Back
: Cannot Deny Citizens in Courts
Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal holds that financial limitations are no excuse for inadequate judicial infrastructure; directs state to prioritize pending projects.
In a significant , the has reminded the state government that providing is a under , and cannot be used as an excuse to deny citizens . The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal was hearing a PIL filed by , an advocate and Sanyojak of , seeking directions for construction of a new district court building with 14 courtrooms in Anuppur.
A Decade-Long Wait for a Court Building
Anuppur, a tribal-dominated district declared a civil district in , has been functioning from an old rented building with inadequate space and infrastructure. Despite repeated representations from the and a memorandum from the High Court as far back as directing prompt action, the project remained stuck due to lack of budgetary allocation. The petitioner argued that the state’s failure to sanction funds for the new building was causing immense inconvenience to advocates, litigants, and the public.
Expanding the Scope of the PIL
Taking of the larger issue, the bench expanded the scope of the litigation to include all pending projects for court buildings, judicial officers’ quarters, and staff accommodations across Madhya Pradesh. The court summoned the Principal Secretary of Finance and the Secretary of to explain the delay.
Court’s Strong Observations on
The High Court categorically stated that the judiciary cannot be treated as a government department. It observed:
"We need to remind the government that the judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy and the same cannot be treated as a government department for providing necessary infrastructure. The
is an essential
.
is not a matter of
or
, but a
owed to citizens to ensure
under
."
No Bar: Precedent
The court relied on the ’s ruling in the case, which held that cannot be pleaded by the state to deny proper infrastructure, working conditions, and administrative resources to the judiciary. The bench emphasized that the judiciary must have adequate .
State’s Acknowledgment and Proposed Relief
The Advocate General informed the court that the had recommended sanction of ₹45.87 crore for the Anuppur project, but allocation was delayed due to . The Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) submitted that the ’s budget for the current year was exhausted in completing two major projects – 60 courtrooms at the High Court in Jabalpur and the .
The court directed that funds for infrastructure projects should be met from the budget, which normally maintains court buildings. It also directed the Registrar (Works & Infrastructure) to provide a list of all pending projects to the appointed – Senior Advocate along with Advocates and – for suggesting future measures.
Directions and Next Hearing
The High Court directed the state to consider allotting additional land near the existing court buildings in major cities like Bhopal and Jabalpur, which face acute shortage of courtrooms. The matter has been listed for , with an expectation that the Advocate General will apprise the Chief Minister of the situation and return with a solution.
Key Observations
-
" is not a matter of or , but a owed to citizens to ensure under ."
-
" cannot be pleaded by the executive to deny proper infrastructure, working conditions, and administrative resources to the judiciary."
-
"Lack of infrastructure in the judiciary is a serious matter, which is directly related to the public at large."
Case Details
Case Title:
Case Number:
WP No. 6278 of 2025
Bench:
Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal
Petitioner’s Counsel:
Advocates and
:
Senior Advocate with Advocates and
State’s Counsel:
Advocate General with Deputy Advocate General
