<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday said doubling the number of judges was not the solution for pendency of cases as more judges does not mean more case disposal, and instead good judges are required.</p>.<p>The top court also said that it was even difficult to fill up existing vacancies.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha refused to entertain a PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for doubling the number of judges, saying he has adopted a very simplistic approach.</p>.<p>Upadhyay said that nearly five crore cases are pending in courts, which means nearly 20 crore people are affected, and this is close to the population of the US.</p>.<p>“But, doubling the number of judges is not the solution. Every evil, you see, does not mean that PIL should be filed,” the bench said.</p>.<p>"Try getting judges to fill up the existing posts, you will see how difficult it is,” the bench said, adding it was difficult to fill up 160 seats in Allahabad High Court and the petitioner is asking for 320.</p>.<p>“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,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench said it may impose costs on such PILs for wasting the judicial time which was meant to hear genuine matters.</p>.<p>Upadhyay submitted that it is a PIL, which is not adversarial.</p>.<p>The bench, however, said that the instant petition was just like Parliament passing an Act for disposal of all cases within six months.</p>.<p>Upadhyay, for his part, maintained the situation was much better in developed countries, where the number of judges were more when compared with population.</p>.<p>On this, the bench pointed out that the Supreme Court in the US or the UK would not entertain such a petition.</p>.<p>The CJI said there are problems, but these simplistic things would not offer a solution. He said when he was in Allahabad High Court, the then law minister had asked him to increase the judges by 25 per cent.</p>.<p>“I was like good lord; I cannot even fill up the 160. Ask the Bombay High Court how many good lawyers are willing to accept judgeship. Merely adding more judges is not the answer, you need good judges," the CJI said, adding that petitioner should examine statistics and do some more research on vacancies in courts.</p>.<p>The court finally allowed Upadhyay to withdraw his plea.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday said doubling the number of judges was not the solution for pendency of cases as more judges does not mean more case disposal, and instead good judges are required.</p>.<p>The top court also said that it was even difficult to fill up existing vacancies.</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice P S Narasimha refused to entertain a PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay for doubling the number of judges, saying he has adopted a very simplistic approach.</p>.<p>Upadhyay said that nearly five crore cases are pending in courts, which means nearly 20 crore people are affected, and this is close to the population of the US.</p>.<p>“But, doubling the number of judges is not the solution. Every evil, you see, does not mean that PIL should be filed,” the bench said.</p>.<p>"Try getting judges to fill up the existing posts, you will see how difficult it is,” the bench said, adding it was difficult to fill up 160 seats in Allahabad High Court and the petitioner is asking for 320.</p>.<p>“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,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The bench said it may impose costs on such PILs for wasting the judicial time which was meant to hear genuine matters.</p>.<p>Upadhyay submitted that it is a PIL, which is not adversarial.</p>.<p>The bench, however, said that the instant petition was just like Parliament passing an Act for disposal of all cases within six months.</p>.<p>Upadhyay, for his part, maintained the situation was much better in developed countries, where the number of judges were more when compared with population.</p>.<p>On this, the bench pointed out that the Supreme Court in the US or the UK would not entertain such a petition.</p>.<p>The CJI said there are problems, but these simplistic things would not offer a solution. He said when he was in Allahabad High Court, the then law minister had asked him to increase the judges by 25 per cent.</p>.<p>“I was like good lord; I cannot even fill up the 160. Ask the Bombay High Court how many good lawyers are willing to accept judgeship. Merely adding more judges is not the answer, you need good judges," the CJI said, adding that petitioner should examine statistics and do some more research on vacancies in courts.</p>.<p>The court finally allowed Upadhyay to withdraw his plea.</p>
