Law Commission Report
Resource Allocation For Infra-Structual Services In Judicial Administration
LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA
one HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVENTH REPORT
on
_ Rasomzcz ALLOCATION FOR .
IRFRA-STRUCTURAL szavxcss IN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION -
(A CONTINUUM OF THE REPORT ON
MANPOWER PLANNING IN JUDICIARY: A BLUEPRINT)
1988
i . JESAI
1.1!. No. INN?'
WEI zwim
LAW cowwssuow
mm «wit
GOVERNMENT or mom
7 = _/K /)7' '#77 area') wan,
J) *0 /'/" "Li (2 /"(K ( sn/xsnu BIIAWAN.
mi fan"-~."-I'!
Cfinmn
NEW DELI"
. ;
Juhn 14, 1908.
Shri Bindeshwari Duhey,
Minister for Law and Justice,
Government of India,
hastri Bhavan,
i EN DELHI.
'Dear Shri Dubey,
It is my pleasure to forward herewith 127th Report
of the Law Commission of India dealing with 'Resource
Allocation for Infra--stzuctural Services in Judicial
Administration'.
This report may be read as part of a package
comprised in two earlier reports . The first in this
series was the ene cn 'Manpower Planning in Judiciary:
A Blueprint', being 120th Report of the Law Commission,
by which it' was recommended to revise the Judge
population ratio in next five years. This
recommendation, when implemented, would require a forum
for selecting and recruiting more Judges at every
level. I was happy to read that part of the
recommendation in that report has been accepted when
the Minister of State for Law and Justice recently
announced that the Government of India have resolved to
raise the Judge strength ef the High Courts from 390 as
at present to 530 in near future. It is only a part of
the recemmenflatien and I hope the other part would as
well be implemented soon.
To help the administration, the Law Commission
forwarded a comprehensive report on 'A New Forum 'for
Judicial Appointments', being 121st report of the Law,
Commission. New that the Judge strength is expanded,
the setting up of the new forum, as recommended in that
report, may be accorded high priority.
when the afmrementicned two reports are
implemented, as a necessary corollary, there would be
expansion of courts' at all levels as also the
ministerial staff attached to the courts, more ceurt
buildings and allied facilities. The present repert
deals with finding resources for the additicnal
expenditure and allocation of the same for intra-
structural services in judicial administratinn.
Tel. No. 384475
fhfitunfin
uxw COMMISSION
wuuvurmu
covermmsm or INDIA
y anti} ma,
"ESA| SHASTRI BHAWAN.
'pairmpn qf fg-gzfl
NEW DELHI
\ In this report, the Law Commission has dealt with
' the 'problem ct more court houses. othsr_ expanded
_ficilities*" and_ additional, ministeria1;" staff -Ear
- expanded -cburt services. Undoubtedly.' therefore, a
higher flehsnd e111 be made on the Exchequer under the
heading- 'Judicial Administration' both at the Central
ans_ {state -level. Being' aware ef 'the ' resource
censtraints;$gthis report also deals with areas where
more?fl?£uhls' can be« generated _te_ be specifically
earma'ri_:'ed"'-"_'£br [judicial administration. ..-:11 these
aspectsj have been comprehensively dealt uith in this
'..."§""'»'.':;. . ' . ;
ggwiLgyi§6u1i;"therefere; request to treat all the three
_:t§peEt§f herein discussed as a peckage and they may be
Vimpl§fiéntéd"*almest simultaneously because one without
,the'ether'is likely to give a distorted picture.
iflithfiregards, _
7°;2ours sincerely.
. '(t_J.A. nzsn) _
;;§e§.:t
ésacn fnfa
:9: r!" ,'
CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER v
NOTESLAND
REFERENCES
_APPENDIx 1
APPENDIX II
' APPENDIX III
APPENDIX'IV
APPENDIX V (i)
APPENDIX
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...
COURTS: THE CHANGING ROLE ...
COURT FACILITIES: MANPOWER AND
' 0 0 0
FINANCIAL PALLIATIVE FOR THE COURTS
TAPPING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ...
QUESTIONNAIRE _ ...
INCOME EXPENSE RATIO SUPPLIED
BY THE STATES .;.
INCOME EXPENSE RATIO SUPPLIED
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ...
TABULATION OF REPLIES SENT BY
'THE HIGH COURTS ...
STATEMENT or RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURE (Appendix 1(3)
of 120th Report of LCI) ...
v (ii)STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURE (Planning
Commission Figures 1981-82)_ »...
APPENDIX V (iii)STATEMENT OF RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURE (Information
supplied by States 1981-82) ...
