ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                         [2018] 9 S.C.R. 419                             419


          ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS.                            A
                                  v.
                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
             (Interlocutory Application No.279 of 2010)
                                 In                                      B
               (Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989)
                         AUGUST 02, 2018
      [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
             DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]                                  C
       Judiciary:
       Judicial infrastructure – Importance and need for – Held: A
sound infrastructure is the linchpin of a strong and stable judicial
system – Access to justice and rule of law is intrinsically linked –
Raising the infrastructure standards in the court complexes is the       D
need of the hour and will go a long way in strengthening the
functioning of the court and would improve the productivity in the
justice delivery system – The court development plan should
comprise of three components i.e. a short term (annual plan); a
medium term plan (five year plan) and long term plan (ten year
                                                                         E
plan) – While focusing on judicial infrastructure, due regard has to
be given to adequate and model court building, furniture, fixture,
judges chamber, record/file storage, adequate sitting and recreation
arrangement for staff and officers, sitting/waiting room for litigants
and bar members, latest gadgets and technology – Finance needed
for the court infrastructure should be placed under the head planned     F
expenditure – The budgeting must be from the demand side and not
from supply side – Directions issued to provide fundamental and
vital amenities in court complexes.
       All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of
       India and Others (2010) 14 SCC 705 ; Brij Mohan Lal               G
       v. Union of India and Others (2012) 6 SCC 502 :
       [2012] 5 SCR 305 – relied on.
                         Case Law Reference
       (2010) 14 SCC 705            relied on            Para 3
       [2012] 5 SCR 305             relied on            Para 4          H
                                  419
420            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application
      No.279 of 2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989.
            Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
              Surya P. Misra, Adv. Gen., Odisha, Vikas Mahajan, AAG, H.P.,
      Arun Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana, S. S. Shamshery, AAG, Rajasthan,
B     A.T.M. Sampath(AC.), Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, S. N. Bhat, Rakesh
      Dahiya, Pravir Kumar Jain, Bharat Sangal, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Abhijit
      Sengupta, A. Venayagam Balan, Ms. A. Subhashini, T. V. Ratnam, Sibo
      Sankar Mishra, Shibashish Misra, Raja Chatterjee, Mrs. Runamani
      Bhuyan, Piyush Sachdev, Adeel Ahmad, Satish Kumar, M. Yogesh Kanna,
C     Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, Ujjwal Singh,
      Mojahid Karim Khan, M.A. Chinnasamy, Karan Bharihoke,
      Ms. Navkiran Bolay, Arun Monga, Ms. Divya Sharma, Gopal Jha,
      Ms. G. Indira, Bhupesh Narula, K.V. Jagdishvaran, Manish Yadav, Arjun
      Garg, Apoorv Kurup, A C. Boxipiro, Anandh Kannan N., Ajay Kumar,
      V. N. Raghupathy, V. K. Sidharthan, V.G. Pragasam, S. Prabu
D     Ramasubramanian, S. Manuraj, Tara Chandra Sharma, T. V. George, T.
      Mahipal, T. L. Garg, T. Harish Kumar, T. G. Narayanan Nair, Sharan
      Thakur, Vijaykumar P. (for Dr. Sushil Balwada), Surya Kant, Sunil Kumar
      Jain, Sunil Fernandes, Shrish Kumar Misra, Sanjay Sharawat, Sanjay
      Parikh, Sanjay Jain, S. R. Setia, S. K. Bhattacharya, Ms. S. Janani,
E     Romy Chacko, Chandan Kumar Mandal, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, Ravi
      Prakash Mehrotra, Jayesh Gaurav, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri,
      Rashmikumar Manilal Vithlani, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. C. Ghosh, Rakesh
      K. Sharma, Rajiv Mehta, Rajesh Srivastava, Raj Kumar Mehta,
      Radha Shyam Jena, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms.Monika,
      K. N. Madhusoodhanan, Ms. Nitya Madhusoodhanan, R. Sathish,
F     R. N. Keswani, Pravir Choudhary, Praveen Swarup, Prashant Kumar,
      Pradeep Misra, Parijat Sinha, Pragyan Sharma, Shikhar Garg, Mudit
      Makhija, P. V. Yogeswaran, P. V. Dinesh, P. Parmeswaran, P. K. Jain,
      P.I. Jose, Naresh K. Sharma, Ms. N. Annapoorani, Krishnanand Pandeya,
      Merusagar Samantray, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Rajiv
G     Nanda, Ms. Mauri Nayyar Chawla, Santosh Salvador Rebello,
      P.S. Sudheer, Ms. Shruti Jose, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Mohd. Irshad
      Hanif, Rizwan Ahmad Durrani, Mujahid Ahmad, Leishangthem Roshmani
      Kh., Ms. Maibam Babina, A. D. N. Rao, A. Venkatesh, Sudipto Sircar,
      Rahul Mishra, Vinod Sharma, Abhimanyu Singh, Sunny Choudhary,
      Kshatrashal Raj, Vishal Prasad, Ms. Ritika Sethi, Ms. Tanya Chaudhry,
H
   ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF                            421
                    INDIA & ORS.

Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini (for M/s. Parekh & Co.), Suhaan Mukerji,          A
Ms. Astha Sharma, Harsh Hiroo Gursahani, Amit Verma, Vishal Prasad,
Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Selvin Raja, S. Wasim A. Quadri, Nalin Kohli,
T. A. Khan, A. K. Sharma, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra (for Mrs. Anil Katiyar),
B. V. Balaramdas, Prashant Mathur, Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur
Prabhakar, Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Salvador Rebello, Bhaskar Chhakara,
                                                                              B
Ms. Mona Sinha, A. K. Upadhyay, R. D. Upadhyay, Nalin Kohli,
Mrs. Rashmi Malhotra, (for B.V.Balaramdas), Nishant R.
Katneshwarkar, Ms. Divya Kulkarni, Shuvodeep Roy, Sayooj Mohandas,
Rituraj Biswas, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar,
Shreyas Jain, Anil Shrivastav, Ashish Pandey, Prateek Rai, Ms. Gauraan
Bhardwaj, Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Edward Belho,           C
Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Ms. Hemantika Wahi,
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh, Ms. Vishakha,
Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham,
Ms. Simran Jeet (for M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co.), G. Prakash, Jishnu
M. L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Amit Sharma, Ankit
                                                                              D
Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, D. N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pallavi
Chopra, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The following Order of the Court was passed :
                                  ORDER
      This interlocutory application basically relates to infrastructure of   E
the courts especially in subordinate courts. A detailed order was passed
on 24.01.2011 which pertained to various projects of court buildings,
residential quarters and all other aspects. On 04.04.2011, the following
order came to be passed:-
      “By our Order dated 21st February, 2011, we had directed States         F
      of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Uttarakhand to answer five questions,
      which, for the sake of brevity, are reiterated hereinbelow:
      [1] Since when Proposals/Projects are pending and reasons why
      they have not been cleared till today?
                                                                              G
      [2] For how long and why Proposals pending for acquisition of
      land have not been cleared by the Collectors?
      [3] Why Government lands, which are available, are not being
      urgently made available for Court Buildings and Residential
      Quarters?
                                                                              H
422             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A           [4] What steps are being taken to expeditiously complete Projects
            which are under construction?
            [5] How many pending Proposals would receive administrative
            and financial sanction during the next Financial Year?
               States of Gujarat and Maharashtra have sought time to put in
B           their response. Request is granted. Hence, four weeks’ time is
            granted. No further adjournment will be granted.
              As far as State of Uttrakhand is concerned, we have examined
            the affidavits filed on 1st April, 2011. The affidavits are vague.
            The State of Uttarakhand was required to answer each of the
C           above five questions project-wise and format-wise but they have
            not done so.
                In the circumstances, we direct the State of Uttarakhand to
            file a proper detailed and accurate affidavit to the questions posed.
            In addition, we direct the State to answer those questions
D           project-wise and format-wise.
               We may further add that vide Order dated 24th January, 2011,
            we had requested various States, including States of Gujarat,
            Maharashtra and Uttarakhand, to furnish details of the nature of
            the work, the place at which the project is located as well as the
E           amount to be spent in respect of each of the project. Pursuant to
            the said order, we had also forwarded the requisite format in the
            form of Annexures I and II to all the three States. Since we are
            adjourning the matter by four weeks, we also direct the States of
            Uttarakhand, Gujarat and Maharashtra to give details duly filled
F           in the formats Annexures I and II.
                Place the matter on 9th May, 2011.”
            2. Thereafter, the matter was listed on many an occasion but it
      stood adjourned. In the meantime, it has been brought to the notice of
      the Court that there has been progress in the field of infrastructure
G     inasmuch as the court projects (court rooms) have been constructed
      and other steps have been taken. But there are certain other spheres
      where immediate attention is required so that things are set right.
             3. A sound infrastructure is the linchpin of a strong and stable
      judicial system. The responsibility for securing justice to the citizenry of
H
    ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF                              423
                     INDIA & ORS.

