The administrative functioning of the Allahabad High Court has come under sharp scrutiny, with Justice Vinod Diwakar questioning the manner in which full court meetings are conducted and decisions are recorded.
In a judgment dealing with delays in the Uttar Pradesh district judiciary, Justice Diwakar observed that recent full court meetings appeared to have been conducted in a manner resembling a government confidence vote, where members are expected to fall in line with a predetermined position.
The judgment noted that the proceedings of such meetings do not reflect the individual views, agreement or dissent of the participating judges.
The Court observed that when a collegiate body takes decisions without recording the views expressed by its members, the deliberative purpose of the forum is effectively lost from the institutional record.
Justice Diwakar pointed out that only 16 full court meetings had been convened over the preceding decade.
Under the Allahabad High Court Rules, matters concerning general policy, the powers and status of the Court, and the annual report on the administration of justice are required to be placed before the full court at least once every quarter.
However, the judgment noted that during the period under consideration, no general policy matter affecting the powers or status of the Court had been placed before the full court.
The judgment also raised concerns about annual reports concerning the administration of justice. According to the Court, these reports had neither been placed before the full court nor forwarded to the government as contemplated under the rules.
Justice Diwakar said this was indicative of the manner in which the administrative side of the institution had been functioning.
The Court further noted that minutes of important administrative committees constituted by the Chief Justice had not been circulated to the full court. This, it said, created the impression that such committees were functioning independently rather than as components of the High Court’s institutional framework.
The absence of an effective internal forum to raise such concerns, the judgment said, could leave judges with no practical avenue except to raise administrative issues through judicial orders.
District judiciary facing thousands of vacancies
The Court linked these administrative concerns to the functioning of the subordinate judiciary in Uttar Pradesh, particularly the continuing shortage of judicial and administrative staff.
As of September 2026, the judgment recorded 10,352 vacancies across the High Court Registry and district judiciary.
These included:
- 1,122 vacancies in the judicial officers’ cadre;
- 7,834 vacancies among district judiciary staff; and
- 1,396 vacancies in the High Court Registry.
The district judiciary had 2,603 judicial officers against a sanctioned strength of 4,625. The Court noted that 900 additional judicial posts had been sanctioned in September.
Recruitment to the higher judicial service has also faced delays. The written examination for 83 posts, advertised in December 2023, was conducted only in August 2026, with the result still awaited.
The judgment further noted that no appointments had been made to the higher judicial service since September 2022.
Recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) has similarly remained pending. The last notification, issued in December 2022 for 303 posts, resulted in a declared outcome in August 2023, after which no fresh recruitment had been conducted.
Justice Diwakar contrasted these delays with the institutional priority accorded to appointments to the High Court itself.
According to the judgment, the absence of a clearly structured framework governing administrative discretion has consequences not only for the High Court’s internal functioning but also for the administration of justice in district courts.
Judgment sent to Chief Justice and Union authorities
The Court directed that the judgment, which contains its observations on the High Court’s administrative functioning, be placed before the Chief Justice for examination and appropriate action.
A copy was also directed to be sent to the Secretary of the Department of Justice under the Union Law Ministry for consideration by the Minister of State for Law and Justice.
The Court further directed that a note setting out the issues identified in the judgment may be forwarded to the Cabinet Secretary of the Union government.
The observations place the spotlight on the institutional mechanisms through which administrative decisions are taken within the High Court, while also drawing attention to the consequences of prolonged vacancies and delays in judicial recruitment across Uttar Pradesh.