"Inaction Being Defended By Lame Excuses": Allahabad HC 'Dissatisfied' With UP Govt On 'Serious' Issues Related To Courts Functioning In UP

A Seven-judge bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Justice Pritinker Diwaker, Justice Naheed Ara Moonis, Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani, and Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta was hearing a suo moto case pertaining to the functioning of Courts in Uttar Pradesh.

The Court had registered the instant PIL in the year 2015, after the functioning of the High Court was hindered by some unruly advocates, and it had issued an array of directions to the State Government for making proper arrangements for safety and security, and infrastructure of all the courts of State including District courts.

Without mincing words, the Allahabad High court lashed out at the State government as it noted that it was defending its inaction by giving lame excuses in the Court.

Issues examined by the Court

The State Government submitted before the Court that regarding the upgrading safety measures for the High Court, it had agreed in principle that the Electronic Corporation of India would be roped in for installation of CCTV cameras and their maintenance.

It was also submitted that a special team of experts would be deputed for regular monitoring of the security system and related issues.

In this regard, the Court expected that the appropriate action shall be taken, as agreed by the State, expeditiously.

On the issue of the infrastructure of the High Court or allotment of land for construction of the Courts and residential buildings for the Subordinate Courts, the Court underscored that the lack of infrastructure and the basic amenities required for effective functioning of the Subordinate Courts interferes in the dispensation of speedy and timely justice to the litigants.

In this regard, the Court further observed thus:

"The District Magistrates being the Custodian of the records of the districts are required to identify the lands at the local level for their allotment to the Subordinate Courts both for the Court complexes and residential accommodations for the judicial officers. The Administrative Committee of this Court had directed the District Judges to co-ordinate with the District Magistrates to identify such lands which are needed and can be made available for creation of adequate infrastructure in the Subordinate Courts. No effective action has been taken in the matter though repeated reminders have been sent. In many districts, process of acquisition has not been completed though much time has been elapsed."

Further, the Court opined that it is the obligation of the State Government to come out with effective action to resolve the problems faced by the Subordinate Courts both on account of the lack of staff and the adequate spaces/buildings for running the Courts.

"New districts have been created over the years resulting in the creation of more Courts but no steps much less effective steps have been taken to provide sufficient spaces/buildings with adequate staff and other related infrastructure for smooth running of the newly created Courts," the Court further observed.

Further, on the issue of lack of sensitivity in the establishment of the POCSO Courts, the Court referred to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, the Court stressed the issue of unavailability of adequate infrastructure to the POCSO courts State-wide.

In this regard, the Court underscored that for the lack of basic infrastructure, for which the judiciary is dependent upon the State Government, the progress of the Court proceedings are adversely affected.

"The requirement (under the Act), thus, is that separate Court complex/campus is to be created for the Special POCSO Courts so that the child is not exposed to the adversarial atmosphere of the normal Courts, where accused of other heinous crimes and other litigants may also be present for trials. In the State of U.P., no breakthrough has been made in this regard. The Special POCSO Courts designated by the State Government are forced to work in the common Court premises with no special facility for the child victim. No waiting areas nor even washroom facilities are available to the children attending the proceeding in the Special Courts," the Court noted.

Lastly, about the issue pertaining to the notification of the Rules for providing certain benefits to the Retired Judges, the Court noted that the benefits given to the retired Judges of the Telangana High Court are far better than what was proposed by this Court, yet, no final decision has been taken on it.

In this regard, the Court also referred to P. Ramakrishnam Raju Vs. Union of India, (2014) 12 SCC 1, in which the Top Court had issued directions to frame the Rules for providing equivalent benefits to the Retired Judges of different High Courts, for providing not only the service of the Orderly but also for security-guard and secretarial assistance, etc.

Regarding all the issues discussed by the High Court, the Advocate General assured the Court that immediate decision on the said issues would be taken by the State Government.

He also ensured that the appointment of the Nodal Officer shall be intimated to the Court on the next date fixed.

In view of this, the Court adjourned the matter and directed the listing of the matter on October 27.

Case Title- In Re v. Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad