On March 8, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose sought a response from both its administrative wing as well as the centre regarding the Judicial Vista. This was after a plea was filed seeking directions to prepare the layout and execute the work of construction of the Vista in the land adjoining the present premises of the Supreme Court. This would enable access to better and dignified working conditions for judges, members of the Bar and officials of the registry of the Court.
The plea said that the workload and number of judges, advocates and litigants have only increased whereas the size of the premises has not. It called for the construction of:
- A multi-level complex with 45-50 courtrooms and 5,000 chambers for senior lawyers.
- Underground parking facility for 10,000 cars.
- Adequate office, working and waiting space for law officers, advocates, standing counsel.
- Library, medical and photocopying facilities.
- Dedicated office space for all lawyer associations and bar councils.
The plea also sought direction to provide better facilities to litigants visiting the premises of the Court and asked that directions be given to the government to constitute an independent Central Authority for the sole purposes of judicial infrastructure exclusively funded by the Consolidated Fund of India. This would ensure that the infrastructure in courts/tribunals in India is adequate for judges, advocates and litigants to ensure that the quality of justice is not compromised.
The PIL under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad. He is the secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
The petition sought the realisation of the rights guaranteed under Article 14/19(1)(g)/21 of advocates, staff and litigants. It said that the independence of the judiciary is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and an important facet of the rule of law governing the country.
The plea said that the lack of judicial infrastructure, be it courtrooms or basic amenities in the subordinate judiciary and tribunals, was a very serious issue. Also, the lack of autonomy of the judiciary in the matter and dependence on the central and state governments defeats the cause of judicial independence.
It is also submitted that judicial infrastructural independence is quintessential for the furtherance of the cause of judicial independence, and hence, there was a need to set up a National Judicial Infrastructure Authority. This, it said, falls within the most basic fundamental rights under Article 14/19(1 )(g)/21 of the Constitution and is aimed at a dignified workplace for thousands of advocates practising in courts, as protected by Article 21.
So, what is the background which led to the filing of the PIL? More than 70 years after the Constitution came into force, the judicial organ is still dependent. As provided under Article 124 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court was inaugurated on January 28, 1950, with a strength of six judges. At that time, the Court started functioning in the Princes’ Chamber of Parliament House as a make-shift arrangement and since then, was functioning in the same premises. As per the records available to the petitioner, in 1950, a little over 1,000 cases were filed before the Court and it rendered judgments in about 50 cases.
However, the necessity of a separate building was felt and the present premises were constructed and the Court started functioning there from 1958. Initially, only five courtrooms were constructed. In the meanwhile, the strength of the Court increased from eight to 11 judges in 1956 due to the increasing workload. In 1960, the strength of the Court was accordingly increased from 11 to 14 judges. However, no additional infrastructure was provided.
The petitioner noted that the number of advocates practising before this Court was a few hundred, most of who were regular practitioners of some High Court and used to visit the Court only for the hearing of their matters. However, only agents were required to regularly attend the Court and the infrastructure available then in the premises was sufficient to cater to their needs.
In view of increasing workload, the strength of the judges was increased twice, firstly from 26 to 31 in 2008 and again from 31 to 34 in 2019. However, the infrastructure was not enhanced proportionate to the growth of the Court, the workload and the practicing Bar.
The plea said that the workload in the Supreme Court is amongst the largest in the world and the practising Bar had one of the highest number of members for any apex court globally. Presently, the Court, apart from having a full working strength of 34 judges, has more than 2,000 advocates on its rolls as Advocates-on-Record (AoR), several hundred senior advocates and other regularly practising advocates. Further, there are thousands of people employed in the Registry of the Court, members of the media, apart from clerical and other staff of the AoRs/senior advocates/advocates. The Court is also a learning ground for interns, the plea noted.
On any day, thousands of people would enter the high security zone and attend the proceedings during the pre-pandemic times. The courtrooms, corridors, entry gates, parking, library, cafeteria/canteen, etc, are always overcrowded and many times, senior advocates/advocates/clerks/litigants have to push through the crowd, it said.
The infrastructure of the Court has not proportionately expanded with the growth of litigation and workload, except for a few new courtrooms which have been carved out in the old structure. However, these courtrooms do not have adequate space for lawyers even to stand before the Court, it said.
Even though the court of the chief justice of India is the largest, it too cannot adequately accommodate members of the Bar and their staff due to lack of space. The problem of space is often faced in this court during the hearing of several constitutionally important matters as well as during oath ceremonies of judges or full court references.
In March 2021, then Justice NV Ramana, reflecting on the poor conditions in some courts, had said that the central and state governments should come together to create a National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation to cater to the rising need for judicial infrastructure in the country. “Talking of impediments in the path of modernisation, financial constraints must never come in the path of progress. There is a need for the centre and states to co-operate and create a National Judicial Infrastructure Corporation, as a one-time measure, to cater to the need for judicial infrastructure in the country. Such a corporation would bring the uniformity and standardisation required to revolutionise judicial infrastructure,” he said.
In February this year, the CJI had called out the lack of adequate support from the government in improving the judicial infrastructure in the country. He said that mere allocation of funds will not be enough for the same and an institutional mechanism needs to be put in place for coordinating and overseeing the improvement of judicial infrastructure.
“Mere allocation of funds is not enough. The challenge is to put the available resources to optimum use. I have been pursuing the government for setting up statutory authorities, both at the centre and at the states. I am hoping for a positive response soon,” he said.
While judicial infrastructure needs to be improved, it has unfortunately not been meeting the basic minimum standards in the area, he said.
—By Adarsh Kumar and India Legal Bureau