The Supreme Court division bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha refused to hear a petition filed by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking to double the number of judges in High Courts and trial courts on Tuesday.

The bench remarked:- "These are all populist measure. It's difficult to fill the 160 seats in Allahabad High Court and you're asking for 320? Have you been to Bombay High Court? Not even a single judge can be added there because there is no infrastructure. Adding more judges is not the answer. Then why 320 in Allahabad, add 640? Every evil you see doesn't require a PIL. Try getting judges to fill out the existing seats, then you'll see how difficult it is."

The bench was still unconvinced. CJI Chandrachud stated that the petition was similar to Parliament stating that an act could be passed to ensure that all matters are resolved within 6 months. Justice PS Narasimha added that numerous studies have concluded that simply increasing the number of judges will not solve the problem of case backlogs. The court further stated:

"This kind of petition would not be entertained by either the UK or the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court doesn't even hear lawyers on whether cases should be admitted. This is because of our system. Come back with proper research. There are problems, but these simplistic things won't be the solutions. When I was in Allahabad High Court, the then Law Minister had asked me to increase the judges to 25 percent. I was like good lord, I cannot even fill the 160. Ask the Bombay High Court how many lawyers are willing to accept judgeship. Merely adding more judges is not the answer, you need good judges. Petitionse withdraw it."

According to Advocate Upadhyay, the Petition was in the form of a PIL and was not adversarial. He stated that crores of Indians were suffering as a result of a lack of judicial redress caused by overburdened courts.

The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and the petitioner was given permission to file a new petition based on research on recruitment statistics, vacancies, and so on.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UoI and Ors.

Citation: WP(C) No. 14/2021