The senior-most District Judge in Rajasthan has been functioning without even a stenographer or an office, and writes judgments at 2 am, the Supreme Court was told, as it advised the judge, who retires in four days, to place his grievances before the High Court’s Chief Justice.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has advised a Rajasthan District Judge, who complained of functioning without basic facilities such as a stenographer and an office, to submit a representation to the newly-appointed Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, and permitted him to withdraw his plea with liberty to pursue his grievances before the appropriate authority [Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. Chanchal Mishra and Others].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the matter, moved by Dinesh Kumar Gupta, who is posted as the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal and is due to retire in four days.
‘Writing judgments at 2 o’clock at night’
Appearing for the judge, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh submitted that Gupta is the senior-most District Judge in the State, yet has been functioning without even basic facilities, including a stenographer and an office. Underlining the difficulties the judicial officer faced in discharging his duties, Singh told the Court, “He is writing judgments still at 2 o’clock at night.”
The Chief Justice observed that a new Chief Justice had recently taken charge in the State, and advised Gupta to submit a representation before the Chief Justice regarding his grievances. On the request of his counsel, the Court agreed to record that observation in its order.
Plea withdrawn with liberty
Singh subsequently sought permission to withdraw the plea, with liberty to approach the appropriate authority with all the grievances and to seek their expeditious consideration. “Permit me to withdraw and give me liberty to approach with all my grievances and for expeditious consideration,” he submitted. The Court agreed, and the plea was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievances before the appropriate authority.
The background
The matter before the Court was a contempt petition filed by Gupta against the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court, alleging non-compliance with a January 2026 direction of the Supreme Court. In that order, the Court had protected the judge’s rank and pay, holding that he would be entitled to the pay and allowances of a District Judge while officiating as the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal.
Gupta had earlier approached the Supreme Court alleging that he was being targeted and repeatedly transferred in violation of the applicable transfer policy, and that his posting at the Labour Court in Jaipur was not commensurate with his rank as a Principal District Judge. By its order of January 29, 2026, the Court had directed that his substantive rank shall continue to be that of Principal District Judge; that he shall be entitled to all the allowances admissible to a Principal District Judge even during his posting at the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal; and that he shall not report to any junior or District Judge, his administrative control resting directly with the Administrative or Portfolio Judge of the Sessions Division concerned.
Why it matters
Though the Court disposed of the plea by relegating the judge to a representation before the High Court’s Chief Justice, the grievance it aired speaks to a persistent and much-discussed problem: the working conditions of the district judiciary, which handles the overwhelming bulk of the country’s litigation. That a senior-most District Judge in a State should, on the submissions made, function without a stenographer or a proper office, and be left to write judgments in the small hours, is an illustration of the infrastructure and support deficits that judicial officers at the district level frequently report, and that the Supreme Court has, in other proceedings, sought to address as part of the broader effort to strengthen the subordinate courts.
The case also reflects the constitutional scheme under which the administrative control of the district judiciary vests in the High Court under Article 235, which is why the Supreme Court, rather than issuing directions itself, considered it appropriate for the judge to place his grievances before the Chief Justice of the High Court, especially with a new incumbent recently in office. With the plea withdrawn and liberty granted, it now falls to the High Court’s administrative side to consider and, the judge will hope, expeditiously redress the facilities and service grievances he has raised in the short time before his retirement.
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. Chanchal Mishra and Others [Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 735/2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1264/2025]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: September 25, 2026