Full Court Meetings ‘Stage-Managed’? Allahabad High Court Raises Serious Questions Over Collegiate Functioning
The Allahabad High Court has raised serious questions over the functioning of its Full Court, with Justice Vinod Diwakar observing that only 16 Full Court meetings were convened over the past 10 years despite rules providing for such meetings at regular intervals.
The observations came in a judgment examining wider concerns surrounding procedural delays and the functioning of subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh. While addressing those issues, the Court also examined the administrative functioning of the High Court and the role of the Full Court as a collegiate institution.
Justice Diwakar noted that the Allahabad High Court Rules require a Full Court meeting to be convened once every three months, excluding the summer vacation. The rules also provide for a meeting to be called within a week when at least five Judges request one.
Against that framework, the judgment recorded that only 16 Full Court meetings had been convened during the preceding decade.
The Court also examined the matters placed before the Full Court during this period. According to the judgment, no general policy matter affecting the powers or status of the Court and no annual report on the administration of justice had been placed before the Full Court during the period under consideration.
The judgment further stated that annual reports concerning the administration of justice had neither been placed before the Full Court nor forwarded to the government as required under the applicable rules.
Justice Diwakar also questioned the manner in which Full Court deliberations are recorded. The judgment observed that the proceedings do not record the concurrence or dissent of individual Judges.
The Court said that it had been given the impression that the last two Full Court meetings were “stage-managed” in a manner comparable to a government confidence vote in which members are subjected to a whip.
The observation was linked to the Court’s concern that a collegiate forum should provide a meaningful opportunity for individual Judges’ views to be recognised and deliberated upon.
The judgment emphasised that the Full Court is not merely a mechanism for formally approving a resolution. Its institutional purpose, according to the Court, is rooted in collegiate deliberation and the mutual recognition of the views of individual Judges.
The Court observed that when a collegiate body reaches a resolution without its members’ individual views being reflected in the record, the deliberative purpose of the forum is not adequately demonstrated.
The judgment also raised concerns about the functioning of committees constituted on the administrative side. It stated that minutes of various committees, including committees constituted by the Chief Justice, had not been communicated to the Full Court.
According to the Court, this could create an impression that such committees were functioning independently of the High Court as an institution.
Justice Diwakar further observed that the absence of an institutional forum for raising such administrative concerns could leave Judges with the option of addressing them through judicial orders.
The remarks came against the backdrop of the Court’s broader concern over procedural stagnation in district courts. The judgment cited cases in which proceedings had remained pending for years despite repeated listings, highlighting the need for effective institutional attention to delays in the subordinate judiciary.
The Court’s observations therefore extend beyond the frequency of Full Court meetings and raise broader questions concerning transparency, institutional deliberation, administrative accountability and the manner in which collective decisions of a High Court are recorded.
The judgment has directed that it be placed before the Chief Justice for examination and for such further steps as may be considered appropriate.
A copy of the judgment has also been directed to be transmitted to the Secretary of the Department of Justice in the Union Law Ministry for consideration by the Minister of State for Law and Justice.
