Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI., MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Kishan Chand Jain – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 523 of 2024
Decided On : 27-09-2024
For the Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-person
The court established that the NJDG operates as a separate administrative initiative, limiting the court's ability to mandate its application to all Tribunals.
Headnote:
[JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION] - [TRIBUNALS AND DATA MANAGEMENT] - [The court ruled that the request to incorporate all Tribunals into the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) cannot be granted as it is part of a distinct administrative project under the E-Courts Project, allowing the petitioner to seek other remedies or approach the Central Government.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation seeking the incorporation of all Tribunals into the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the NJDG is part of a separate administrative project and thus could not issue the direction sought by the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the court can direct the incorporation of all Tribunals into the NJDG as requested by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the NJDG is a distinct project sanctioned by the Government of India, and therefore, the direction sought by the petitioner was not permissible.
Result: The petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was allowed to pursue other remedies or approach the Central Government.
ORDER
1 A similar petition instituted by the petitioner [Writ Petition (Civil) No 453 of 2024] has been disposed of on 24 July 2024 by this Court in terms of the following order:
“1 The direction sought in the Public Interest Litigation for the Union of India to incorporate all Tribunals into the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) cannot be issued as it stands. The NJDG is a part of the E-Courts Project which is a distinct administrative project in terms of the sanction issued by the Government of India.
2 The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to pursue any other remedies which he has in that regard.
3 The petitioner would be also at liberty to move the Central Government at an appropriate level.
4 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
5 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
2 In view of the above order, we are not inclined to entertain the petition on the same subject. The petition is dismissed. However, it would be open to the petitioner to pursue his proposals before the government.
3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
