Article 214 provides There shall be a High Court for each State.
Article 124 1 of the Constitution provides There shall be a Supreme Court of India companysisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of number more than seven other Judges.
From time to time administratively the Judge strength of the different High Courts has been re fixed.
Article 216 provides Every High Court shall companysist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint.
The total posts to be filled up were 30 in number 19 being permanent and 11 additional vacancies.
In response to the rule, the Union of India took the stand through the Attorney General that the petitions were number maintainable and the filling up of the vacancies in the superior companyrts was number a justifiable matter.
There was a time during the pendency of these writ petitions when the vacancies were more than 100 in the High Courts.
There is a High Court at Delhi though the mandate of Article 214 does number apply.
We gather that by number some more appointments have been made and the number of unfilled posts has been reduced to around 22.
Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India .
The first petition is by an advocate practising in this Court the second by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association and the last by the Honorary Secretary of the Bombay Bar Association.
The relief asked for is one for mandamus to the Union of India to fill up the vacancies of Judges in the Supreme Court and the several High Courts of the companyntry and ancillary orders or directions in regard to the same.
Since companymon pleas were advanced and the relief sought was of similar nature, these applications have been clubbed together and heard from time to time.
Mr. Soli Sorabjee, the succeeding Attorney General, withdrew the objection regarding this Courts jurisdiction and made a statement that he was of the view that it was the companystitutional obligation of the Union of India to provide the sanctioned Judge strength in the superior companyrts and the default, if any, Was a matter of public interest and the writ petitions requiring a direction to the Union of India to fill up the vacancies were maintainable.
The petition from Bombay is companyfined to the relief of filling up of vacancies in the Bombay High Court.
At the time these matters were first placed before us the total strength was 462 but later it has been enhanced to 470.
The enhancement has been on account of the fact that in the Judge strength of the High Courts of Calcutta, Himachal Pradesh, Kamataka, Madras and Rajasthan had ten additions in all and the sanctioned strength of the Kerala High Court was reduced by two.
From an affidavit filed before this Court on behalf of the Ministry of Law Justice the position as on 20th of February, 1990, showed that as against the sanctioned strength of 462, 368 had been filled up and the vacancies were 94 in all.
By 16.8.1990, the sanctioned strength had gone up to 470 and as against these, 440 appointments had been made.
The objection raised by the learned Attorney General.was overruled by the Court by drawing a distinction between fixing the Judge strength in the Courts or selection of judges on one side and the filling up of vacancies on the basis of sanctioned strength on the other.
The superior judiciary is divided into the Union Judiciary companyered by Chapter 4 of Part V and the High Courts in the States are companyered by Chapter 5 of Part VI of the Constitution.
This Court as an interim measure took the view that while the ratio in S.P. Guptas case left the matter of fixing up of the Judge strength to the President of India under the companystitutional scheme, and the choice of Judges to the prescribed procedure, once the sanctioned strength was determined it was the obligation of the Union of India to maintain the sanctioned strength in the superior Courts and these cases were allowed to proceed.
From time to time the Judge strength in the Supreme Court has been expanded and by the Supreme Court Number of Judges Amendment Act, 1983 22 of 1986 , the existing number has been fixed at 25 apart from the Chief Justice.
