ORDER

1. This interlocutory application basically relates to infrastructure of the courts especially in subordinate courts. A detailed order was passed on 24.01.2011 which pertained to various projects of court buildings, residential quarters and all other aspects. On 04.04.2011, the following order came to be passed:-

“By our Order dated 21st February, 2011, we had directed States of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Uttarakhand to answer five questions, which, for the sake of brevity, are reiterated hereinbelow:

[1] Since when Proposals/Projects are pending and reasons why they have not been cleared till today?

[2] For how long and why Proposals pending for acquisition of land have not been cleared by the Collectors?

[3] Why Government lands, which are available, are not being urgently made available for Court Buildings and Residential Quarters?

[4] What steps are being taken to expeditiously complete Projects which are under construction?

[5] How many pending Proposals would receive administrative and financial sanction during the next Financial Year?

States of Gujarat and Maharashtra have sought time to put in their response. Request is granted. Hence, four weeks' time is granted. No further adjournment will be granted.

As far as State of Uttrakhand is concerned, we have examined the affidavits filed on 1st April, 2011. The affidavits are vague. The State of Uttarakhand was required to answer each of the above five questions project-wise and format-wise but they have not done so.

In the circumstances, we direct the State of Uttarakhand to file a proper detailed and accurate affidavit to the questions posed. In addition, we direct the State to answer those questions project-wise and format-wise.

We may further add that vide Order dated 24th January, 2011, we had requested various States, including States of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Uttarakhand, to furnish details of the nature of the work, the place at which the project is located as well as the amount to be spent in respect of each of the project. Pursuant to the said order, we had also forwarded the requisite format in the form of Annexures I and II to all the three States. Since we are adjourning the matter by four weeks, we also direct the States of Uttarakhand, Gujarat and Maharashtra to give details duly filled in the formats Annexures I and II.

Place the matter on 9th May, 2011.”

2. Thereafter, the matter was listed on many an occasion but it stood adjourned. In the meantime, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that there has been progress in the field of infrastructure inasmuch as the court projects (court rooms) have been constructed and other steps have been taken. But there are certain other spheres where immediate attention is required so that things are set right.

3. A sound infrastructure is the linchpin of a strong and stable judicial system. The responsibility for securing justice to the citizenry of our country rests upon the judiciary which makes it imperative upon the State to provide the judicial wing the requisite infrastructure commensurate with the constitutional obligation of the judiciary. It needs to be understood that without a robust infrastructure, the judiciary would not be able to function at its optimum level and, in turn, would fail to deliver the desired results. While emphasizing the importance of judicial infrastructure, the Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 705 has observed:-

“Justice Delivery System is the bedrock of the rule of law, which is held to be the basic structure of the Constitution and it is our view that, in the absence of adequate judicial infrastructure, particularly for the subordinate Courts, it would not be possible to sustain rule of law in this Country. It is true that Courts do not generally issue directions in financial matters, however, we are of the view that Court fees, costs and fines constitute what is called “Measure” of what is spent on judicial infrastructure. This would be in consona