ORDER

1. It was about five years back that this Court directed that existing vacancies in the subordinate courts, at all levels, should be filled, if possible, latest by 31st March, 2003, in all the States. This direction is contained in the judgment All India Judges Association v. Union of India1. It has been noticed that an independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structure of our Constitution. If sufficient number of judges are not appointed, justice would not be available to the people thereby undermining the basic structure. The judicial system has been facing the problem arising out of delay in dispensation of justice for which one of the major cause is insufficient number of judges when compared to either the large number of cases pending or in relation to the average judge-population ratio going by the number of judges available in various other democracies in the world. In this light, it becomes all the more necessary to take all possible steps to ensure that vacancies in the courts are timely filled.

2. Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned amicus curiae, in the written submission, has pointed out that according to the figures given by the News Letter issued by this Court for tile period January March, 2006, there were 2730 posts vacant in the subordinate judiciary in the country as only 11,682 judges actually were serving out of the approved strength of 14,402 judges, i.e., on an average, about twenty per cent existing posts were lying vacant.

3. In this matter, by judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2006, it was observed that it is absolutely necessary to evolve a mechanism to speedily determine and fill vacancies of judges at all levels. For this purpose, timely steps are required to be taken for determination of vacancies, issue of advertisement, conducting examinations, interviews, declaration of final results and issue of order of appointment. It was further directed that for all these above and other steps, it is necessary to provide to fix time schedule so that the system works automatically and there is no delay in filling up of the vacancies. The dates for taking up these steps can be provided for on the pattern similar to filling of vacancies in some other services. Adherence to strict time schedule can help in ensuring timely filling of vacancies. In this view, all the State Governments, Union Territories and/or High Courts were directed to give suggestions regarding the time schedule to be fixed so that every year vacancies that may occur are filled. This Court also requested Mr. Vijay Hansaria, senior advocate, to assist the court.

4. Considering the suggestions that have been given by the State Governments, the learned amicus curiae submitted written submissions, which were considered by this Court on 27th November, 2006. On the said date of hearing, it was directed that the written submissions of the learned amicus curiae along with the proposed suggestion as to time schedule be sent to the State Governments/Union Territories and High Courts so that their response/suggestions can also be taken into consideration. Some of the State Governments and High Courts have responded to the directions dated 27th November, 2006. Mr. Vijay Hansaria has made additional submission having regard to the responses received from the State Governments, Union Territories and the High Courts pursuant to the order dated 27th November, 2006.

5. Before we issue general directions and the time schedule to be adhered to for filling vacancies that may arise in subordinate courts and district courts, it is necessary to note that selections are required to be conducted by the concerned authorities as per the existing Judicial Service Rules in the respective States/Union Territories. We may, however, note that, progressively, the concerned authorities would consider, discuss and eventually may arrive at a consensus that the selection process be conducted by the High Court itself or by Public Service Commission under the contr