The Delhi High Court is facing an alarming situation with judicial vacancies reaching a staggering 40%, following three transfers and two retirements in March and April 2025. With only 36 judges currently functioning against a sanctioned strength of 60, the Delhi High Court now ranks among the top five High Courts in India with the highest vacancy rates, according to the Ministry of Law and Justice.
This crisis in judicial manpower raises serious concerns about the pace of justice delivery, increasing pendency of cases, and the long-standing issue of delays in judicial appointments.
Recent Developments That Led to the Crisis
The working strength of the Delhi High Court was recently reduced after the following developments:
- Justice Yashwant Varma was repatriated to his parent High Court (Allahabad) on March 24, 2025, after a controversial incident involving the alleged discovery of large sums of cash at his residence. The Supreme Court Collegium ordered his transfer, and the government acted swiftly to implement it.
- Justice DK Sharma was transferred to the Calcutta High Court on March 27. Though no official reason was cited, the transfer sparked debate among the Bar in Kolkata. In his farewell speech, Justice Sharma assured the legal fraternity of his intent to serve with integrity.
- Justice Chandra Dhari Singh was also transferred back to Allahabad on March 28, following a Collegium recommendation made as early as November 2024, but delayed by four months before the Centre gave its nod.
- Earlier in March, Justices Rekha Palli and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta retired, further thinning the High Court’s judicial bench.
Moreover, Justices Dharmesh Sharma and Shalinder Kaur are due for retirement later this year, which will bring down the strength to just 34 if no new appointments are made.
Judicial Appointments: What Does the Constitution Say?
Appointments of High Court judges are governed by Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India. As per the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) devised in 1998 (based on the Second Judges Case in 1993 and the Third Judges Case in 1998), the process begins with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, who must initiate recommendations six months before a vacancy arises.
However, the Ministry of Law and Justice has pointed out that this timeline is frequently violated. Once a name is recommended by the High Court collegium, it must be vetted by the government and then approved by the Supreme Court Collegium.
Despite a structured process, the system suffers from long delays, bureaucratic bottlenecks, and political inertia, leading to persistent shortages in the judiciary.
Delhi’s Performance in National Context
As of April 15, 2025, the national average of judicial vacancies in the 25 High Courts is 31.8% (357 out of 1,122 sanctioned posts). However, the Delhi High Court fares worse than average with a 40% vacancy rate, placing it fourth highest in the country.
The Allahabad High Court leads the list with nearly 50% of posts vacant, followed by the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (44%), and the Orissa High Court (42%). Delhi shares its fourth position with Jharkhand and Manipur High Courts.
Appointments to Delhi High Court: A Disappointing Record
Since 2014, only 51 judges have been appointed to the Delhi High Court. This number includes years like 2015, 2020, and 2024, when no appointments were made at all. The best performing year was 2022, with 17 appointments.
When compared with national figures, Delhi’s performance appears below average. Although it accounts for 5.3% of the total sanctioned posts across all High Courts, it has received only 4.7% of appointments since 2014.
The Impact: Backlog, Delays, and Judicial Overload
Former Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court and former Uttarakhand Chief Justice Justice Vipin Sanghi candidly addressed the repercussions of judicial vacancies in an interview with Bar & Bench. He noted:
“The workload increases. The available judges have to share their workload with whoever is available. It chokes the courts and the result is that the number of cases listed before a judge increases, and they are not able to devote time.”
He also warned that frequent transfers disrupt court rosters and adversely affect the disposal of part-heard matters, many of which go unresolved due to changing assignments.
According to him, the Delhi High Court has never functioned at full strength. He recalled that the highest it has ever reached is 48 judges, still far below the sanctioned strength of 60.
Why These Vacancies Matter
The implications of a 40% vacancy are immense:
- Case pendency increases, leading to delayed justice.
- Judge-to-case ratios become unsustainable, affecting the quality of judicial reasoning.
- Public trust in the judicial system erodes, particularly in matters where timely intervention is crucial.
- Important constitutional matters and PILs suffer from delays in listing and hearing.
With Delhi being the national capital and home to a significant volume of high-stakes litigation, including public interest, commercial, and civil matters, the impact of vacancies is especially severe.
What Needs to Change?
Judicial vacancies are a systemic issue, not just an administrative lapse. Several steps must be taken:
- Time-bound Appointments: The MoP must be enforced strictly to ensure that appointments are initiated at least six months in advance.
- Transparency in Transfers: Collegium decisions on transfers should be made with transparency and accountability, especially when controversies are involved.
- Faster Government Clearance: The Ministry of Law and Justice must ensure timely processing of recommendations from the Supreme Court Collegium.
- Institutional Reforms: A National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) or an equivalent alternative could be reconsidered with safeguards to prevent politicization while streamlining appointments.
Conclusion
The 40% vacancy in the Delhi High Court is not just a number—it reflects a system in distress. The combination of administrative delays, systemic neglect, and insufficient judicial manpower threatens the efficiency of one of India’s most vital courts.
As transfers and retirements continue to outpace appointments, the Delhi High Court’s backlog is likely to worsen unless urgent steps are taken. It is now up to the executive and judiciary to collaborate and ensure that the Constitutional mandate of speedy justice does not remain a distant dream.