PAGE
22
73
106
116
118
I21
129
138
140
l4I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Ever since men have begun to reflect
upon the relations with each other and upon
vissitudes of the human lot, they have been
pre-occupied with the meaning of justice and
a popular belief has been that justice can
only be obtained through court. That itself
gives - credence; credibility and
respectability to the court system. But like
any other institution, ,the system has to
constantly justify its existence by rendering
the service expected of it. The moment it
fails or falters. the credibility and
respectability devalues. For a functioning
democracy,' court wsystem, where justice is
obtaineo even against the State, is a pre-
requisite. Therefore, the court system,
whenever it is under an unbearable load,
reguires thorough re-examination and its re-
structuring with a view to making it
1
efficient, people and result-oriented.
1.2. The "Universal Declaration on Human
'Rights provides that:
"Everyone has the right to an effective
remedy by the competent national
tribunals 'for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted by the
2
Constitution or by law".
Expounding the fundamental principles of
justice underlying the Delcaration, the Law
Commission had.observed:
"Equality is the basis of all modern
systems of jurisprudence and
administration of justice.... In so far
as a person is unable to obtain access
to a court of law For havinq'his wronqs
redressed or for defending himself
against" a criminal charge, justice
becomes unequal and laws which are meant
for his protection have no meaning and
to that extent fail in their purpose.".3
Failure on the front of providing adequate
and easily accessible courts of' justice is
one of the principal causes of popular
dissatisfaction with the administration of
justice. This was voiced way back in 1906 by
Dean Roscoe Pound in his famous speech.4N The
dissatisfaction stems from unmanageable
backlog of cases, mounting arrears and
inordinate delay in disposal of cases in
courts at all levels -- lowest to the highest
- coupled with exorbitant expenses. This has
attracted the attention not only' of the
members of the Bar, consumers of justice
(litigants), social activists, legal
academics, Parliament, but also the managers
of the court.
1.3. The Government of Incia accordingly
resolved to set up a Judicial_ Reforms
Commission. Ultimately the task of studying
and recommending judicial reforms was
entrusted to the-present Law Commission. A
comprehensive proposal for judicial reforms
'must aim' at making the system resilient,
expeditious, informal, "free from procedural
juggernauts, inexpensive and result-oriented.
Artlcln 39A or' Hm ('mmt Hutirm .v-of Hm non!
in this behalf by providing that the State
shall secure that the operation of the legal
system promotes gustice, on a basis of equal
opportunity, and. shall, in particular,
provide free legal aid, by suitable
legislation or schemes or in any other way,
to ensure that opportunities for securing
justice 'are not denied to any citizen by
reason of economic or other disabilities.
any one solution cannot attain the desired
and. A multi--pronged programme dealing with
each cause which made the system static,
stratified and beyond the reach of the common
man, had to be devised so that each
contributory factor can to effectively and
adequately dealt with.
1.4. Viewed from the angle hereinabove
indicated, in its phased programme of
recommending judicial reforms, Law Commission
amongst others also concentrated on manpower
planning in judieiary.b In that report, it
was 'specifically stated that the problem of
judicial manpower planning has been generally
ignored in India's planned development. The
reason simply, amongst others, is that a
developing science of manpower planning has
not attracted the attention of policy opinion
makers in the field of administration of
justice in *ndia.6 Law Commission
accordingly recommended that the Stat? should
immediately increase the present ratio from
10.5 Judges per million of Indian population
to at least 50 Judges per million of Indian
population within the period of next five
years. It was further recommended that by
the year 2,000 India should command at least
107 Judges per million of Indian population.7
Law Commission also made it clear that this
is an interim report on the issue of
reorganisation of Indian judiciary. Its
second report proceeding on this basis will
deal with the method of judicial
appointments.8 Its third report will deal
with the problem on resource allocation tor
bureaucratic and infrastructural services to
judicial administration, including the use of
computer technology for its modernisation.
ihis report accordingly is the promised
third report dealing with resource allocation
for bureaucratic and infra-structural
services to judicial administration. This
report is a continuum of the two earlier
reports9 and aii the three provide a package.
If the recommendations in these reports are
not dealt with as a package, the whole
picture is likely to be distorted.
CHAPTER II
COURTS: THE CHANGING ROLE;
2.1. "The concept of justice permeates
society. It is a principle that governs the
relationship within an individual family, and
must equally govern relationships within the
family of nations."l "Justice is the hallmark
of courts. Views of justice differ, however,
courts function in a wider justice system
which spansv the range from police through
corrections, and, in the civil sphere may
touch all citizens. The courts are the
fulcrum of this system. Despite their
serious imperfections, it is frightening to
contemplate a nation without ccurts, a
complex society without a formal institution
to enforce the rules set forth by that
society."2 It is, therefore,' necessary to
strengthen the system. A reform movement is
in process to modernise court structure and
administration and to achieve court--re1ated
objectives around which some consensus has
developed amongst various interest groups
directly or indirectly connected with court
system, such as Judges, lawyers, legal
academes, litigant: and even the Government.
