E-Paper
Courts and houses for judges in Malerkotla: SC lambasts Punjab govt for not creating judicial infra
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi pulled up the state government for failing to create even basic judicial infrastructure despite repeated directions from the Punjab and Haryana high court, and pointed out that funds provided by the Centre, meant for judiciary, may have been utilised somewhere else by the state officials.
The Supreme Court on Friday lambasted the Punjab government for not creating requisite infrastructure for the judiciary and rather building houses for itself, besides “misusing central grants”.
A bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi pulled up the state government for failing to create even basic judicial infrastructure despite repeated directions from the Punjab and Haryana high court, and pointed out that funds provided by the Centre, meant for judiciary, may have been utilised somewhere else by the state officials.
“If we order an inquiry, we will find out that they have already consumed the central grant for other purposes. They are building houses for themselves but cannot construct courts and create judicial infrastructure,” justice Kant observed.
The top court was hearing a plea of the Punjab government challenging the orders of the high court for creating appropriate judicial infrastructure and transit accommodation for judicial officers in Malerkotla, which became the state’s 23rd district in June 2021. But instead of getting reprieve, the state faced strong censure from the apex court for its failure to put basic judicial infrastructure in place.
The high court while hearing a PIL had recorded that Malerkotla was declared a revenue district in June 2021 and a separate sessions division was approved in August 2023, but the state had not created permanent courtrooms and residences for the district and sessions judge and other judges.
On August 22, it had directed the state to issue fresh administrative and financial approval for two additional courtrooms in the existing complex, and asked the high court’s building committee to examine whether the deputy commissioner’s guest house and other buildings occupied by executive officers could be used for judges.
The high court in September took a strong view and flagged repeated delays despite the building committee’s resolution and directed that the guest house presently occupied by the deputy commissioner and another house occupied by the senior superintendent of police be vacated and allotted to the district and sessions judge as residence and, if possible, as a courtroom space.
Aggrieved by the order, the Punjab government had challenged the order before the apex court
During the SC hearing on Friday, Punjab advocate general Maninderjit Singh Bedi submitted that the state had created posts and facilities for Malerkotla judges, and the required infrastructure was being created.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who also appeared for the Punjab government, submitted that the high court’s criticism of the state government was unjustified and unwarranted.
Justice Kant told Singhvi, “You don’t know what is happening in the state of Punjab. I know the state very well. Even if the funds are sanctioned by the Centre, they don’t even allocate a site. They have enough money to spend on so many other things.”
‘Why create a district without infrastructure?’
The top court also questioned the logic of the state government behind creating new districts without first planning necessary infrastructure including courts.
“First of all, why did they declare Malerkotla a revenue district. It was only for political appeasement. When they knew infrastructure was not created, they should not have done it. You say you require a house for SP, but you don’t require a house for a sessions judge,” justice Kant said.
Justice Bagchi pointed out that the court infrastructure often depended on centrally sponsored schemes and that state contributions were either delayed or diverted.
He then suggested that a more systematic budgetary commitment may be needed and there should be some minimum allocation in state and central budgets for the judiciary. “It’s not even 1% of the GDP at present,” justice Bagchi remarked.
Sensing the mood of the court, Singhvi said he would like to consult the state government, and sought permission of the court to withdraw the appeal and approach the high court instead.
“We will place a detailed status report with explanation before the high court and seek suitable extension of time,” he submitted.
The bench allowed the petition to be withdrawn with liberty to move the high court and asked it to look into the issue of extension of time.
