The State Government is under obligation to provide adequate judicial infrastructure and means of access to justice to citizens. Financial limitations or constraints cannot be a valid excuse to avoid the performance of the constitutional duty of the Government to provide a proper judicial infrastructure.

A.S. OKA, J.

INTRODUCTION

1. These three Petitions have been filed inviting the attention of this Court to the gross delay on the part of the State Government in commencing and completing the construction of Court buildings. The Public Interest Litigation No. 239 of 2009 concerns construction of a Court building and Judicial Quarters at Navi Mumbai in Taluka and District Thane. The Public Interest Litigation No. 10 of 2008 concerns the grievance about the gross delay involved in the commencement of construction and completion of a Court building as well as judicial quarters at Panvel in District Raigad. The Writ Petition No. 1501 of 2012 contains a grievance regarding failure of the State Government to commence and complete the construction of District Court Building at Ahamednagar within a reasonable time. In these three Petitions, from time to time, various directions have been issued by this Court. It is really unfortunate that the Members of the Bar were compelled to file such Petitions in this Court inviting the attention of the Court to the gross delay on part of the State Government to commence and complete the construction of Court buildings.

THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATE TO ESTABLISH COURTS AND PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE

2. Before we deal with the factual aspects, firstly we propose to deal with the issue of the obligation of the State Government not only to establish the Courts, but also to provide adequate infrastructure to the Courts which are already established. Part IV of the Constitution of India contains the directive principles of state policy. Article 39A forming part of Part IV reads thus:-

“39A. Equal justice and free legal aid. The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.”

3. In the case of Purshottam Manohar Kamone vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (4) Mh. LJ. 320, the issue of obligation of the State Government to establish Courts was considered. The Division Bench of this Court reiterated the well settled principle that the speedy justice is an ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, each litigant has a fundamental right to speedy justice. In Paragraph 6 of the said decision, the Division Bench has held thus:-

“6. It is no longer debatable and rather it is well settled that the speedy justice is an ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, each litigant has a fundamental right of a speedy justice. That being so, it is the corresponding obligation of the State to constitute sufficient number of courts, Tribunals and forums so that a litigant, who has knocked the door of the Court or Tribunal, is able to get justice speedy. Taking into consideration the huge pendency of motor accident claim cases at Nagpur, expected future filing and slow disposal of such cases, it is necessary for the State Government to provide sufficient Motor Accident Claims Tribunals at Nagpur. This is essential to ensure the speedy disposal of cases and in consonance with Article 39A of the Constitution of India, which provides that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice. As observed by the Apex Court in S.C. Advocate son Record vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268, with reference to Article 216 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the constitution of High Courts, this is essential to ensure speedy disposal of cases, to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice a directive principle fundamental in the governance of the country which, it is the duty of the State to observe in all its actions and to make meaningful the guarantee of fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution. The Apex Court further observed that the