"There is no better test of the excellence of
a Government than the efficiency of its
judicial system, for nothing more nearly
touches the welfare and security of the
average citizens than the feeling that he can
rely on certain and prompt administration of
justice,"3 Judicial power is the power of
the State.i The State has -to create
institutions on which the judicial power of
'the State can be conferred and the citizens
in' search of justice may approach these
institutions. In determining a nation's rank
in political civilization; no test is. more
decisive than the degree in which justice, as
defined by the law, is actually realised in
its judicial -administration as between' one
_private citizen and another and as 'between
private citizens and members of the_
Government."4
2.2. The expression "access to justice" has
different connotations.' The road blocks in
the access' to justice can be" high cost,
geographical distance} ~adverse cost benefit
iratio and the inordinate delay in search of
illusory justice. The State is responsible
to remove all road blocks in the access to
justice. Accordingly, the State should
ensure that the system is equally accessible
to é11,and.shcu1d_1e&d to the ~ré§fi1£§§§EfiiI§
':&ré" inamauany and} 9oc1h;1y~
¥?%ff,§§i U .=??w,*3 $n . 5 %vVgd&§f;; .g»
%:2.._§. ifiihe concept bf a¢c'é'§§ ta»-3 '-
;undetgong , up'. important tffifiéffifggfigi ~
eqr1;eg Aptgyeb to accégg. §$§§.jfi¢{éi.
>prot¢gtion meant the ggqt§§ved f1hdi§{dq§1§
;§odmaii tight to Lifiigaté or deféfidflflfiféififlfl
I§_ did .pdtArequfire statédgctiofi v?Ot'¥§h¢iEdH_
I A'
'H
pfqtectiqn. Thei; preservgtion required dn1y*~%
A_that the: statg' did not a1;ow {them to be
.
_,_1_,nj:;:e.c1 by". _:9§_lqer:.s.. t >..Re1A1eg_4_ug__ '__..;,~:1_d§§§1¥
gppv¢rt§',;tha£ 1sL'1ncapa91ty o£_mahy:£6,mak
Q -A V,-:'. . - _. . , .:. 'gr.-, 4:: '
_fi£u11.%pse,o£ the.1aw qnd gnstitugianaifiéfififie
'd"""' " ""' " '"' ' " &*;;;J¢§**
. . .
52 . 4 . ='~*xe'éx é1é'--¥'*4'39A'-'é'd§£.§ '§as1éid<}é5§ifi€9' "
';£He5 §E§£é'£dv§6"stfficf§td ehé*1ég$1%§3fi: é§%
"=systém a§'°to* engage i£hEt7_1t3df?§fiéE§§}oq§
prombtes Ajuétice, ,$n i§_'bé§i§§§é?X: EEK $
°ppbf:%'u_n'ity.i F V §, V
State -dad 'to pgss sujtab1§':1§6i§i§§;3H.y
_£tam§fi=§chemes to engutep that_ pppottunltiéfi}
,1th¢.c¢gcérn{o£ the state; . .
;,-_s .
5:1
dfqr securing 4jq§tice erg pot dggfled fig -anym
' citiggg by ieason 6f §¢onomic 'or d pghetf
"dis¢p§;i£igs.: 4Amqngst bthé§,#d£éabi1@§¥e§5fi
courtg._s§tugtqd at a lqng d§stdnqé_frofi.dEfi§i
hdbitat of the citizgns {h_searcfi of justidé;
itself would have a dampening effect on oné'8
8
search of justice. This disability can be
removed by setting up courts within the easy
reach of the litigants and,' if need be, by
providing legal aid so that the highly
expensive system may not thwart the urge to
seek justice. "What does it profit a poor
and ignorant man that he is equal to his
strong antagonist before the law if there is
.no one to inform him what the law is? Or
that the courts are open to him on the same
terms as to all other persons when he has not
, 6
the wherewithal to pay the admission fee?"
2.5. Therefore, consider the question where,
apart_from paying the fees for admission, one
has_ to 'trave1.long distance accompanied by
'the vwitnesses in search of a place for
justice. In our country, the courts are
situated in places which_are inaccessible in
monsoon except walking the wholeW distance.
which witness would be so justice-oriented
that in the vindication of truth he would
accompany the litigant walking all the way to
the court and in the process leave his own
work unattended? For poor people inhabiting
the rural landscape, giving up one's work
means totally denying oneself even a morsel
of food.
2.6. Now it is true that recently the apex
court has opzned its doors to those
improverished sections of the society who
complain of violation of fundamental rights.