our country rests upon the judiciary which makes it imperative upon the          A
State to provide the judicial wing the requisite infrastructure commensurate
with the constitutional obligation of the judiciary. It needs to be understood
that without a robust infrastructure, the judiciary would not be able to
function at its optimum level and, in turn, would fail to deliver the desired
results. While emphasizing the importance of judicial infrastructure, the
                                                                                 B
Court in All India Judges Association and others v. Union of India
and others1 has observed:-
       “Justice Delivery System is the bedrock of the rule of law, which
       is held to be the basic structure of the Constitution and it is our
       view that, in the absence of adequate judicial infrastructure,
       particularly for the subordinate Courts, it would not be possible to      C
       sustain rule of law in this Country. It is true that Courts do not
       generally issue directions in financial matters, however, we are of
       the view that Court fees, costs and fines constitute what is called
       “Measure” of what is spent on judicial infrastructure. This would
       be in consonance of doctrine of Reasonableness under the                  D
       Constitution. Rule of Law assures the citizen of an effective civil
       and criminal justice system and judicial infrastructure is the
       cornerstone of justice delivery system without which Rule of law
       in this Court would fail.”
                                                       [Emphasis supplied]       E
      4. In Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and others2, the Court,
while highlighting the infrastructural needs, has said:-
       “Article 21 of the Constitution of India takes in its sweep the right
       to expeditious and fair trial. Even Article 39A of the Constitution
       recognizes the right of citizens to equal justice and free legal aid.     F
       To put it simply, it is the constitutional duty of the Government to
       provide the citizens of the country with such judicial infrastructure
       and means of access to Justice so that every person is able to
       receive an expeditious, inexpensive and fair trial. The plea of
       financial limitations or constraints can hardly be justified as a valid   G
       excuse to avoid performance of the constitutional duty of the
       Government, more particularly, when such rights are accepted as
       basic and fundamental to the human rights of citizens.”
1
(2010) 14 SCC 705
2
 (2012) 6 SCC 502
                                                                                 H
424             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A            5. The aforesaid two verdicts, as is noticeable, lay stress on
      infrastructure in the context of Rule of Law, effective civil and criminal
      justice system and the constitutional duty of the Government to provide
      the same and the principle of access to justice that does not accept the
      excuse of the Government as regards financial limitation.
B            6. It has to be firmly borne in mind and accepted as a reality that
      raising the infrastructure standards in the court complexes is the need of
      the hour as it is the basic requirement for the courts in the twenty-first
      century. We are absolutely clear that when people are aware of their
      rights, their desire to get the rights realised is enhanced and they would
      like to knock at the doors of the Court to shape their aspiration into
C     reality. It is a welcome phenomenon and conceptually, Rule of Law
      nourishes and garners the said idea. The idea of speedy and quality
      justice dispensation system cannot be treated with status quoist
      approach, for the definition of infrastructure and the understanding of
      the same in all associated contexts changes with the passage of time
D     and introduction of modern technology in many a sphere of life. The
      consumers of justice expect prompt and effective delivery of justice in
      an atmosphere that is acceptable. Therefore, infrastructure enhancement
      will go a long way in strengthening functioning of the court and would
      improve the productivity in the justice delivery system.
             7. Be it noted, a court complex is not just a building. It is the
E     building of justice which breathes and infuses life into the exalted and
      sublime ideals of justice. The widening gap between the ideal and the
      real and between the vision and the pragmatic realization of justice has
      to be bridged by proper access to justice for all.
             8. It brings us to the focal point, i.e., judicial infrastructure which
F     has been given relatively low importance, if not long neglected. That
      needs an overhaul. Apart from the metropolitan cities and State capitals,
      infrastructure in Courts, especially in the interior parts of the country, is
      dying out. It would not be wrong to say that some of them are just on the
      ventilator. A decrepit or crumbling court infrastructure inevitably results
      in causing impediment in access to justice. Undeniably, access to justice
G
      and rule of law is intrinsically linked. No democracy can afford to
      undermine the core values of rule of law. Thus, strengthening of court
      infrastructure requires immediate attention in the form of planning,
      enhanced budgeting and structured implementation or execution of the
      plans. Presently, most of the States are making budgetary provision as
H     low as less than 1% of their total budget for the judiciary.
   ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF                              425
                    INDIA & ORS.

