Who is a dead wood in the subordinate judiciary which the Apex Court is inclined to prune ? 

Before finding an answer, it is felt advisable to state that the Apex Court has no direct power of superintendence on the subordinate judiciary. The constitution confers that power on the High Court under Article 227. Pursuant thereto, High Court exercises that power   suo motu as well as upon invocation. An application under Article 227 of the constitution is entertainable under High Court's writ jurisdiction.These days this power of superintendence invoked in matters where civil revision is barred under Section 115 CPC. The 2002 amndment in CPC has shrunk the civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, hence where ends of justice so requires, the power of superintendence is invoked to seek relief which the unamended CPC earlier provided.

This article comes handy in seeking High Court’s intervention in matters where the trial court’s lapses in disposing of cases is brought to High Court’s notice and a direction is sought.

Suffice it to say that the power of superintendence is exercised by the High Court in the above said two broad categories, suo motu and when invoked. The former is a routine practice, the latter is not.

The High Court maintains an inspection cell .Each District is allotted to one of its judges who conducts periodical inspection of the district court under its allotment.

It is this routine inspections in which deadwoods may be identified and pruned.

However, the Apex Court’s vision in the above regard does not seem to have descended in the manner expected.

The next posts are proposed to be dedicated to the above cause.