Let it, however, not be forgotten that a
large volume of litigation emanating from
rural areas arises from the enforcement of
statutes for which redress has to be sought'
from grassroot level courts; While opening
its doors to the people in custody, victim of
police violence, workers, pavement dwellers,
etc., the limitation on the entry in the
court has to be kept in view in that one has
to .complain of violation of fundamental
rights inviting the Supreme Court to
adjudicate upon the issue.' But what happens
to those impoverished sections of the society
to whom minimum wages are not paid, who
suffer because of bureaucratic indifference,
who amongst themselves have disputes
sconcerning property, right of way, possession
of land or dwelling house, gt _l? iThéy have
to approach the court at the grassroot level
and these courts are still not exposed to
newly developing culture of ignoring the
problem of 12335 standi and rendering justice
without being inhibited by a procedure
10
devised in colonial times. "Throughout the
seventies, the Executive made its wish public
that the Judges and courts should be
committed to the Constitution and the promise
of progress and justice within it. Now, led
by the Supreme Court of India, Judges and
. courts have shown their commitment to the
rural poor and to the unfortunate under-
privileged. But that can bring in a limited
relief. Undoubtedly, the social activists
have learnt the uses of law as an aspect of
overall struggle on behalf of the dominated
and vulnerable just as Judges and courts
began to take the lndian suffering
seriously."7 _ A major percentage _ of
litigation hardly involves infraction of
fundamental rights. This litigation emanates
from rural areas. To them, no relief can be
extended in their petty disputes involving
long drawn out litigation in distant courts
by either the epistolary jurisdiction or
social action litigation. To them, the easy
accessibility of the court without'wasting a
whole day denying daily earning, would. be
service oi immense value. It is here that
neighbourhood justice will relieve the agony
of a large number of litigants. Social
11'
'difficult or
action litigation undoubtedly has its own
place in the scheme of things. There is
greater recourse to the courts to solve
problems whereas in the past they have not
been resolved judicially. Sometimes the
Executive or the Legislature find it more
convenient to pass on to the courts the
politically embarrassing
questions, though covertly, for. example,
Muslim Women's (Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
In this approach, the courts undergo a
transformation into 'the problem solvers of
the society'. But, as pointed out
hereinabove, this expanded jurisdiction
Q
underprivileged having petty
leaves the
disputes about their day-to--day problems cold
and unimpressed. For them, the easy
accessibility means the court providing
neighbourhood justice. Some attempt has been
made in this direction by the present Law
Commission in recommending the setting up of
Gram Nyayalaya, a participatory model of
justice.
12
2.7. In constantly interpreting and re-
interpreting the Constitution to arrive at
the desired socialistic goals, legislations
and their subordinate breed are bound to
proliferate and, as a result, varying
interests would converge or clash. A
constant resolution of disputes arising from
contrary expectations sought through the same
legislations inevitably increases the role of
COUITCS.
2.8. uoutlay on all sections of activity is
increasing. In every such activity, the area
of potential conflict related to right-duty
syndrome exists. Once such conflict becomes
apparent, search for justice is inevitable
and the search leads to higher expectations
of justice. Naturally in a constitutional
democracy, this is indispensable because it
is founded on the doctrine of rule of law.
All this combined to create need for more
courts and more courts means more outlay on
justicehsystem.
2.9. There is a happy augury that our courts
in India are no longer importing thoughts but
indigenising them which obviously demands
greater facilities for greater number.
13
2.10. Indisputably, the courts' functions
have multiplied manifold. The phenomenon is
not lmited to the Supreme Court only but to
courts at all levels. There is an increasing
demand for a statutory provision requiring
the grassroot level courts also to entertain
social action litigation without the
necessity of establishing violation of
fundamental rights but pointing out injured
interest of a group unable to obtain relief
because of their social and educational
backwardness. This is taken note of when the
Law Commission, in re--structuring grassroot
courts, has recommended for a liaison officer
with A rightgof locus standi.9
2.11. Institutionally, the courts may not
occupy a position of dominance but when
everything else fails, the judiciary is
approached as a last resort to mete out
fairness. The public confidence in the
courts is evident from the fact that the
courts have been asked to pronounce on
questions of great public importance, be it
the conduct of the examinations of a premier
university in one of the highest medical
degrees or the misuse of power by men in
10
authority and power, pollution of
14
11
environment by big industrial houses,
attempt by a political party, who
apprehending that success may elude them at
the hustings,. sought to defeat the election
process, despite article 329(b) by raising
frivolous and baseless objections in the writ
12
petition,
of the parent political party
13
regarding the use of election symbol or the
14
party office. This proves, if proof be
groups
needed, that the courts do inspire the faith
that objectivity and impartiality alone can
bring. Even when they are doubted, it is
their grasp of problem that is questioned,
not-their fairness. ' This is one point which
is accepted as final and the steam that
injustice creat:s is often effectively
absorbed by the courts of justice who thereby
act as restraints and pressure outlets which
is imperative to maintain social order.
2.12. Expression of society's moral outrage
is essential in an ordered society that asks
its members to rely on legal processes rather
than self--help to vindicate their wrongs.
To avoid anarchy, fairness has to be felt to
be done and it is the courts which provide
the systemic outlet. Obedience to law has
15
or the dispute between two split
been described as the strongest of all the
forces making 'for any ?ation's peaceful
continuity and progress. 5 An institution
which helps to maintain the balance of
society and directs its ordered progress to
the road of development, alas, is sadly
neglected, ignorning the lessons of history
'that alternative to peaceful transformation
- of society by rule of law is ~violence. The
courts' contribution in such transformation
is immense.