        9. In view of the above, we deem it extremely necessary to              A
declare that it is essential to provide basic infrastructural facilities,
amenities, utilities and access oriented features in all Court complexes
around the country as it is axiomatic that infrastructure forms the core
for efficient and efficacious dispensation of speedy and qualitative justice.
       10. The court development plan should comprise of three                  B
components - a short term (or annual plan); a medium term plan (or a
five year plan); and a long term plan (ten year plan). The annual plans so
prepared shall be incorporated into the five year plan which, in turn, rolls
into the ten year plan. While focussing on judicial infrastructure, due
regard has to be given to adequate and model court building, furniture,
fixture, judges chamber, record/file storage, adequate sitting and              C
recreation arrangement for staff and officers, sitting/waiting room for
litigants and bar members, latest gadgets and technology. In other words,
the core factors in the design of a court complex must reckon - a) optimum
working conditions facilitating increased efficiency of judicial officers
and the administrative staff; b) easy access to justice to all and              D
particularly to the underprivileged, persons with disability, women and
senior citizens; c) safety and security of judges, administrative staff,
litigants, witnesses and under-trial prisoners. The court complex must
consist of:-
       I.COURT BUILDING                                                         E
       · Court rooms
       · Judges’ chambers
       · Judges’ residential complex
       · Litigants’ waiting area
       · Administrative offices
       · Conference Hall/Meeting Room                                           F
       · Video conferencing rooms
       · Mediation centre/Legal Services Authority
       · Common rooms for male/female staff
       · Staff canteen
       · De-stress rooms for male /female staff                                 G
         ·Office space for Government pleader/Public prosecutor/
         Advocate General/Standing Counsel for Union of India with
         separate cubicles for conducting conferences and including space
         for accommodating their Secretarial staff and files
       · Support facilities like ramp, crèche, etc.                             H
426            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A         II. SPACE FOR LAWYERS/LITIGANTS
          · Bar rooms for ladies and gents
          · Consultation rooms and cubicles
          · Stamp vendors and notary public/oath commissioner/typist/
               photocopy/business centre
B         · Library
          · Canteen for lawyers and litigants
          · Facilitation counter for litigants/visitors
          · Support facilities
C         III.FACILITY CENTRE providing for common facilities for
               functioning of the complex unrelated to courts such as bank,
               post office, medical facility, disaster management, etc.
          IV. UTILITY BLOCK for accommodating the utility services such
               as A.C. plant, electrical sub-station, DG set/Solar panel, STP,
D              Repair workshop, storage, garage, etc.
          V. JUDICIAL LOCK-UPS.
          VI. STRONG ROOM FOR RECORD PRESERVATION.
          VII. ADEQUATE PARKING SPACE for judges, lawyers, litigants
               and other visitors.
E         VIII. IT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMPUTERISATION AND
              eCOURTS
             11. The finance needed for court infrastructure should be ideally
      placed under the head of planned expenditure which will be more specific,
      better managed and obviate any cut by the Governments. The budgeting
F     must be from the demand side and cannot be from the supply side.
             12. Apart from what we have stated above, we think it appropriate
      to issue the following directions which are the most fundamental and
      vital features to be provided at the earliest in all court complexes:-
      (i) Basic amenities such as adequate seating space for litigant public
G
          as well as lawyers, sufficient waiting area with seating
          arrangements, proper lighting and electricity, functional air-
          conditioning/air-cooling/ heating, accessible clean drinking water
          with Reverse Osmosis (RO) facility, clean and hygienic washrooms
          separate for men, women, transgenders and physically handicapped
H
  ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF                             427
                   INDIA & ORS.

     persons, kiosk and functional canteens selling beverages and             A
     eatables at nominal rates, preferably managed by court staff are
     some amenities and facilities which ought to be ensured at court
     complexes throughout the country. If these are missing in our court
     complexes, it would be an appalling situation which requires
     immediate rectification.
                                                                              B
(ii) We must further ensure that all our court complexes are conducive
     and friendly for the differently-abled and towards this end, the
     Court complexes must have certain features for the benefit of the
     vulnerable persons such as persons with disability or visually
     impaired persons. We have to move from disabled friendly buildings
     to workable and implementable differently- abled friendly court          C
     infrastructure. Ramps for such categories of persons must be
     operable, feasible, tried and tested. Such ramps should definitely
     have steel railings and handles. The court infrastructure must also
     keep in view the accessibility for visually impaired persons and,
     therefore, court complexes must have tactile pavements and signage       D
     in braille for the benefit of visually impaired citizens. That apart,
     for ensuring easy movement of common citizens in the court
     complexes, there must be maps and floor plans of the entire court
     complex at entry and exit points and visible signage and directional
     arrows with colour coding throughout the court premises.
                                                                              E
(iii) For saving the litigant public and other citizens from running one
      end to the other without any guidance in the Court complexes and
      for assisting them to reach their desired place, it is necessary that
      all court premises must establish a working and fully operational
      help desk at major alighting points with trained court staff to brief
      and guide the citizens about the layout of the court premises.          F

