Back
Calls Missing in Chandigarh a Serious Issue
The has branded the absence of a separate in Chandigarh a "serious issue," issuing on a that exposes a nine-year administrative delay. Despite the High Court’s approval in 2017, the has failed to establish even one at the , leaving residents without a dedicated forum for matrimonial and family disputes. A comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor directed the respondents to take "adequate steps" for the earliest possible establishment, while impleading the as a to the proceedings.
A Nine-Year Administrative Lapse
The PIL, filed by
, alleges that the UT administration
"slept over its
under
"
for nearly a decade. The petition traces the timeline to
, when the Chief Justice and judges of the High Court approved the creation of one
in Chandigarh and forwarded a formal request to the UT administration for sanction of a judicial officer’s post and supporting staff. Between
and
, the High Court sent a series of reminders, but the administration never issued the necessary notification.
The petitioner claims to have discovered the omission only this year through a newspaper report. Subsequent Right to Information (RTI) applications—first to the Public Information Officer of the District Courts and then to the High Court’s PIO—revealed the "shocking state of affairs." The file, according to the plea, has been pending
"awaiting nothing more than a notification"
ever since the 2017 approval.
Court’s Directive and Interim Relief
During the hearing, the bench observed that the prolonged absence of a in Chandigarh—often called the "City Beautiful"—undermines the very purpose of the , which seeks speedy and efficacious settlement of disputes concerning marriage and family affairs. The court issued notice to the UT administration and, on the oral request of the parties, impleaded the through the Secretary, , as respondent No. 3. The order directs the registry to forward a copy to the office of , who may obtain instructions or file a reply.
The bench stated:
"By the next date fixed, we expect the respondents to ensure that adequate steps are taken for establishment of
at Chandigarh, at the earliest possible."
It also directed the petitioner to file an amended memo of parties within two days. The matter is next listed for
.
Constitutional Obligations Under Article 256
Article 256 of the Indian Constitution mandates that the executive power of every State shall be exercised so as to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament. In this case, the —a central legislation—requires every State and Union Territory to establish Family Courts in every area comprising a city or town with a population exceeding one million. Chandigarh, with a population well above that threshold, has remained conspicuously non-compliant for decades.
Legal experts note that the High Court’s intervention signals a judicial push against bureaucratic inertia. While courts often refrain from directing legislative or executive action, the sheer absence of a statutorily mandated institution can amount to a violation of . The PIL echoes this concern, arguing that residents are forced to litigate family disputes in ordinary civil courts, which are often overburdened and lack the specialized, conciliatory approach required in family matters.
The Cost of Delay on Family Justice
The establishment of Family Courts is not merely a procedural formality; it is a substantive reform designed to promote and . These courts operate with relaxed procedural rules, allow parties to appear in person, and prioritize counseling. Their absence imposes tangible hardships: litigants face prolonged , higher costs, and emotional strain, particularly in matters of divorce, custody, and maintenance.
Chandigarh’s status as a Union Territory and the seat of the makes its non-compliance particularly incongruous. The High Court itself has repeatedly highlighted the need for specialized fora, and its 2017 approval was a concrete step toward fulfilling that need. The administration’s failure to issue a notification, despite clear instructions, reflects a broader pattern of disregard for judicial recommendations.
Implications for
The case also raises questions about the accountability of executive authorities in implementing court-approved proposals. By impleading the , the High Court has signaled that the issue transcends local administration and engages the central government’s role in enforcing constitutional mandates. The response from the , expected by the next hearing, will be crucial.
For legal practitioners, the outcome could set a precedent for similar PILs across other jurisdictions where Family Courts are yet to be established. It underscores the judiciary’s willingness to intervene when administrative lethargy impinges on and . The High Court’s observation that the matter is "serious" may also prompt other high courts to scrutinize infrastructure in their own territories.
Looking Ahead
The hearing will be pivotal. If the UT administration or the Union government fails to demonstrate concrete progress, the court may consider stricter remedies, including the possibility of directing the issuance of notification within a fixed timeframe. The bench’s closing remark—expecting "adequate steps" by the next hearing—leaves little room for further delay.
For now, the legal community watches closely. The case is a stark reminder that the promise of specialized family justice remains unfulfilled in one of India’s most planned cities. As the PIL advances, it carries the potential to catalyze systemic change, not just for Chandigarh, but for every jurisdiction where statutory courts are yet to see the light of day.
The judgment underscores that administrative inaction cannot be allowed to subvert . With the High Court’s stern observation, the message is clear: the establishment of Family Courts is not a favor to be granted but a duty to be performed—and performed without further excuse.
