the state,
particularly police personnel, remain absent on dates fixed for trial,
c resulting in delays. Service of summons is delayed because of the laxity
of police. In several northern states, particularly, the State of Uttar
Pradesh soaring summer temperatures have in the absence of basic
infrastructural facilities including continuous power supply resulted in
the institutionalization of morning courts in several districts. The
D convenience of ordinary litigants and witnesses with limited resources,
who travel from afar without proper means of transportation cannot be.
disregarded by the presiding judicial officer.The functioning of courts
which lack even rudimentary infrastructure is affected, as a result. In a
number of states, it has been the experience that there are impediments
faced by the district courts including strikes oflawyers and abstention
E from work for causes unrelated to the functioning of the judge or court
concerned. The loss ofmandays on account of such causes results in a
wastage of productive judicial time. Hence, it would not be correct to
assert that the rate of disposal method places an incentive upon the
unproductive or inefficient. Ground realities cannot be ignored merely
F on the basis of statistics.
17. Another aspect which merits emphasis is that while prescribing
units for disposal, a robust attempt must be made by the High Courts to
ensure that due importance is given to the disposal of old cases. The
units prescribed for disposal must provide adeqµate incentives to attend
G to complex and time consuming cases. Failing this, the out-tum proscribed
for the district judiciary is attempted to be achieved without due attention
being given to the disposal of those cases which remain pending for long
as a result of their complexity, the number of witnesses involved and
such other factors. This is an aspect which needs to be looked into by
the Higk Courts in consultation with the district judiciary. District judges
H '
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 323
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

with long years of experience in the service are in a position to appreciate A
practical realities and to indicate the manner in which the unit system
can be revised in each state to encourage judges at both the trial and the
appellate level to take up those cases which consume judicial time and
which should not be placed on the back-burner for fear that thejudge
will not be able to fulfill the units. expected. The Chief Justices should
B
initiate the process of revising unit based norms in relation to their states.
Each state has its own requirements specific to it which have to be
borne in mind. The unit system must be framed so as to recognize the
output of judicial officers in disposing of those cases which clog the
system.
18. In prescribing the judge strength it is necessary to ensure that c
a backlog does not result in the future as a result of an increa.se in annual
filings. The rate of increase in future filings has to be anticipated.
Anticipation of what the future holds is an estimate. One method of
estimating the extent of the increase in future filings is to have regard to
the increase reflected over a comparable period in the past for which D
data is available. Those figures can be extrapolated to determine the
increase in annual filings. The enhancement in the strength of the district
judiciary should be such that a 'five plus zero' pendency is achieved
(wiping out the backlog within a target period of five years).
19. In response to the recommendations submitted by the E
Chairperson, NCMSC, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union
oflndia in the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Union government has
stated that while it is broadly in agreement with this approach, the
methodology suggested by NCMSC can be adopted subject to certain
stipulations. The relevant part of the response is extracted below :
F
"6. The Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India is
broadly in agreement with the recommendations made by NCMS
Committee as indicated above. T~~ methodology suggested by
NCMS Committee can be adopted for determining the adequacy
ofjudge strength with following stipulations.
G
(i) All High Courts must evolve uniform data collection and
data management methods under the ongoing E-Courts Mission
Mode Project and make available online Real time Data on
pendency of various categories of cases to the respective State
Governments and Central Government.
H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 1 S.C.R.

A (ii) The trigger for creation of new posts must be activated
only after 90% of the sanctioned strength has been filled up,
failing which the creation of additional posts will have no impact
or consequence on reduction of pendency".
20. The report which has been submitted to this Court by the
B Chairpe;son, NCMSC observes that in the long t¢rm, the judge strength
ofthe courts in the district judiciary will have to be assessed by a scientific
method to determine the total number of judicial hours required for
disposing of the case load of each court. In the interim, a weighted
disposal approach, as explained above has been suggested. Since the
Union government is broadly in agreement with this approach, we deem
c it appropriate and proper to permit it to be utilized at this stage for the
purpose of determining the required judge strength of the district judiciary.
The Union government has, however, suggested two broad stipulations.
The first is that all the High Courts must make available real time data
on the pendency of various categories of cases. In this regard, both the
D NCMSC as well as E-Committee are actively engaging with the High
Courts. An endeavour should be made to ensure that real time data is
duly compiled and made available online by the High Courts as part of
the National Judicial Arrears Grid. We are not inclined to accept the
second stipulation that new posts should be created only after 90 per
cent of the sanctioned strength has been filled up. For one thing, filling
E up of vacancies in the district judiciary is an on-going process. In many
states, the process of filling up posts is pursued in conjunction with the
State Public Service Commissions. Many of the delays are not in the
control of the High Courts. Moreover, it is necessary to provide for the
required judge strength in evr ; state district judiciary so as to facilitate
F the creation of infrastructure. In several states, the available
infrastructure is inadequate and insufficient to meet even the existing
judge strength. Hence, a scientific assessment of the required judge
strength will form the basis of ensuring that the state governments put
into place the infrastructure required for tacklingjudicial delays.

