New Delhi: Nearly one in every three sanctioned High Court judges’ posts is lying vacant, with 341 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 1,122 as of 1 July, according to data tabled by the Union Law Ministry in Parliament.
The figures, furnished in response to a Rajya Sabha question by Biju Janata Dal MP Sasmit Patra, show that the High Courts are functioning with only 781 judges against the sanctioned strength of 1,122, leaving a vacancy rate of over 30 percent.
The Allahabad High Court, the country’s largest High Court, has the highest number of vacancies at 52. Against a sanctioned strength of 160 judges, it is currently functioning with only 108, according to the data submitted by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on 23 July.
In second place is the Calcutta High Court with 31 vacancies and 41 working judges. It is closely followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court has 30 vacancies and 55 working judges.
The situation at the Madras High Court is tight as well with 24 vacancies, while the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts have 19 and 18 vacant seats, respectively.
Among the High Courts with larger sanctioned strengths, the Delhi High Court, which has a sanctioned strength of 60 judges, has 16 vacancies. Similarly, the HCs of Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Telangana and Karnataka have 16, 15, 15 and 14 vacancies as of 1 July.
In percentage terms, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh HC is the worst affected, functioning with 52 percent vacancy, i.e., a total of 13 empty seats against its sanctioned strength of 25 judges.
The Jharkhand HC is functioning with 13 judges against a sanctioned strength of 25, while the Orissa High Court has only 18 judges against a sanctioned strength of 33 judges.
The Meghalaya High Court is the lone HC functioning at its full sanctioned strength, with all four judicial positions occupied. Sikkim and Tripura each have one vacancy, while Manipur has two and Uttarakhand three.
Overall, the country’s 25 High Courts have a sanctioned strength of 1,122 judges, of which only 781 posts are occupied, leaving 341 vacancies. Previously, ThePrint had reported in 2024 that there were 352 vacancies across the country’s High Courts against a total sanctioned strength of 1,114 posts as of 1 October 2024.
Senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose said the debate should not be confined to filling existing vacancies alone, as the sanctioned strength itself requires periodic review to keep pace with changing realities.
“The sanctioned strength was decided years ago. It needs to be reviewed from time to time. A judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sonia Gandhi vs GNCTD and a DoPT Office Memorandum require that this strength be reviewed periodically, every five years. If it was fixed in the 1960s and we are now in 2026, it is really shameful. The sanctioned strength should be reviewed keeping in mind the lived realities of the time,” Ghose told ThePrint.
In its reply, the Centre reiterated that appointments to the higher judiciary are made through the constitutional process prescribed under the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) and Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution, which relate to the appointment and conditions of permanent judges and additional judges, respectively.
The ministry emphasised that filling judicial vacancies is “a continuous, integrated and collaborative process” involving the High Courts, state governments, the Centre and the Supreme Court Collegium.
It also pointed out that the MoP, an agreement between the judiciary and the Centre, lays down the step-by-step process for the appointment, elevation and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
The High Courts are expected to initiate recommendations for appointments at least six months before a vacancy arises, Meghwal said, adding that this timeline was “rarely observed”.
Meghwal said recommendations made by High Court collegiums are processed after obtaining the views of the state governments and other relevant inputs before being placed before the Supreme Court Collegium. Only candidates recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium are eventually appointed as High Court judges, he added.
Former Lok Sabha secretary general P.D.T. Achary said both the Supreme Court Collegium and the Centre need to treat the issue of vacancies with greater urgency.
“This is an issue which is very important because there are so many vacancies in the High Courts; so the collegium and the government should address the problem seriously. The collegium should take proper steps to fill the vacancies. It is not that suitable people are not available. Some percentage is reserved for judges coming from the district judiciary,” he told ThePrint.
“At the moment, the Supreme Court Collegium should take the initiative and suggest names of High Court judges, and the government should also do its part. They should certainly address this problem with utmost seriousness because judges are not there and the pendency is rising.”
Former Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court Rajiv Shakdher flagged concerns over the impact of judicial vacancies, saying delays in appointments affect not just litigants but also the economy and the functioning of the judiciary.
“This is concerning and ultimately impacts the litigant. When courts are unable to deliver decisions in time because of the paucity of judges, it impacts the economy, judicial careers and creates a sense of despondency and pendency. FDI is impacted, labour and jobseekers are all affected. The government needs to analyse the impact of not appointing enough judges. The MoP says appointments should be made at least six months before.”
The retired judge also pointed to delays in appointments to the district judiciary, where recruitment examinations are often not held on time.
“This part of the court process can be outsourced to another agency as well. Delay in appointments leads to despondency among the judiciary. Some district judges get only five to six years on average (before elevation to the HC), and the later you appoint them, the more problematic it becomes. Timelines for appointments should be strictly adhered to. One delay in appointment, and the entire selection process gets affected.”
An empty judge’s chair is a stark reminder of justice kept waiting, said Urja Pandey, Counsel for Union of India, Supreme Court.
“Every judicial vacancy translates into thousands of unheard cases, delayed remedies, and citizens losing faith in the very institution entrusted with protecting their rights. The Constitution promises not merely the right to approach a court, but the right to meaningful and timely justice.
“That promise stands diminished when courts are compelled to function with chronic shortages of judges. Judicial vacancies are not routine administrative gaps; they are a constitutional crisis that directly impacts access to justice and the rule of law,” Pandey told ThePrint.
A nation aspiring to uphold constitutional values cannot afford a justice delivery system where delay becomes the norm, she added. “Filling every vacant judicial post must be treated with the same urgency as safeguarding the Constitution itself, because the strength of the judiciary is measured not only by the wisdom of its judgments but by its ability to deliver justice when it is needed most.”
“The figures of vacancies are baffling because there is no earthly justification for them. Whereas, the state judiciary is concerned, all that the respective HC has to do is identify vacancies, intimate it to their government, ensure vacancies are announced, and exams are held. No doubt it entails meticulous planning and hard work but something which in my opinion is quite routine… It surely does not require some kind of an innovative invention,” said Anjana Prakash, a former judge of the Patna High Court.
“I wonder if the states drag their feet over it is because of the dwindling budgetary allocations for judiciary.”
All this would dissolve the minute when all stakeholders start thinking of building the strength of the institution for the future generations, Prakash, who is also a prominent Supreme Court senior advocate, added.
Former civil judge Bharat Chugh told ThePrint, “We definitely need more judges, and way more judges from the trial court judiciary talent pool. These judges, who are career judges, have a wealth of experience from deciding cases and at least 25 years of trial judgeship before they are considered. Their inclusion would aid better adjudication of criminal and civil appeals at the high court level.”
He also emphasised that having more trial court judges is more important as cases decided well at the trial court level would automatically lead to less pendency within the higher courts.
This is an updated version of the report.
(Edited by Tony Rai)