While reiterating a five-year-old directive, the apex court has flagged inefficiencies in the contractual nature of court manager appointments, urging systemic reforms.
In a significant directive aimed at streamlining judicial administration, the Supreme Court on Friday instructed all High Courts across the country to frame or amend existing rules concerning the appointment of court managers. The Bench—comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, and Justices Augustine George Masih and K Vinod Chandran—emphasised the urgent need for structural reform, noting that most court managers currently function on a contractual basis, often lacking job security or standardised responsibilities.
This isn’t the first time the apex court has intervened on the issue. A similar directive was passed back in 2018, yet substantial progress appears lacking. The Court’s renewed push underscores concerns over administrative inefficiencies in Indian courts, where chronic case backlogs continue to burden the system.
“Every High Court shall, depending upon its peculiar needs, frame appropriate rules or amend existing rules,” the bench stated, further directing that these be submitted to respective state governments within three months.
The Court also called for regularisation of existing court managers, provided they clear a suitability test. While intended to professionalise court administration, the contractual hiring of managers has often been criticised as a stopgap measure, lacking continuity and institutional knowledge—key components for ensuring consistency in judicial workflow and case management.
Legal experts believe that court managers, if appointed under clear and permanent frameworks, can drastically improve judicial efficiency, allowing judges to focus more on adjudication rather than administrative burden.
This directive dovetails with the broader push for judiciary reforms in India. From calls for increased judicial appointments to digitalisation efforts under the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), the judiciary is under pressure to become leaner, more transparent, and functionally autonomous. However, implementation lags, particularly by state machinery and lower courts, continue to stall systemic change.
The Legal Observer has previously reported on the need to bridge this gap between policy intent and field execution. The current directive may serve as a litmus test for whether High Courts are willing—and able—to prioritise managerial efficiency in their own backyard.
