Today, On 14th November, The Supreme Court rejected Punjab’s appeal and questioned how the State used Central grants meant for improving judicial infrastructure. The Court said money allocated for courts must be spent responsibly and warned that misuse of funds will be scrutinised.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated that both Central and State governments must allocate a minimum portion of their budgets for the judiciary.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made this remark while criticizing the Punjab government for failing to establish basic court infrastructure despite consistent directives from the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Court also hinted at potential misallocation of Central funds intended for the judiciary by State officials.
Justice Kant remarked,
“If we order an enquiry, we will find out that they have already consumed the central grant for other purposes.”
Also Read: Widow’s Remarriage No Bar to Compassionate Appointment Under Rule 51B: Kerala High Court
This ruling arose while the Court was hearing a petition from the Punjab government, which challenged the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding judicial infrastructure and transit accommodations for judicial officers in Malerkotla district.
The High Court had previously noted that Malerkotla was designated a revenue district in June 2021, with a separate sessions division approved in August 2023, yet the State had not provided permanent courtrooms or residences for the District and Sessions Judge and other judges.
Earlier, On August 22, the High Court instructed the State to issue fresh administrative and financial approvals for two additional courtrooms within the existing complex and tasked the High Court’s Building Committee with investigating whether the Deputy Commissioner’s guest house and other buildings occupied by executive officers could be repurposed for judges.
Observing little progress, on September 12 the High Court issued a more forceful order, highlighting ongoing delays despite resolutions from the Building Committee.
It mandated that the guest house currently used by the Deputy Commissioner and another residence occupied by the Senior Superintendent of Police be vacated and allocated to the District and Sessions Judge, potentially for use as courtroom space as well.
When the State sought to retract that order, the High Court described the motion as “bordering on contempt” and summoned the Secretary (Justice) for an explanation. It was within this context that the Punjab government approached the Supreme Court.
Appearing for the State, Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi argued that the government had acted on the PIL and made provisions for the judges in Malerkotla.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Punjab, contended that the High Court’s criticism was unwarranted, suggesting that the PIL focused solely on establishing a court in Malerkotla and that the State had already provided housing and other facilities elsewhere.
However, Justice Kant dismissed this characterization, noting that the State had not presented any completed court complex projects and supported the High Court’s evaluation.
He remarked,
“You don’t know what is happening in the State of Punjab. They don’t even allocate a site. They have enough money to spend on so many other things. If we order an enquiry, they will realise it.”
The Bench also questioned the State’s priorities in forming new districts without adequately planning for judicial infrastructure. Justice Kant pointed out that while Malerkotla’s elevation as a revenue district occurred, the State failed to ensure basic facilities for courts and judges.
He queried why the government could quickly provide housing for other officials but not for the judiciary, asking,
“First of all why did they declare a revenue district. Only for political appeasement. When they knew infrastructure was not created. In any case you say you require house for SP, but you don’t require a house for Sessions Judge?”
Justice Bagchi highlighted a broader systemic issue, noting the insufficient budgetary support for the justice system. He indicated that judicial infrastructure often relies on centrally funded programs, with State contributions either delayed or misallocated.
He suggested that a more organized commitment to budgeting might be necessary, stating,
“Time has perhaps come for prescription of a minimum allocation in State and Central budgets for judiciary. It’s not even 1% of the GDP.”
In response to these discussions, Singhvi requested time to confer with State leadership and sought permission to withdraw the petition, aiming to approach the High Court instead.
He assured the Court that the State would submit a detailed status report and explanation before the High Court, requesting suitable modification or extension of time.
The Supreme Court permitted the withdrawal of the petition, allowing the State to approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Bench noted the impending compliance deadline established by the High Court’s September 12 order and directed that the State should not face technical barriers when requesting time.
Case Title: State of Punjab & ors. vs. District Bar Association Malerkotla