With each new Chief Justice, India’s judicial infrastructure comes back into focus. Justice S.H. Kapadia was the first to propose a systematic plan in 2010 to examine the state of existing infrastructure and identify district judiciary’s future needs.
Judiciary’s attempt to upgrade judicial infrastructure
- Magistrate infrastructure: Justice T.S. Thakur has publicly lamented the poor conditions in which magistrates work.
- Vacancy in the district judiciary: After that, Justice Ranjan Gogoi successfully streamlined the process of filling vacancies in the district judiciary.
- National judicial infrastructure authority: Justice N.V. Ramana proposed establishing a national judicial infrastructure authority, which was rejected.
- Strengthening the district judiciary: We now have Justice D.Y. Chandrachud raising the issue of district judiciary strengthening.
Government of India’s attempt to upgrade judicial infrastructure
- State contributions: Under the scheme, the Centre has earmarked funds with contributions from respective state governments in the ratio of 60:40 (90:10 for North-eastern states and union territories), as well as monitoring the progress of initiated projects.
- There has been no significant improvement in the physical state of our district courts, despite the scheme spearheaded by the Ministry of Law and Justice, leaving successive Chief Justices to lament the state of affairs.
- State contributions: Under the scheme, the Centre has earmarked funds with contributions from respective state governments in the ratio of 60:40 (90:10 for North-eastern states and union territories), as well as monitoring the progress of initiated projects.
- There has been no significant improvement in the physical state of our district courts, despite the scheme spearheaded by the Ministry of Law and Justice, leaving successive Chief Justices to lament the state of affairs.
Reasons for non-progress in judicial Infrastructure
- Non-utilization of funds: The majority of the funds allocated under the scheme go unused because states do not contribute their fair share, resulting in a lapse in annual budgetary allocation.
- Consider this: a total of Rs 981.98 crore has been sanctioned for 2019-20. In the end, only Rs 84.9 crore was spent, leaving 91.36% of the funds unutilized. In 2020-21, Rajasthan came out on top by utilising Rs 41.28 crore of the sanctioned Rs 594.36 crore, but significant funds lapsed due to non-utilisation.
- No single owner of the scheme: There is no single owner of the scheme. The lack of a single coordinating agency prevents its successful implementation. In its current form, the CSS envisions separate state- and central-level monitoring committees.
- No representation of the judiciary in central committees: There is no representation of the judiciary as an institution in the central committee. As a result, the ultimate beneficiary of the scheme is excluded from the entire process.
- Lack of planning: Failure to plan for the future has consequences. At the moment, the central scheme has no plans to meet future demands. As a result, there is no discussion about the foreseeable workload of district courts in the next 10-20 years.
- There will be no single agency in charge of implementing: The lack of a single agency makes it impossible to achieve both short-term and long-term goals. Short-term goals, such as building courtrooms for existing judicial strength rather than sanctioned strength, record rooms, computer service rooms, and so on, suffer in the absence of a single agency that can track progress on planned initiatives and nudge stakeholders into action.
Way forward
- A single dedicated institution, as proposed by Justice Ramana, would ensure that when states submit action plans for upgrading/establishing judicial infrastructure, they also deposit their share of funds with the authority.
- Working with state governments: While the actual work will be done in collaboration with the states, it will ensure that one agency is in charge of setting goals and achieving them.
@the end
Justice is the foundation of a healthy society and a just nation. India cannot progress to economic prosperity unless its judiciary is improved. Upgrading judicial infrastructure should be a top priority for both the judiciary and the government.
Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/cji-ramana-rues-ad-hoc-unplanned-improvement-and-maintenance-of-judicial-infrastructure/article37136774.ece