ORDER

1. 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 cal ed "measure" of what is spent on judicial infrastructure. This would be in consonance of doctrine of proportionality, which is the facet of doctrine of reasonableness under the Constitution. The 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 the rule of law in this Court would fail.

2. In the light of what is stated above, this Court undertook the exercise of ascertaining and obtaining information regarding infrastructural projects concerning courthouses and residential quarters of Judges working in the subordinate judiciary. Accordingly, vide order dated 12-7-20101, read with order dated 19-7-20102, we called for information regarding projects which are in the pipeline. Some of the States have given requisite information in, that regard.

3. To begin with, on the basis of the information furnished to us by the learned amicus curiae and by the Monitoring Committee of this Court, we have decided to examine the position of infrastructure in the two States of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. We find from the statement submitted by the State of Karnataka, through the Committee concerned, that as far as courthouses are concerned, 414 projects (Column 12) are in the pipeline, whereas for residential quarters, 282 projects are pending clearance. Similarly, in the case of Andhra Pradesh, 22 proposals (Column 12) are awaiting clearance in respect of courthouses and 16 projects are awaiting clearance for residential quarters. We do not know the reason for such non-clearance. There are also projects where constructions have actually started. We do not know since when these projects are pending.

4. In the circumstances, we direct the Chief Secretary of the State concerned to put on affidavit as to since when all these proposals/projects are pending and the reasons why they are not being cleared. The matter shall stand over, to 27-9-2010.