Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. Oka, M.S. Sonak, JJ.
Vihar Durve - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation No. 188 of 2015; Civil Application No. 75 of 2016, 42 of 2018
Decided On : 11-10-2018
JUDICIAL INFRASTRUCTURE - NUMBER OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS - POWER TO DECIDE - PRIMACY - CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF STATE - DIRECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
PIL seeking directions to establish additional 867 Courts in the State of Maharashtra, 20 fast track Courts for exclusively trying the cases of senior citizens, differently abled persons and marginalised sections of the society, 48 Special Courts in the State for exclusively trying the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, additional 17 posts of family Court judges in the city of Mumbai, 5 in Pune and 5 at Nagpur, establishment of Courts of District Judges and Senior Civil Judges at the specific places in various Taluka places, District Court for the newly created Nandurbar Revenue District, road map for the establishment of Courts which are subject matter of specific prayers in the petition. Contention of State that on these aspects, the views of the Government will prevail.
Finding of the Court:
Views of the High Court Administration on these aspects will have the primacy and the State Government will be bound to follow the views of this Court. The issue of primacy arose in view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State Government that on these aspects, the views of the Government will prevail. It is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide adequate infrastructure to the judiciary with a view to ensure that fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of right of speedy trial is not violated. Adequate infrastructure of the Courts will include adequate number of Judges. If the State Government is serious about its contention about the primacy, the State will be doing breach of the Constitutional obligation of providing adequate infrastructure to the judiciary.
Issues: 1. Whether the views of the High Court Administration on the number of Judicial Officers required in the State and the number of additional Courts of various categories required in the State will have the primacy and the State Government will be bound to follow the views of the Court? 2. Whether it is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide adequate infrastructure to the judiciary with a view to ensure that fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of right of speedy trial is not violated?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. When it comes to deciding on the proposal for the appointment of additional Judicial Officers or creating additional Courts or creating additional posts, the views of the High Court Administration will always have a primacy and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure that additional Courts or additional posts as suggested by the High Court Administration are sanctioned as expeditiously as possible in as much as if there is a delay on the part of the State Government, it may amount to violation of fundamental rights of the litigants under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the constitutional obligation of the State to provide adequate infrastructure to the judiciary with a view to ensure that fundamental right of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of right of speedy trial is not violated. Adequate infrastructure of the Courts will include adequate number of Judges. If the State Government is serious about its contention about the primacy, the State will be doing breach of the Constitutional obligation of providing adequate infrastructure to the judiciary.
Final Decision: 1. If the proposals for creation of posts (including 867 posts) which are the subject matter of this PIL are still pending, the State Government shall take appropriate decision thereon in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three months from the date on which this Judgment is uploaded. 2. Place the PIL under the caption of 'Directions' for reporting compliance on 25th January 2019 at 3.00 p.m.
JUDGMENT
A.S.Oka, J. - The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. The petitioner who is a Chartered Accountant by profession has raised several issues concerning the infrastructure of the judiciary in the State.
2. Before we go to the details, we must refer to the prayers. The first prayer is for seeking a direction to establish additional 867 Courts in the State of Maharashtra. There is a prayer for setting up 20 fast track Courts for exclusively trying the cases of senior citizens, differently abled persons and marginalised sections of the society. In the petition, there are averments regarding necessity of establishing adequate number of Special Courts in the State for exclusively trying the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, there is a prayer seeking a direction to establish 48 Special Courts in the State. The petitioner has contended that there is a need to have more family Courts in the State. Therefore, there is a prayer made that there should be additional 17 posts of family Court judges in the city of Mumbai, 5 in Pune and 5 at Nagpur. There is a prayer for establishment of Courts of District Judges and Senior Civil Judges at the specific places in various Taluka places mentioned in prayer clauses (e) to (i). There is also a prayer made for establishing a District Court for the newly created Nandurbar Revenue District. Another important prayer in the petition is regarding furnishing a road map for the establishment of Courts which are subject matter of specific prayers in the petition. Pending the petition, another issue was raised in this PIL concerning pension payable to the judicial officers in the State. It is pointed out that the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) which was introduced by a Government Resolution was applied to the judicial officers who were appointed on or after 1 st November, 2005. It was pointed out that the new pension scheme (DCPS) as compared to the old pension scheme which was applicable to those who were in judicial service as on 31st October 2005 is not at all beneficial to the Judicial Officers and in fact as a result of applying the new pension scheme to the Judicial Officers appointed after 31st October 2005, deduction of 10% of the salary was being made as a contribution to DCPS. Accordingly, prayers (m) and (n) were incorporated for challenging the applicability of DCPS.
3. We may note here that as regards the controversy regarding the applicability of the new pension scheme (DCPS) to the judicial officers, the issue is finally decided by this Court by the Judgment and Order dated 11th August, 2017 by holding that the judicial Officers appointed after 31st October 2005 will be governed by the old Pension scheme. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State of Maharashtra preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3146 of 2017. By an order dated 1 st December, 2017 passed in the said SLP, this PIL was transferred to the Apex Court. However, by further order dated 27th March, 2018 the Apex Court disposed of the said SLP without disturbing the order dated 11th August, 2017 and the present petition was again ordered to be re-transferred to this Court. While re-transferring the petition, the Apex Court added a rider that this Court should not deal with the issues which have been referred to the commission headed by Shri Justice Venkatarama Reddy for resolution.
4. After the present PIL was re-transferred to this Court, consequential orders have been passed by this Court for the implementation of the directions issued in the Judgment and order dated 11th August, 2017.
5. Therefore, now, while finally deciding the petition, we are not dealing the issue regarding pensionary benefits to the judicial officers appointed on or after 1st November, 2005 inasmuch as the decision on the said issue has become final by virtue of the disposal of SLP filed by the State of Maharashtra against the Judgment and ord
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