2.13. The administration of justice is not
regarded as part of the developmental
activity and: therefore, not promoted through
the five year or annual plans. Justice is
thus a non~plan expenditure. Very nominal
amounts are being made available under the
plan cover in Seventh Finance Commission and
Eighth Finance Commission for construction of
»court buildings, providing amenities for
existing structures} =additional subordinate
courts, including the cost of staffing them.
A time has come to re--a1locate expenditure on
administration of justice as plan
expenditure. Economic planning which ignores
legal formulations occasionally meets its
16
Waterloo. Law Commission has accordingly
16
expressed its opinion that expenditure on
administration of justice must be treated as
' 17
plan expenditure.
2.14. The question which stares into our
face and which ought to be answered is
whether the courts as at present structured
are equipped to deal with increased workload.
As is evident from the pending dockets which
.are exploding at their seams, the justice
system is not adequately geared to meet the
new challenges and retain the confidence
-reposed in it.
2.15.' Delay in disposal of cases threatens
justice. The lapse of time "blurs truth,
weakens witnesses' memory and makes
presentation _of evidence, difficult. This
leads to loss of public confidence in 'the
judicial process which in itself is a threat
to rule of law. The rising cost of
litigation is attributable to delay which in
turn causes the litigants to either abandon
meritorious claims or compromise for a lesser
18
unjust settlement out of court.
17
2.16. There is another inherent danger in
not disposing of cases within a reasonable
time but which was sought to be ignored as an
undesirable spill over. One who has suffered
injustice and is unable to procure justice on
account of long delay would sometimes resort
to self-help by force as means of resolving,
disputes. This ugly feature of the
dilatoriness of_ the system is now raising'
head as evident from chain murders taking
place in some States. To illustrate, the
houses of Ram Bharosey and Pyare Lal had
fallen out and periodic fueling of the feud
was furnished by the kidnapping of a wife,
the stabbing of a brother and the like. The
next flare up was a murder by Rajender
Prasad, son of Pyare Lal He was sentenced to
imprisonment for life. The accused, after
having served sentence for some time, was
released on Gandhi Jayanti day. On coming
out, he stabbed Ram Bharosey and his friend
Mansukh and the latter succumbed to his
injuries; He was again tried1J. Numerous
cases. can be cited for this sort of chain
reaction, more especially because when the
wounds are fresh, justice is not done,
18
2.17. when the position of the courts, as
the duly authorised arbitrators of society,
is diminished tt ough undue delay, confidence
in peace, social ordm: and good Government is
threatened. Congestion and delay not only
affect public confidence in the court's
ability to resolve disputes expeditiously but
also adversely affect the quality of justice
received in individual cases. If a Judge is
acting under unreasonable time pressure, he
may concentrate more on disposing of cases
than on doing 'justice in each particular
case.' Apart from the above--mentioned factors
which are beyond the control of machinery of
justice, there are court-related factors
which contribute to delay and congestion in
the courts. The justice system is not
adequately prepared to meet the new
challenges posed by the case load crisis.
Delay in 'filling in vacancies has been
pointed out as one such major factor for
mounting arrears,20 though, strictly
speaking, it cannot be said to be a court-
related factor since the delay in the
appointment was invariably shown to be at the
Executive level. Coupled with this,
inefficient case flow management, poor and
unprofessional court management, inadequate
a
facilities and .insufficient financing have
H all severely impaired the ability of the
courts to meet the challenge of rising
crescendo of arrears.
2{1a. A limited number of available court
rooms also interferes with the orderly
running of cases. Court management is not
tuned to organisation method improvement.
The court officers lack training in
management and there is absence of integrated
.approach to the administration of the system.
The courts still are managed according to the
antiquated notions and they have no modern
means of communication. Subordinate courts
as a rule have not been given even telephone
connections. Failure to exercise effective
-case management control by the court is a
major factor for delay.
2.19. There are three basic models for
reducing court delay and expediting justice.
First, making the use of existing court
resources more efficient; second, reducing
the demand for court services and resources;
and third, expanding court resources to meet
the increasing demand for court' services.21
The present report seeks to make a convincing
20
case for expanding court resources to meet
the increasing demand for court services.
2.20. Greater efficiency in using court
resources can be attained by effective and
professional court management and effective
case flow management and introducing modern
technologies in court management. In the
Indian context, with the increasing demand
for court services, coupled with the
expansion of the jurisdiction of the courts
to fields not traditionally within their
domain, it is not possible to reduce the
demand for court services. Even though Law
Commission has suggested the formation of
alternative' specialised fora for resolution
of disputes relating to tax, labour and
educational matters to relieve the burden of
the generalist courts, yet, keeping in view
the increasing inflow of work, there must be
proportional expansion of 'court services.
Further, the specialist fora will also
require a proper infra-structure to
facilitate their smooth functioning. In the
final analysis, the efficient use of court
resources will always remain the major method
of court improvement in the absence of
adequate funds to expand court resources.
21
CHAPTER III
COURT FACILITIES: MANPOWER AND MATERIAL
3.1. Varied interests directly connected
with court system, though keen to retorm the
judiciary, are so pre-occupied with changing
flaw and procedure that they overlook one very
important area which contributes largely to
the delay in judicial proceedings and
urgently needs reform, namely, the court
facility itself, difficult working condition
iof the courts, organisational structure of
the system, faulty distribution of judicial
work, inadequate administrative staff, etc.,
all - indicating insufficient resource
Q
allocation. -Each aspect may be separately
analysed.
Court,Facilities
3.2. If an evaluation were to be made of the
-importance of the role of different
functionaries in the administration of
justice, the top position necessarily has to
be assigned to the trial court Judge. He is
the key stone in the judicial arc. However,
he is the one who suffers the most. The
facilities provided to the 'subordinate
judiciary are abysmal. These courts function
22
in old, il1--ventilated, ill-equipped and
insanitary buildings. Often there is no
u'uv'IH'tunr~ w:'r¢'h Hm nrmm .1nr'. I1" I01'!!! «H «'v\'I~n
a rest room for witnesses who have come from
long distance and have to cool their heels in
the verandah (if there is one) or either be
to the heat of the summer or cold of
1
the winter- - To illustrate this point, till
exposed
the year 1964, the court at Dabhoi in
Vododara District in Gujarat held sittings in
civil jail and members of the Bar attached to
the court met in the lunch hour in the open
space and during the winter in the verandah
of the civil jail.
3.3. Hosq~of the munsif courts in Rajasthan
are functioning in rented buildings under
constant threat of eviction or be subjected
to rent suits. A rent suit is pending for
eviction from the court premises of a court
of munsif at Chirawa. The roof of the court
has caved in as the landlord will not spend
more than Rs.l2 per year on repairs, which is
the actual rent paid monthly. 15 courts of
Civil Judge, Junior Division, in the State of
Gujarat, hold their sittings in rented
premises wholly unsuitable for functioning of
a courtq More or less similar is the
23
'2
situation in other States.
I
3.4. Apart from court buildings, the
existing court buildings have no amenities.
Sufficient number of cupboards or almirahs
for keeping files and records are not
provided. Files and records are lying
scattered on the floor.__ Large number of
courts of Judicial Magistrate do not have
printed forms for issuing summons or receipt
books for acknowledging deposit of fines.
Since November 1961, the courts in Ahmedabad
rural district headquarters are located in a
building meant for leprosy hospital, far away
from the nearest habitation. hmall court
rooms formerly meant for small causes court
in the compound of Ahmedabad city civil court
are now set apa.t for the use of the Judges
of the city civil court. They are very small
in size, having a choking atmosphere. The
courts in Alwar are housed in old stables of
the erstwhile ruler. The courts at many
places are being held in chambers where
neither the litigants can stand nor lawyers
3
can argue. In fact, cases have come to
light where when an additional court is
sanctioned, the existing court room is
divided by a cotton curtain partition
24
dividing one court room as court room for two
courts. Both the courts are disturbed by the
noise emanating from each. As a crowning
glory, on bifurcation of old Romhny State,
the High Court for the newly carved out
Gujarat State since May 1, 1960, was set up in
a building constructed for children's
hospital. Twenty-eight years after the
_formation of Gujarat, the High Court still
continues' to hold its sittings in the same
building. Gujarat High Court started with S
Judges. Now they have 24 Judges. The
congestion defies description. The response
to the Law Commission's questionnaire reveals
that the percentage of courts functioning in
rented buildings range from 17 to 2 in States
4
which have furnished the information.
3.5. the Seve th and the E ghth Finance
Commission both had :ucce::'ve1y recommendsd
Lo: allocation of larger outlay for
constructing new court buildings, cxprndirn
court facilities and upgrading the facilities
in the cxirting courts. The Eigfith Finance
Commission, analysing the information
received by «it from the State Governments
that 429 courts were located in rented
buildings, was of the opinion, which was
reflected in its recommendations, that all
25
the 429 courts should be provided with pucca
Government buildings and specifically
allocated Rs§17.4O crores under this sub--head
pat the rate of Rs.4 lakhs per unit.
Simultaneously, it granted about Rs.19 crores
for "structural alterations and provision of
facilities to the public and staff in the
existing courts.5 The situation has hardly
improved by -the time the Ninth Finance
Commission is deliberating on the subject
inasmuch as it transpired from the enquiries
instituted by Law Commission about . the
'1progress of the implementation of the
- aforementioned award in l2.states; '12 States
'replied to the queries-of the Law Commission,
4 of which-confessed that the award has lnot
been implemented and the remainder made» a
perfunctory statement that the work is at a
6
preliminary stage of progress.
