The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court’s recent directive to the UT Government to complete the process of creating 334 posts within 60 days is a landmark step towards addressing the chronic shortage of staff in the judiciary. This directive from the Division Bench highlights a pressing issue that has plagued the judiciary for over a decade: the systemic neglect of judicial infrastructure and human resource needs. The background of this case reveals the grim realities of bureaucratic inertia. The Registry of the High Court first raised the need for additional staff a decade ago, and despite multiple communications and meetings, the matter languished in Governmental corridors for years. Even as the number of judges increased from 14 to 25, the corresponding support staff required to ensure the smooth functioning of judicial proceedings failed to materialize. The situation is a classic case of the executive failing to uphold its constitutional obligation to strengthen the judiciary, a vital pillar of democracy.
The judiciary, particularly in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, has been grappling with an ever-increasing workload. The expansion of judge strength, while welcome, places an additional burden on an already overworked support system. Judges cannot perform their duties effectively without adequate secretarial and administrative support. Bench Secretaries, Readers, and Private Secretaries are critical in managing case files, drafting orders, and ensuring seamless court operations. The creation of 334 posts, delayed for nearly a decade, is not merely about filling positions. It empowers the judiciary to function efficiently, reduce case backlogs, and uphold the rule of law. Justice delayed is justice denied, and the absence of adequate staff undermines the very essence of a fair judicial process.
The Division Bench’s strong words-calling the executive’s actions “gross contempt”-reflect its frustration with the lackadaisical approach of the administration. The argument that the requirement of 334 posts must be evaluated based on parameters such as caseload or comparisons with other High Courts is both untenable and contemptuous. The judiciary, through the Chief Justice, is best positioned to determine its staffing needs. Any attempt by the executive to second-guess or question these requirements is an affront to the independence of the judiciary. The delay in approving these posts also raises questions about the executive’s priorities. While funds and resources are routinely allocated for infrastructure and other sectors, the judicial requirements seem not to be a priority. This neglect is particularly glaring in regions like Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, where access to justice is already constrained due to geographical and logistical challenges.
The prolonged delay in creating these posts is not just a procedural lapse but a disservice to the people. Citizens seeking redressal of grievances are the ultimate sufferers of an underresourced judiciary. Cases drag on for years, eroding public trust in the judicial system. The absence of adequate support hampers efficiency and creates unnecessary bottlenecks in case of disposal.
While the High Court has taken a firm stand, the executive needs to respond positively and expedite the process. This directive must serve as a wake-up call for the UT Government to prioritise the judiciary’s needs. The creation of 334 posts should not be seen as an isolated event but as part of a larger effort to strengthen judicial infrastructure in the region. The executive and judiciary must collaborate to identify and address gaps in infrastructure and staffing. Regular consultations and timely implementation of proposals can prevent such situations in the future. It is also appropriate for the UT Government to adopt a more proactive approach, ensuring that financial constraints do not become an excuse for neglecting judicial needs. The Government must rise to the occasion and demonstrate its commitment to the rule of law by meeting the 60-day deadline. The completion of this process will not only bolster the functioning of the High Court but also set a precedent for respecting judicial requirements across the country.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
