![](/images/main_logo.png)
The Election Commission has announced the schedule for the election of the President of India. The last date for nominations is June 30, elections will be held on July 19, and counting will take place on July 22. The BJD and AIADMK have proposed the name of Mr. P.A. Sangma. The Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress have suggested three names. Other parties or alliances have not announced any contenders. Our calculations show that no single party or alliance has the numbers to unilaterally elect candidates of its choice. A candidate will need 5,48,507 votes to be elected as the President. If the UPA were to vote as a consolidated block, its vote tally would reach 4,49,847 (41% of the total votes). Among the Congress allies, Trinamool holds the largest number of votes (47,898). If Trinamool decides to support some other candidate, the UPA tally will fall to 4,01,949 votes (37% of the total). The votes held by the major alliances are given in the table below:
Coalition | Value of votes | Percentage of total votes |
UPA |
4,49,847 |
41.0% |
NDA |
3,03,912 |
27.7% |
Left |
52,282 |
4.8% |
Bahujan Samaj Party |
43,723 |
4.0% |
Samajwadi Party |
68,943 |
6.3% |
Biju Janata Dal |
30,215 |
2.8% |
AIADMK |
36,216 |
3.3% |
Others |
1,11,874 |
10.2% |
Total |
10,97,012 |
|
Minimum required to be elected |
5,48,507 |
|
A detailed break-up of votes held by each party is given in the table below:
Party | Value of votes | Percentage of total votes |
Indian National Congress |
3,31,855 |
30.30% |
Bharatiya Janata Party |
2,32,454 |
21.20% |
Samajwadi Party |
68,943 |
6.30% |
All India Trinamool Congress |
47,898 |
4.40% |
Bahujan Samaj Party |
43,723 |
4.00% |
Janata Dal (United) |
41,574 |
3.80% |
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) |
36,216 |
3.30% |
Communist Party of India (Marxist) |
35,734 |
3.30% |
Biju Janata Dal |
30,215 |
2.80% |
Nationalist Congress Party |
24,058 |
2.20% |
Independent |
23,830 |
2.20% |
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) |
21,780 |
2.00% |
Telugu Desam Party |
21,256 |
1.90% |
Shiv Sena |
18,320 |
1.70% |
Shiromani Akali Dal |
11,564 |
1.10% |
Communist Party of India |
9,758 |
0.90% |
Rashtriya Janata Dal |
8,816 |
0.80% |
Others |
7,420 |
0.70% |
Janata Dal (Secular) |
6,138 |
0.60% |
Jammu and Kashmir National Conference |
5,556 |
0.50% |
Rashtriya Lok Dal |
5,412 |
0.50% |
Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhaga (DMDK) |
5,104 |
0.50% |
Jharkhand Mukti Morcha |
4,584 |
0.40% |
Muslim League Kerala State Committee |
4,456 |
0.40% |
Indian National Lok Dal |
4,068 |
0.40% |
All India Forward Bloc |
3,961 |
0.40% |
Jharkhand Vikas Morcha |
3,352 |
0.30% |
Asom Gana Parishad |
3,284 |
0.30% |
Telangana Rashtra Samiti |
3,044 |
0.30% |
Revolutionary Socialist Party |
2,829 |
0.30% |
Bodoland People's Front |
2,808 |
0.30% |
All India United Democratic Front |
2,796 |
0.30% |
Praja Rajyam Party |
2,664 |
0.20% |
Maharashtra Navnirman Sena |
2,275 |
0.20% |
Kerala Congress (M) |
2,076 |
0.20% |
All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen |
1,744 |
0.20% |
Nagaland People's Front |
1,722 |
0.20% |
Sikkim Democratic Front |
1,640 |
0.10% |
Peoples Democratic Party |
1,512 |
0.10% |
Bahujan Vikas Aaghadi |
1,058 |
0.10% |
Lok Janasakti Party |
957 |
0.10% |
All Jharkhand Students Union |
880 |
0.10% |
Haryana Janhit Congress |
820 |
0.10% |
Mizo National Front |
732 |
0.10% |
Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam |
708 |
0.10% |
Swabhimani Paksha |
708 |
0.10% |
Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi |
708 |
0.10% |
YSR Congress Party |
708 |
0.10% |
Peasants and Workers Party |
700 |
0.10% |
Pattali Makkal Katchi |
528 |
0.00% |
Manithaneya Makkal Katch |
352 |
0.00% |
Puthiya Tamilaga |
352 |
0.00% |
All India NR Congress |
240 |
0.00% |
J&K National Panthers Party |
216 |
0.00% |
Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) |
176 |
0.00% |
United Democratic Party |
153 |
0.00% |
Lok Satta Party |
148 |
0.00% |
Loktantrik Samajwadi Party |
129 |
0.00% |
J&K Democratic Party Nationalist |
72 |
0.00% |
People's Democratic Front |
72 |
0.00% |
Uttarakhand Kranti Dal |
64 |
0.00% |
Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party |
60 |
0.00% |
People's Party of Arunachal |
32 |
0.00% |
Total |
10,97,012 |
|
Notes: The electoral college for the Presidential election consists of the elected members of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and all Legislative Assemblies. The winning candidate must secure at least 50% of the total value of votes polled. Each MP/ MLA’s vote has a pre-determined value based on the population they represent. For instance, an MP’s vote has a value of 708, an MLA from UP has a vote value of 208 and an MLA from Sikkim has a vote value of 7 (Note that all MPs, irrespective of the constituency or State they represent, have equal vote value). Parties in various coalitions: UPA: Congress, Trinamool, DMK, NCP,Rashtriya Lok Dal, J&K National Conference, Muslim League Kerala State Committee, Kerala Congress (M), All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, Sikkim Democratic Front, Praja Rajyam Party, Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi NDA: BJP, JD(U), Shiv Sena, Shiromani Akali Dal, Janata Party Left: CPI(M), CPI, Revolutionary Socialist Party, All India Forward Bloc
Recently, the Supreme Court collegium reiterated its recommendations for the appointment of 11 judges to certain High Courts. It had first recommended these names earlier this year and in August last year, but these appointments were not made. The Indian judiciary faces high vacancies across all levels (the Supreme Court, High Courts, and subordinate courts). Vacancy of judges in courts is one of the reasons for delays and a rising number of pending cases, as there are not enough judges to hear and decide cases. As of today, more than four crore cases are pending across all courts in India. In this blog post, we discuss vacancies across courts over the years, delays in appointment of judges, and methods to determine the adequate judge strength required to handle the caseload courts face.
