ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 419, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
419
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Interlocutory Application No.279 of 2010)
In
(Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989)
AUGUST 02, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
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
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
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
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
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
  [2018] 9 S.C.R. 419
419
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
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,
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,
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
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,
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,
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
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,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini (for M/s. Parekh & Co.), Suhaan Mukerji,
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,
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,
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
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
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
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?
[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?
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
423
our country rests upon the judiciary which makes it imperative upon the
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
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
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
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]
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.
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
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
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
424
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
low as less than 1% of their total budget for the judiciary.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
425
9.  In view of the above, we deem it extremely necessary to
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
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
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
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
· Court rooms
· Judges’
chambers
· Judges’ residential complex
· Litigants’ waiting area
· Administrative offices
· Conference Hall/Meeting Room
· Video conferencing rooms
· Mediation centre/Legal Services Authority
· Common rooms for male/female staff
· Staff canteen
· De-stress rooms for male /female staff
·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.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
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
·
Library
·
Canteen for lawyers and litigants
·
Facilitation counter for litigants/visitors
·
Support facilities
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,
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.
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
persons, kiosk and functional canteens selling beverages and
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.
(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
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
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.
(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.
(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,
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.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
be regularised by the State Government as we are of the considered
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
view that their assistance is needed for a proper administrative set
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
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
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.
(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
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
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.
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.
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. UNION OF
INDIA & ORS.