G 21. By an order of this Court dated 29 November 2016, this
Court had permitted the Union government l j11Jce on the record the
following information in regard to funds made available by the Fourteenth
Finance Commission formeeting the needs of the state judiciary and the
modalities for disbursement and utilisation :

H "i) Whether any break-up of the said allocation has been provided
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 325
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

for by the Finance Commission and/or Government of India or A
any guidelines as to the areas in which the said amount will be
expended.
ii) In case such a break-up is prescribed, a copy of the
communication/order under which the same has been provided
be placed on record. B
iii) What is the manner by which the Government oflndia proposes
to monitor the utilization of the amount set apart for judiciary by
the States. State wise allocation be also indicated."
In pursuance of these directions, an affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the Union Ministry of Law and Justice. The affidavit indicates c
that the Department of Justice had submitted the following.proposals to
the Fourteenth Finance Commission involving a total requirement of
Rupees 9749 crores :
I. Pendency Reduction Rs.858.83 crore
c D
II. Establishment of Fast Track Courts Rs.4144.11 crore
III. Establishment of Family
Courts in districts without
such courts Rs.541.06 crore
IV. Re-designing existing
E
court complexes to become
more litigant friendly Rs.1400 crore
v. Augmenting technical
support for !CT enabled courts Rs.479.68 crore
VI. Scanning and Digitalisation
of Case Records of High Courts F
and District Courts Rs.752.50 crore
VII. Enhancing Access to Justice
i) Support for Law School
based Legal Aid Clinics with
focus on undertrials : Rs.50.50 crore G
ii) Organizing Lok Adalats Rs.93 .61 crore
iii) Support for Mediation
/conciliation in ADR centres Rs.300 crore
iv) Incentives to Mediators
/Concilators Rs.503.44 crore H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 1 S.C.R.

A VIII. (a) Training and capacity
building of judges, public
prosecutors, mediators,
lawyers: Refresher, ongoing Rs.550 crore
(b) Establishment of
State Judicial Academies
B
in Manipur, Meghalaya and
Tripura : Rs.75 crore
Total Cost : Rs.9749 crore"
State-wise and sector-wise details have been annexed to the
affidavit. The Fourteenth Finance Commission endorsed the proposals
c of the Department of Justice and has urged the state governments to
use the additional fiscal allocation provided in the form of tax devolution
to meet the requirements of the state judiciaries. The Prime Minister of
India has addressed a letter dated 23 April 2015 to the Chief Ministers
calling upon them to allocate funds required for the activities
D recommended by the Fourteenth Finance Commission in the state budgets
from 2015-2016to improvetheworkingofthejudicial system and provide
speedy justice. Following the joint conference of Chief Justices of High
Courts and Chief Ministers of States held in April 2015, the Union Minister
of Law and Justice addressed letters to the Chief Justices and Chief
Ministers in June 2015 requesting them to institute a mechanism for
E
regular interaction to resolve outstanding issues particularly those relating
to infrastructure and man-power needs of the judiciary. It may be noted
here that at the Conference of Chief Justices of High Courts held in
April 2016, the following resolution was adopted:
"Resolved that the following strategy be adopted by the High
F
Courts:
i) Constitution ofa dedicated cell for the utilization offunds.
The composition of the Cell should consist of policy makers,
experts in planning and budgeting, senior judicial officers
and persons to be nominated by the Chief Justice. The
G
Cell shall be assigned the task of:
(a) Preparing perspectives/annual plans and time lines;
(b) Drawing up budget estimates;
(c) Monitoring and review of the implementation of
H each scheme;
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 327
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