(iv) Court premises must also have sufficient number of functional
     electronic case display systems for litigants and lawyers with the
     feature of automatic update in every ten seconds.
(v) With the increase in motor vehicles, including cars and two-wheelers,     G
    it is imperative that court premises have sufficient and proper
    parking space to ease vehicular traffic and avoid crowding. All
    upcoming court complexes must have provision for both sufficient
    underground and surface parking facilities segregated into four
    broad categories – for judges, court staff, lawyers and litigants.
                                                                              H
428            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2018] 9 S.C.R.


A          As far as the existing court complexes are concerned, the possibility
           and feasibility of constructing underground or multi level parking
           facilities must be explored.
      (vi) The court premises must have easy access at both entry and exit
           points. End to end connectivity of public transport systems must
B          be ensured for court premises by starting feeder bus service and
           other dedicated transport services between major public transport
           points and court complexes. Access to justice will forever remain
           an illusory notion if access to courts is not ensured.
      (vii) Court premises must be armed with better crowd management
C           arrangements along with adequate security measures. It has been
            seen, time and again, that at the time of court proceedings of cases
            which are well covered by the media, the crowd management in
            court premises runs into utter chaos. Measures must be taken to
            ensure that whenever court premises are thronged with heightened
            crowds, there is smooth ingress and egress of both vehicular traffic
D           as well as citizens in the court premises.
      (viii) Creche facility at nominal rates for toddlers, falling within the age
            group of 6 months to 6 years, of lawyers, clerks of lawyers, bar
            association staff and officers and employees of court registry must
            also be constructed. The said creche facility must not be just for
E           the namesake, it has to be both functional as well as effective with
            proper space and equipment such as baby proofing and other
            toddler-friendly provisions. That apart, the courts should have a
            proper atmosphere for children and vulnerable witnesses.
      (ix) Professionally qualified court managers, preferably with an MBA
F          degree, must also be appointed to render assistance in performing
           the court administration. The said post of Court managers must be
           created in each judicial district for assisting Principal District and
           Sessions Judges. Such Court Managers would enable the District
           Judges to devote more time to their core work, that is, judicial
G          functions. This, in turn, would enhance the efficiency of the District
           Judicial System. These court managers would also help in identifying
           the weaknesses in the court management systems and
           recommending workable steps under the supervision of their
           respective judges for rectifying the same. The services of any
           person already working as a Court Manager in any district should
H          be regularised by the State Government as we are of the considered
   ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF                                 429
                    INDIA & ORS.

      view that their assistance is needed for a proper administrative set         A
      up in a Court.
(x) Adequate residential accommodation for judicial officers and court
     staff is another infrastructural aspect which requires immediate
     attention. The productivity of judicial officers and court staff who
     are not provided with residential quarters in and/or around the court         B
     premises gets negatively hampered. Thus, residential
     accommodation in proximity of court complexes for judicial officers
     and court staff must also be provided.
(xi) There shall be solar power installation in each of the district court
     premises initially and thereafter, the same should spread to all other        C
     courts.
(xii) Keeping in view the obtaining scenario, CCTV cameras should be
      placed at proper locations within the court complex.
(xiii) To enhance the quality of speedy justice, video conferencing
      equipments and connectivity to jails shall be provided at the earliest.      D
(xiv) The district court complex should have a dispensary with adequate
      medical staff and equipments.
       13. It is clear that judicial infrastructure not only needs attention
and budgeting but also effective utilization of the funds towards specific
                                                                                   E
and proper ends so that the primary goal of access to justice for all is
realized. Prompt measures are to be undertaken and procrastination in
these matters cannot brook delay where Rule of Law is supreme.
       14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretaries of
each of the States by the Registry requiring them to constitute a committee
                                                                                   F
of which the Secretary of the Department of Law should be a Member
to formulate the development plan as per the directions issued by us and
present the status report so that further directions can be issued. The
committee shall invite an officer from the High Court to be nominated
by the Chief Justice of the High Court. Copies of the order passed today
be sent to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts.                          G
      15. Let the matter be listed on August 23, 2018 for filing of the
plan and the status report and for issuance of appropriate directions.


Kalpana K. Tripathy                                           Directions issued.
                                                                                   H