New Delhi: The issue of judicial vacancies and the retirement age of judges was addressed in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday, with Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal clarifying that there is currently no proposal to increase the retirement age of judges in India. The minister also provided a detailed update on the existing vacancies in the higher judiciary and efforts being made to improve court infrastructure and the judicial appointment process.

During the question hour, Meghwal informed the upper house that the government has not initiated any plans to extend the retirement age of judges, a topic that occasionally sparks debate in legal and political circles. Responding to a specific question on whether there was any move to amend the retirement age, the minister stated, “There is no such proposal pending.” This statement underscores the government’s position that, at present, the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges remains as prescribed by law: 62 years for High Court judges and 65 years for Supreme Court judges.

Judicial Vacancies and Appointments

Highlighting the issue of judicial vacancies, Meghwal informed the Rajya Sabha that there are currently 297 posts vacant in various High Courts across India. The total sanctioned strength of judges in High Courts is 1,122, while the working strength is 825. Of the 297 vacant posts, 97 cases are under process, awaiting government action, while 200 cases are pending with High Courts for initiation of proposals. The minister emphasized that the government will act promptly once the necessary proposals are received from the respective High Courts.

He elaborated that the appointment of judges to High Courts is made under Articles 217 and 224 of the Constitution of India and in accordance with the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) formulated in 1998, following the Supreme Court’s judgments of October 6, 1993, and its advisory opinion of October 28, 1998. Under the MoP, the responsibility to initiate proposals for appointments to High Courts lies with the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court in consultation with the two senior-most puisne judges, while the Chief Justice of India initiates proposals for the Supreme Court.

Meghwal also pointed out that, according to the MoP, High Courts are required to submit recommendations for filling vacancies at least six months prior to the occurrence of a vacancy. However, he noted that this timeline is rarely observed, contributing to delays in the judicial appointment process.

Vacancies in District and Subordinate Courts

The minister also provided data on the status of District and Subordinate Courts across India. According to the Management Information System (MIS) portal of the Department of Justice, as of November 27, 2025, the total sanctioned strength in these courts is 25,886, with 4,855 posts currently vacant. In Uttar Pradesh, one of the states with the largest judicial workload, the sanctioned strength is 3,700, while only 2,645 judges are in place, reflecting a significant shortfall.

Reasons for Pendency of Cases

Meghwal explained that the pendency of cases in courts arises from multiple factors, and is not solely linked to vacancies in the judiciary. Among the contributing factors are the complexity of the facts involved in cases, the nature of the evidence, and the cooperation—or lack thereof—of various stakeholders including the Bar, investigation agencies, witnesses, and litigants. In addition, physical infrastructure, supporting court staff, and proper application of rules and procedures also play a crucial role in determining the speed of case disposal.

The minister further pointed out that delays are also caused by the absence of prescribed timeframes for the disposal of various types of cases, frequent adjournments, and inadequate arrangements to monitor, track, and group cases for hearings efficiently. These systemic issues, Meghwal stressed, need to be addressed in conjunction with filling vacancies to improve the overall functioning of the judiciary.

Efforts to Improve Court Infrastructure

In terms of infrastructure, Meghwal highlighted several initiatives undertaken by the government to strengthen the judicial system. One of the major steps is the establishment of the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), which aims to provide real-time monitoring of case disposal and judicial workload across the country. This initiative is expected to facilitate better tracking, reporting, and management of cases, allowing authorities to address bottlenecks more effectively.

Additionally, a committee has been formed to oversee improvements in court infrastructure and ensure the implementation of technological solutions that can enhance judicial efficiency. These measures are part of a broader effort by the government to modernize court functioning and improve access to justice for citizens.

Government’s Commitment to Timely Appointments

Meghwal emphasized that the government is committed to addressing judicial vacancies systematically and in coordination with High Courts. “Once the High Courts send their proposals for appointments, the government will act promptly,” he stated, reiterating that the process is collaborative and constitutionally guided. He also stressed that judicial vacancies alone are not the sole determinant of pendency, highlighting the need for a multifaceted approach that combines timely appointments with infrastructure upgrades, technology adoption, and procedural reforms.

Public and Legal Discourse

The issue of judicial vacancies and the retirement age of judges has long been a topic of public and legal discourse. Advocates for increasing the retirement age argue that it could help retain experienced judges and partially address the growing backlog of cases. Critics, however, contend that reforms in case management, technology adoption, and infrastructure may be more effective solutions than extending tenure.

By clarifying that there is no proposal to alter retirement ages, Meghwal has put to rest speculation and emphasized that current reforms focus on strengthening the judiciary’s capacity through appointments, infrastructure, and systemic improvements.

Conclusion

Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal’s detailed statement to the Rajya Sabha highlights the government’s awareness of the challenges facing India’s judiciary and its commitment to addressing them. While there is no plan to increase the retirement age of judges, efforts are underway to fill vacancies, modernize court infrastructure, and streamline procedures to reduce delays.

By combining targeted appointments, technological innovation, and procedural reforms, the government aims to enhance judicial efficiency and ensure timely access to justice for all citizens. The data presented by Meghwal underscores the scale of the challenge but also reflects a proactive approach to systemic improvements in India’s judicial system.

As the judiciary continues to grapple with a growing caseload and the need for modernization, these measures, coupled with ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will play a crucial role in strengthening India’s legal framework for the future.