By Satya Prakash Nayak
CUTTACK: A growing shortage of judges at the Orissa High Court has developed into an institutional accountability issue, with the High Court Bar Association deciding to abstain from judicial work and march to the Governor on October 1 to demand urgent appointments.
At the centre of the controversy is a striking number: the Orissa High Court has a sanctioned strength of 33 judges, but only 15 are currently in position, according to the Bar Association.
That means 18 posts — more than 54 per cent of the sanctioned judicial strength — are vacant.
At the same time, the High Court is dealing with a backlog of nearly 1.7 lakh cases, according to the association. The High Court itself continues to publish regular case-pendency data, confirming the continuing scale of the caseload.
The combination raises a larger question than the Bar’s immediate protest: How effectively can a constitutional court deliver timely justice when more than half of its sanctioned judicial posts are unfilled?
Bar plans October 1 protest
The Orissa High Court Bar Association decided at its general body meeting to intensify its campaign over the vacancies.
Bar Association president Lalatendu Samantaray and secretary Hrudananda Mohapatra announced that members would abstain from court proceedings on October 1 and participate in a peaceful march to the Governor.
The association also plans to submit representations to the President of India, Prime Minister and Union Law Minister seeking immediate appointment of judges.
The Bar has warned that the agitation could be intensified if appointments are not made promptly.
Its grievance is not new.
In August, the association had publicly raised the same issue when the High Court was functioning with 17 judges against the sanctioned 33. Two senior judges were subsequently transferred, bringing the current working strength cited by the association down to 15.
From shortage to access-to-justice question
The impact of vacancies cannot be measured merely by counting empty judges’ chairs.
According to the Bar Association, the reduced judicial strength is creating difficulties in listing urgent and newly instituted cases and dealing simultaneously with the existing backlog.
For litigants, delays can have consequences far beyond courtroom scheduling.
High Courts decide bail and criminal appeals, service and pension disputes, land and property cases, constitutional challenges, government actions and public-interest litigation, among a wide range of matters.
A prolonged shortage of judges therefore potentially translates into longer waiting periods for people seeking judicial remedies.
The Orissa High Court’s own website demonstrates the continuous flow of litigation. It publishes daily data on newly filed and registered cases alongside regular pendency reports.
The institutional challenge is consequently twofold: the court must reduce an existing backlog while simultaneously absorbing a continuing stream of new litigation.
Vacancy has worsened within weeks
The speed at which the position has deteriorated is also notable.
Union Law and Justice Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal had informed Parliament last month that 18 judges were working against the sanctioned strength of 33, leaving 15 vacancies.
Around the same period, the High Court Bar Association said the number of working judges had fallen to 17.
Following the transfer of two senior judges, the association now says only 15 remain in position.
If that figure holds, the court is effectively operating with about 45 per cent of its sanctioned judicial capacity.
The vacancy issue also extends beyond the High Court.
Data placed before Parliament in August showed 329 vacancies in Odisha’s district and subordinate judiciary, with 854 judicial officers working against 1,183 sanctioned posts.
The pressure on the justice-delivery system therefore cannot be viewed solely through the prism of the High Court.
Who appoints High Court judges?
The vacancies also raise an important institutional question about responsibility.
High Court judges are not appointed by the Odisha government alone.
Appointments involve the constitutional process beginning with recommendations through the judiciary’s collegium system, followed by scrutiny involving the Union government and ultimately appointment by the President of India.
That makes it necessary to establish where individual vacancies currently stand in the appointment pipeline before attributing responsibility for the delay to any one institution.
The key questions are therefore: How many names have been recommended by the High Court Collegium? How many have reached the Supreme Court Collegium? How many recommendations, if any, are pending with the Union government? And for how long have individual vacancies remained unfilled?
Those details would identify whether the bottleneck lies in initiating recommendations, collegium consideration, executive processing, or a combination of stages.
Bar points to appointments elsewhere
The High Court Bar Association has questioned why appointments have not moved faster in Odisha when judges have recently been appointed to several other High Courts.
It cited appointments involving the Delhi, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts while expressing concern over the continuing vacancies in Orissa High Court.
The association says repeated representations have failed to produce sufficient appointments, prompting the decision to take the issue to the Governor and national constitutional authorities.
The numbers tell the larger story
The immediate headline may be the lawyers’ October 1 boycott and march.
But the deeper issue is institutional.
Sanctioned judges: 33.
Judges currently in position, according to the Bar: 15.
Vacancies: 18.
Vacancy rate: about 55 per cent.
Pending cases: roughly 1.7 lakh.
A High Court functioning with fewer than half its sanctioned judges while confronting such a large pending caseload presents a serious capacity challenge for the justice-delivery system.
The October 1 protest will put that problem publicly before the Governor.
But the more consequential question is what happens afterwards: whether appointments actually follow, how quickly vacancies are filled, and whether increased judicial strength begins to translate into faster disposal of cases.
For thousands of litigants waiting for their cases to be heard, the vacancy debate is ultimately not about numbers on an organisational chart. It is about the time it takes to reach justice.
