The Karnataka High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the transfer of veterinary institution land for judges’ residential quarters and a super-speciality hospital. Holding that judges’ quarters are essential for judicial independence, the Court said the State must provide suitable accommodation, noting only 19 judges currently have official quarters.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) questioning the state government’s decision to transfer land belonging to a veterinary institution to be used for residential quarters for High Court judges and a super-speciality hospital.
A Division Bench comprising Justice DK Singh and Justice TM Nadaf said on Friday that providing official accommodation and necessary facilities to judges is an essential part of the constitutional framework that protects judicial independence.
The Court noted that amenities such as official residences, transportation, libraries, and service-related allowances are required for the judiciary to function effectively with dignity and to maintain institutional independence.
Emphasising that judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution, the Bench observed that the service conditions of High Court judges including housing are closely connected to fulfilling that constitutional guarantee.
The Court held that High Court and Supreme Court judges are entitled to fully furnished official accommodation as part of their terms of service, and that such facilities are important to preserve judicial independence.
The Bench further stated that the State has a constitutional responsibility to provide housing commensurate with the status and dignity of High Court judges acting as constitutional functionaries.
The Court also noted that there is an acute shortage of official residences for judges.
Referring to the Karnataka High Court’s sanctioned strength of 62 judges, it recorded that only 19 official residences were available. It said that as a consequence, several judges are forced to live in rented accommodation, which it described as unsuitable for a constitutional authority.
The PIL was filed by the Karnataka Veterinary Association, the Bangalore Veterinary College Alumni Association, the Senior Veterinarians’ Association, and the Dairy Science College Alumni Association.
The petition challenged a government order transferring seven acres of land from the Karnataka Veterinary Animal and Fisheries Science University (KVAFSU). According to the order, four acres were designated for residential quarters for High Court judges, while the remaining three acres were earmarked for establishing a super-speciality hospital.
The petitioners argued that the land transfer would reduce the land available to the veterinary college and could jeopardise its recognition status. They further contended that any reduction in available land could affect the institution’s ranking, which may in turn lead to a decrease in financial support and grants from the Veterinary Council of India.
After reviewing the material on record, the High Court found no grounds to interfere. The Bench held that the four acres set apart for judicial housing were surplus land and that transferring it would not harm KVAFSU’s operations, infrastructure, academic activities, or its regulatory compliance.
The Court concluded that allotting the land near Nyayagrama for judges’ residential quarters would neither obstruct the university’s functioning nor conflict with public interest.
In contrast, the Court said the transfer supports a broader constitutional goal by strengthening judicial independence, which it described as central to the constitutional scheme. It held that enabling adequate residential facilities for judges serves a meaningful public purpose and aligns with the larger public interest.
The Court also rejected the challenge relating to the transfer of the three acres for the super-speciality hospital. It noted that the institution had substantial excess land over and above its immediate needs and ruled that allotting a limited portion of such land for a public healthcare facility cannot be treated as harmful to public interest.
Observing that the proposed hospital would benefit the wider public by expanding access to advanced medical care, the Bench held that the State’s decision to allocate the land for healthcare infrastructure was reasonable and in the interest of public welfare.
Concluding that the transfer did not violate public interest or adversely affect the veterinary university’s functioning, the High Court dismissed the PIL and upheld the state government’s decision for both projects.