The court emphasized the urgent need to increase the judge-to-population ratio to ensure timely justice and address the backlog of cases, recognizing this as a public interest issue.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present application has been filed with the prayer to direct respondent no. 2, I Additional Session Judge, Bahraich to decide Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2010 (Ramendra Singh & Ors. Vs. Jai Raj Singh & Ors.) within stipulated time to be fixed by this Court.

3. Insofar as the prayer sought in the present application is concerned, it is informed that Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2010 (supra) has already been decided by the court below vide order dated 23.07.2024 and, therefore, the application has become infructuous and is dismissed, accordingly.

4. However, looking to the genesis of the present matter, this Court on 08.07.2024 passed the following order :

“Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar Sahi, learned Additional Advocate General, who was called upon by this Court, assisted by Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record.

By means of this application, the applicant, who at present is aged about 51 years, has prayed for the following main relief:-

"Direct to the Opposite party no. 2 (Ist Additional Session Judge District Bahraich) to decide the criminal revision bearing no. 132/2010 (Ramendra Singh and others Versus Jai Raj Singh and others) which is pending before Opposite party no. 2 since 2010 within stipulated time as fixed by the Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. 1."

It appears from the record that in the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. bearing Case No. 37/57/106, an order was passed in favour of the applicant on 16.03.2010 by the Pargana Adhikari, Kaiserganj, Tehsil- Kaiserganj, District Bahraich and being aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2010, the opposite party Nos. 3 to 8 filed a revision i.e. Criminal Revision No. 132 of 2010 (Ramendra Singh and others vs. Jai Raj Singh and others), which has not been disposed of till date.

From the aforesaid, it is apparent that that 14 years have elapsed but the revision has not been decided till date.

While pressing the present application for the main relief sought, it is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment passed in the case of All India Judges' Association and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247, which are extracted hereunder, the judges are not available in trial courts and for this reason, the trial courts are over burdened and in this view of the matter, the trial courts are unable to decide the cases expeditiously within reasonable time. In the instant case, the revision, which relates to summary proceedings, has not been decided even after lapse of 14 years. As such, the main prayer sought may kindly be acceded.

"24. Mr F.S. Nariman has drawn our attention to yet another important aspect with regard to dispensation of justice, namely, the huge backlog of undecided cases. One of the reasons which has been indicated even in the 120th Law Commission Report was the inadequate strength of Judges compared to the population of the country. Even the Standing Committee of Parliament headed by Shri Pranab Mukherjee in its 85th report, submitted in February 2002, to Parliament, has recommended that there should be an increase in the number of Judges. The said Committee has noted the Judge- population ratio in different countries and has adversely commented on the Judge-population ratio of 10.5 Judges per 10 lakh people in India. The report recommends the acceptance, in the first instance, of increasing the Judge strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people as was recommended by the 120th Law Commission Report.

25. An independent and efÏcient judicial system is one of the basic structures of our Constitution. If sufÏcient number of Judge