«3.61 The .Law Commission ' issued. a
comprehensive questionnaire "for eliciting
information relevant to Various topics under
discussion. The High Court of Uttar Pradesh
in its.detai1ed reply clearly indicated that
there is an acute shortage of court rooms in
the State courts. Of the existing sanctioned
26
strength of the courts 985- are rogu1nr
courts while from the remaining, 427 courts
are held in improvised court rooms, 65 :in
collectorates -ands 39_in rented buildings.
some of the buildings gwhich are meant for
regular courts: have, by passage of time,
become mtoo. oid and. are in dilapidated
condition. - The improvised court rooms are
every small and consequentlv affect adversely
"the 4smooth, functioning of the courts,
simultaneously ' inviting complaints i"from
members of the Bar and litigants.' ifihere the
courts' are held' in buildings meant for
collectorates, the executive authorities are
pressing for release of court rooms.
Similarly, .somer oft the owners. of rented"
/
premises . in which courts are held are
grequesting for release of,the building in
occupation vof Judicial Department. ' The
overall situation. is pretty grim and it is
estimated" that 'over.the next five .years,
' .', 7'
about '500' court rooms are required; The
Eighth Finance Commission has calculated that
taken the requirements of all States
.together, 210 additional courts are required.
Thise figure has been arrived at by dividing
the pendency in excess of one year's
27
institution 'by the State's specific annual
disposal per court or two States' average,
8
win! Chnvr-r in hi qhor . 'l'h<' report rirwn not
provide for additional courts in the State of
Uttar Pradesh_but that should not lead to the
facile conclusion that no cases in
subordinate courts in U.P. over one year are
pending. VEven though detailed-memorandum was
submitted .to the Law Commission iny response
to its questionnairei. the High Court did not
refer' to the recommendations oft the Eighth
Finance Commission, even though admittedly 39
courts are functioning in rented buildings.
'3;7§ _ it '13' a truism that for an orderly
"functioning bf- a court with dignity and
'efificiency; a standard building haying proper
court' rooms is a sine gua non. .There is an
undying clamour -for setting up additional
'Benches' of; 'Allahabad High »Court. .A
Commission 'was set up by the" Government Vof
'India 'to ;ascertain whether a Bench" of 'the
Allahabad High' Court should be set up in
"Westernn U;P; Its terms were 'expanded to
'consider such requirement in. other 'States.
The Commission, . while recommending extra
Benches of certain High Courts, stressed that
the Benches shall not be commissioned unless
28
a functional huilding, equipped with all the
modern amenities and suited to the dignity
and prestige of the court, complete in all
respect, is 'available for immediate
occupation. According to the Commission, the
Bench should not be inaugurated unless and
until adequate funds for properly stocking
and equipping the Judges' library essential
for efficient and smooth functioning of the
Bench are allocated and sanctioned by the
State Government. The report of the
Commission on the need for a Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in western region of
Uttar Pradesh sets out a detailed list of
essentials which a High Court building must
necessarily be equipped with in order to
function efficiently. It suggested that the
building should have at least 25 court rooms,
25 chambers for the Judges, 5 fire--proof
rooms for the Judges' library, a conference
hall of suitable size for the Judges, an
administrative block consisting of office
rooms for Additional or Joint Registrar,
Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar,
Section Officers, etc. Sufiicient number of
large fire--proof record rooms must form an
integral part of the huildinnu In addition,
the building must have accommodation for 3
Bar rooms, 2 rooms for_the Bar library with
an attached reading room and an adequate
number of chambers for lawyers, 2 waiting
halls for the litigants on the model of Delhi
High Court, 25 garages for vehicles of Judges
and other officers, 2 halls for petition
writers, stamp vendors and typists, canteens
for Judges, the lawyers and others, a
dispensary, a post office, a bank, etc.
Apart from all this, there should be 25
bungalows for -the residence of Judges and
flats for the entire staff. There should be
a guest house for the Chief Justice to stay
whenever 'he may be required to go there.
Apart from. the necessity of havingv large
complex of court building with future scope
for expansion, it should be necessary to have
enough land for the lawyers to set up their
chambers or even residential accommodation
because they are likely to shift to the seat
9
of the proposed Bench.
3.8. It is implicit in this suggestion that
a 'similar plan for standard court facilities
for the subordinate courts should also be
worked out.
30
3.9. In India, the problem of having
sufficient court rooms is of primary concern.
However, whenever the construction of the
court ronnw i'.-1 nnd«'rt.1kr~n, il' in r~s~..v:r~ntinl tn
provide for a standard plan in respect of
each level of court. It should not only have
all the requisites proposed by the Commission
hereinabove referred to but care should also
be taken about adequate lighting,
ventilation, power, apcoustics, plumbing
_facilities, etc. All the court rooms should
be built to accommodate the need for future
increased volume of litigation. These future
expansion needs- are being kept in view in
10
most of the States. It appears that while
expansion in future is kept in view, the
approach is confined to vacant space near
existing court building not being allocated
for any other purpose. That would disclose
an inadequate approach but the whole aspect
is based on allocation of adequate resources
and in this behalf, one regrets to note that
the existing allocated funds are not properly
ll
utilised.