High vacancy of judges across courts
Vacancies in courts keep on arising periodically due to retirement, resignation, demise, or elevation of judges. Over the years, the sanctioned strength of judges in both High Courts and subordinate courts has been increased gradually. However, vacancies persist due to insufficient appointments (see Figures 1 and 2). Between 2010 and 2020, vacancies increased from 18% to 21% across all levels of courts (from 6% to 12% in the Supreme Court, from 33% to 38% in High Courts, and from 18% to 20% in subordinate courts).
Figure 1: Vacancy of judges in High Courts |
Figure 2: Vacancy of judges in subordinate courts |
|
|
Sources: Court News 2010-2018; Vacancy Statement, and Rajya Sabha replies, Part I, Budget Session (2021), Department of Justice; PRS. |
As on November 1, 2021, the Supreme Court had a vacancy of one judge (out of a sanctioned strength of 34). Vacancy in High Courts stood at 37% (406 posts vacant out of a sanctioned strength of 1,098). Since May, 2021, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended more than 130 names for appointment as High Court judges. In three High Courts (Telangana, Patna, and Calcutta), at least half of the posts are vacant (see Figure 3). The Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2020) noted that every year, 35-40% of posts of High Court judges remain unfilled.
Figure 3: Vacancy of judges across High Courts (in %) (as on November 1, 2021) |
Source: Vacancy Statement, Department of Justice; PRS. |
Appointments of High Court judges are guided by a memorandum of procedure. As per this memorandum, the appointment process is to be initiated by the concerned High Court at least six months before a vacancy occurs. However, the Standing Committee (2021) noted that this timeline is rarely adhered to by High Courts. Further, in the final stage of the process, after receiving recommendations from the Supreme Court collegium, the executive appoints judges to the High Court. No timeline is prescribed for this stage of the appointment process. In 2018 and 2019, the average time taken to appoint High Court judges after receiving the collegium’s recommendations was five to seven months.
As of today, over 3.6 crore cases are pending before subordinate courts in India. As on February 20, 2020, 21% posts for judges were vacant (5,146 posts out of the sanctioned strength of 24,018) in subordinate courts. Subordinate courts in Bihar, Haryana, and Jharkhand (among the states with high population) had a high proportion of vacancies of judges (see Figure 4). Note that the Supreme Court is monitoring the procedure for appointment of judges to subordinate courts.
For an analysis of the data on pendency and vacancies in the Indian judiciary, see here.
Figure 4: Vacancy of judges across subordinate courts (in %) (as on February 20, 2020)
|
Source: Report No. 101, Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2020); PRS. |
How many judges do we need?
The Law Commission of India (1987) had noted the importance of manpower planning for the judiciary. Lack of adequate number of judges means a greater workload per judge. Thus, it becomes essential to arrive at an optimal judge strength to deal with pending and new cases in courts. Over the years, different methods of calculating the required judge strength for subordinate courts (where the backlog of cases in the Indian judiciary is concentrated) have been recommended (see Table 1).
Table 1: Methods recommended for calculating the required number of judges for subordinate courts
Method of calculation |
Recommendation and its status |
Judge-to-population ratio: optimum number of judges per million population |
The Law Commission of India (1987) had recommended increasing this ratio to 50 judges per million people. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court (2001) and the Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2002). For 2020, the judge-to-population ratio was 21 judges per million population. Note that this figure is calculated based on the sanctioned strength of judges in the Supreme Court, High Courts and subordinate courts. |
Rate of disposal: number of additional judges required (to clear the existing backlog of cases and ensure that new backlog is not created) based on the average number of cases disposed per judge |
The Law Commission of India (2014) proposed this method. It rejected the judge-to-population ratio method, observing that filing of cases per capita varies substantially across geographic units depending on socio-economic conditions. |
Weighted case load method: calculating judge strength based on the disposal by judges, taking into account the nature and complexity of cases in local conditions |
The National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMS) (2016) critiqued the rate of disposal method. It proposed, as an interim measure, the weighted case load method, which addresses the existing backlog of cases as well as the new flow of cases every year in subordinate courts. In 2017, the Supreme Court accepted this model. |
Time-based weighted case load method: calculating the required judge strength taking into account the actual time spent by judges in different types of cases at varying stages based on an empirical study |
Used widely in the United States, this was the long-term method recommended by the NCMS (2016) to assess the required judge strength for subordinate courts. It involves determining the total number of ‘judicial hours’ required for disposing of the case load of each court. The Delhi High Court used this approach in a pilot project (January 2017- December 2018) to calculate the ideal judge strength for disposing of pending cases in certain courts in Delhi. |
Sources: Reports No. 120 (1987) and 245 (2014), Law Commission of India; Report No. 85, Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2002); Note for Calculating Required Judge Strength for Subordinate Courts, National Court Management Systems Committee (NCMS) (2016); Imtiyaz Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court (2017); PRS.