(d) Taking up the matter with the State Government to ensure A
release of funds.
ii) Submitting a request for funds from the State Government
within time for financial years 2016-1 7 to 2019-2020;
--~.

iii) Ensuring that funds are spent in accordance with the
B
budgetary allocati<m and speedy and effective utilization.
For this purpose, periodical meetings and reviews be
conducted; and
iv) Monitoring of schemes and outcomes through special on-
line portals and JCT tools. Progress made be reviewed in
State Court Management System meetings and quarterly
c
progress reports be forwarded to the Supreme Court for
review by National Court Management System''.
Thereafter, in the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief
Ministers, the following resolution was adopted:
D
"With a view to facilitate proper and timely utilization of funds
made available by the I4'' Finance Commission to the State
judiciaries, it was resolved that:
(i) Finance Secretaries of each State be associated with the
work of the High Court committees in-charge of monitoring E
] 4th Finance Commission fonds;
(ii) Proper coordination be ensured between the Central and
State Governments in regard to the submission ofutilization
certificates in relation to infrastructure projects of the state
judiciaries; F
'(iii) In respect of thee-Court Scheme and Infrastructure scheme
which are being monitored by the Department of Justice,
intimations of funds remitted to the State Governments
under these two Schemes shall also be forwarded by the
Department of Justice to the High Courts. G
(iv)State Governments shall (i) lend such assistance to the High
Courts as is required for proper utilization of 14'' Finance
Commission funds; and (ii) grant a one time exemption for
2016-17 to facilitate proper utilii.iltion ".
H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 1 S.C.R.

A 'The Union Minister of Law and Justice has since addressed
. communications to the Chief Ministers of States requesting that the state
Finance Secretaries should assist the registries of the High Courts to
prepare perspective plans/individual plans for activities to be undertaken
in the justice sector. A letter has been addressed to the Chief Justices on
26 September 2016. The affidavit explains that necessary mechanisms
B
have been set up under the resolutions of the Conference of Chief Justices
and Chief Ministers and of the Chief Justices respectively.
22. Having regard to the above background, we now proceed to
formulate our directions in the following terms :

c i) Until NCMSC formulates a scientific method for determining
the basis for computing the required judge strength of the
district judiciary, the judge strength shall be computed for
each state, in accordance with the interim approach
indicated in the note submitted by the Chairperson, NCMSC;

D ii)-NCMSC is requested to endeavour the submission of its
final report by 31 December 2017;
iii) A copy of the interim report submitted by the Chairperson,
NCMSC shall be forwarded by th¢ Union Ministry of Law
and Justice to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts and
E Chief Secretaries of all states within one month so as to
enable them to take follow-up action to determine the
required judge strength of the district judiciary based on the
NCMSC interim report, subject to what has been stated in
this judgment;
iv) The state governments shall take up with the High Courts
F
concerned the task of implementing the inferim report of
the Chairperson, NCMSC (subject to what has been
observed above) and take necessary deCisions within a
period of three months from today for enhancing the
required judge strength ofeach state judiciary acco~dingly;
G
v) The state governments shall cooperate in all respects with
the High Courts in terms of the resolutions passed in the
joint conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers in
April 2016 with a view to ensuring expeditious disbursal of
funds to the state judiciaries in terms of the devolution made
H under the auspices of the Fourteenth Finance Commission;
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 329
[DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

vi) The High Courts shall take up the issue of creating additional A
infrastructure required for meeting the existing sanctioned
strength of their state judiciaries and the enhanced strength
in terms of the interim recommendation ofNCMSC;
vii)The final report submitted by NCMSC may be placed for
consideration before the Conference of Chief Justices. The B
directions in (i) above shall then be subject to the ultimate
decision that is taken on receipt of the final report; and
viii)A copy ofthis order shall be made available to the Registrars
General ofeach High Court and to all Chief Secretaries of
the States for appropriate action. c
23. List the proceedings for disposal of the criminal appeals before
the appropriate bench in the third week of July 2017.
Nidhi Jain Directions issued.