ORDER

1. Administration of justice, constitution and organisation of all courts, except the Supreme Court and the High Courts, was originally included in the State List under the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. However, by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, it has been brought in the Concurrent List vide Entry 11-A.

2. In the Report of Justice Shetty Commission, it has been highlighted that courts in mofussil places are located in dilapidated buildings with inadequate furniture for Judges or lawyers or litigants. The old rickety furniture is at site to see even today in mofussil courts. Such courts, according to the Report of Justice Shetty Commission, have become a pathetic site to see. The most important observation in the Report is that the Union Government has included the infrastructure of the courts as "planned item" to enable them to provide half of the expenditure required for that purpose and the other half has to be contributed by the State. At this stage, it may be stated that the Central sponsored scheme of the Central Government has a rule of sliding down which results in reduction of the funding from the Centre as the said funding is made dependent upon the State's funding in a given year.

3. One more aspect which needs to be mentioned is that, subject to various modifications recorded in the judgment dated 21-3-20021, all other recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission were accepted by this Court in this case [para 37 of All India Judges' Assn. (3) v. Union of India1]. Earlier, in the judgment in this case in All India Judges' Assn. (2) v. Union of India2 SCC para 43 reads asunder: (SCC p. 310) "43. We now understand that the judiciary has been included as a plan subject by the Planning Commission. If this is so, the construction of adequate number of houses with the necessary facilities should be given the top priority being the most primary requirement of the judges at any place. ... In order to ensure that the quarters constructed for the judicial officers are of proper dimension and with adequate number of rooms, their future construction should be made in consultation with and under the supervision of the respective High Court and the High Court should take adequate interest in their construction."

4. Till today, para 43, aforequoted, has remained a dream. It now needs to be enforced and, therefore, this Court has decided to sit on every Monday in the afternoon session to revisit the infrastructural problems faced by the subordinate courts.

5. It is brought to our notice that fines and costs running into crores deposited in the State Government accounts are not spent for the infrastructure of the courts. We want these amounts to be earmarked for infrastructure of the subordinate judiciary in each State. Even the court fees collected is not deployed for the infrastructure of the judiciary. We want the Central Government and the State Governments to cooperate. We want these funds, which are internally generated, to be deployed for the infrastructure of the subordinate judiciary so that there is less dependency on the Central, sponsored schemes. We also want the Government to consider amending the Court Fees Act in specific areas like the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Arbitration Act, etc.

6. Accordingly, we hereby direct the Report dated 12-7-2010, to be registered by the Registry as an interlocutory application. The respondents in the interlocutory application will be the State Governments through their respective Chief Secretaries, Union Territories through their administrators, High Court through their Registrars General, the Union of India through Department of Justice, and, lastly, the Advocate General of each State. In addition, we want the Advocate General of each State to be co-opted in the State Committee, which is referred to in the Report. The Report indicates not only the requirement of the subordinate judiciary but also indicates the revenue-raising measures as also the sta