ORDER:—These are applications under Article 32 of the Constitution. The first petition is by an advocate practising in this Court; the second by the SC Advocates on Record Association and the last by the Honorary Secretary of the Bombay Bar Association. These applications are in the nature of public interest litigation. The relief asked for is one for mandamus to the Union of India to fill up the vacancies of Judges in the SC and the several High Courts of the country and ancillary orders or directions in regard to the same. The petition from Bombay is confined to the relief of filling up of vacancies in the Bombay High Court. Since common pleas were advanced and the relief sought was of similar nature, these applications have been clubbed together heard from time to time.

2. In response to the rule, the Union of India took the stand through the Attorney General that the petitions were not maintainable and the filling up of the vacancies in the superior courts was not a justiciable matter. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCR 365. The objection raised by the learned Attorney General was overruled by the Court by drawing a distinction between fixing the Judges strength in the Courts or selection of Judges on one side and the filling up of vacaifcles on the basis of sanctioned strength on the other. 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 constitutional 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.

3. Mr. Soli Sorabjee, the succeeding Attorney General, withdrew the objection regarding this Courtsjurisdiction and made a statement that he was of the view that it was the constitutional obligation of the Union of India to provide the sanctioned Judge strength in the superior courts 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.

4. The superior judiciary is divided into the Union Judiciary covered by Chapter 4 of Part V and the High Courts in the States are covered by Chapter 5 of Part VI of the Constitution. Article 124(1) of the Constitution provides:

"There. shall be a SC of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges."

From time to time the Judge strength in the SC has been expanded and by the SC (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986 (22 of 1986), the existing number has been fixed at 25 apart from the Chief Justice. Article 214 provides:

"There shall be a High Court for each State."

But there are 18 High Courts in all on account of the fact that the High Court at Guwahati exercisesjurisdiction over six States including Assam; the High Court at Chandigarh is common for the, States of Punjab and Haryana and thejurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay extends over Goa. There is a High Court at Delhi though the mandate of Article 214 does not apply. Article 216 provides:

"Every High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may from time to time deem it necessary to appoint."

From time to time administratively the Judge strength of the different High Courts has been refixed. 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, Karnataka, Madras and Rajasthan had ten additions in all and the sanctioned strength of the Kerala High Court was reduced by two. There was a time during the pendency of these