SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Ker) 273

ARIJIT PASAYAT, B.N.KIRPAL, K.G.BALAKRISHNAN
Brij Mohanlal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. All these cases relate to the establishment and functioning of Courts described as Fast Track Courts, and therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. The Eleventh Finance Commission (hereinafter referred to as "The Finance Commission") allocated Rs. 502.90 crores under Art.275 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short "the Constitution") for the purpose of setting up of 1,734 Courts in various States to deal with long pending cases, particularly, Sessions Cases. As allocation of funds made by the Finance Commission stipulated time-bound utilization within a period of five years, various State Governments were required to take necessary steps to establish such Courts. It appears that the Finance Commission had suggested that the States may consider re-employment of required judges for limited period, for the disposal of pending cases, since these Courts were to be ad hoc in the sense that they would not be a permanent addition to the number of Courts within a particular State. Challenge was made to the Scheme known as the Fast Track Courts Scheme in various High Courts, primarily on the ground that there was no constitutional sanction for employment of reti






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top