31
Norms for Sanctioning Additional Courts
3.10. Every State has prescribed norms or
guidelines for sanctioning new or additional
, courts. The power to sanction a new or
additional court vests in the State. The
proposal for the same emanates from the High
Court in view of the constitutional provision
contained in article 235 which provides that
the control over district courts and the
courts subordinate thereto including the
posting and promotion of persons belonging to
the judicial service of the State vests in
the Hinh ('mu I .. All llw port r: up to and
inclusive of the post of district judge
belong to the judicial service of the State.
As setting up of new or additional courts to
be manned by members belonging to the.
judicial service of the State entails
financial liability, the power to sanction
the same vests in the State Government; but
this power is exercised effectively by the
High Court who appreciates and understands
the needs of the workload and the necessity
of additional courtsg Accordingly, the
recommendation emanates from the High Court
and ordinarily the State sanctions the same.
To illustrate, the Gujarat High Court has
32
prescribed workload for each of its
subordinate and district courts. An increase
beyond 25% or the prescribed workload
justifies a claim for a new court.
Information, however, is not available as to
how diligently these specifications are
followed: Apart from the workload which is
the primary criterion for setting up
additional or new courts,' there are other
incidental factors which are also 'kept in
view, such as convenience of litigants,
availability of buildings for the courts,
residential 'acommodation. for staff,
facilities for bar and library, distance from
the headquarter, transport facility, school
* 12
for the children of the staff, etc.
3.11. Excessive workload on any given
court completely disrupts the functioning of
the court. Innumerable cases are fixed every
day and the major time of the court is wasted
in either granting adjournments or re-
arranging the cases with the result that very
HI I Iv -«Ho;-I hm \.u\r_k in (Innv in H lni (roll! to
on a given day. 'Manageable court dockets is
a pre-requisite for smooth and efficient
functioning of the courts. It appears that
the guidelines or norms for setting up or
33
a
sanctioning additional courts are not revised
at regular intervals. They have become
obsolete in some States with the result that
sanctioning of the additional court takes too
long time and if the additional court is
sanctioned after a long delay, it becomes an
exercise in futility because, by that time, a
further sanctioning of an additional court
has become necessary. The analogy can- be
drawn from "the fact that when sanctioned
strength of the' Judge' undergoes V upward
revision but the newly created posts are not
filledl in within a reasonable time and when
they are filled in after a long 'delay, the
situation has undergone such a change that a
further revision of the Judge strength has
become overdue. This situation applies
mutatis mutandis to the sanctioning of the
additional courts. It is, therefore,
absolutely indispensable that .not the
' Government but the High Court in each State"
should prescribe norms iand criteria for
setting up of nee courts and the same are
meticulously followed. There should be no
resistence in doing it under the usual
pretext of constraint on financial resources.
34
Residence for the Judicial Officers
3.12. Providing a residential accommodation
for judicial off-:ers is of great importance.
This has to be accorded high priority because.
of the speed_ with which process of
urbanisation is taking place, there is an
unbearable load on housing acommodation
available for urban and metropolitan areas.
Consequently, if governmental accommodation
for residence of judicial officers is not
provided, judicial officer has to rent the
premises and the rents being prohibitive, a
decent accommodation goes beyond their reach.
Usually, a judicial officer is transferred
regularly at an interval of three years.
when he is'posted to a-neu place, he hardly
knows ianyone. In order _to secure some
a~commodation,,.he has to take assistance of
local lawyers. He is thus exposed to the
double jeopardy of being brought under the
insidious obligation of a landlord and a
lawyer; This "situation, apart from being
deplorable, is liable to be abused.13. The
Seventh Finance Commission took note of this
fact and observed that it is essential for
the independence and fair image of the
Judiciary that Judicial Officer should not be
35
constrained 'to hire quarter from private
persons as far as possible. Accordingly, in
its recommendations, it sanctioned funds for
constructing residential houses for Judicial
Officers.l' with all this laudable object and
the meagre provision for the same. the
position as it obtains today pertaining to
the question of the residence of subordinate
,judicial officers is distressing.
3.13. According to the inquiry undertaken by
the Eighth Finance Commission, out of a total
strength of 7,238 Judicial Officers, 3,819
Judicial Officers, i.e., 52.76%, have been
allotted Government accommodation. . The
Commission expressed its considered_ opinion
that the minimum desirable level of housing
accommodation for} the Judicial' Officers
'should be 80%. and accordingly nit' granted
Rs.14.94 crcres at the rate of Rs.70,000 per
unit . for additional 2,107 residential
quarters. A 30% extra has been provided for
. 15 '
the hill States.
3.14. Having regard to the phenominal rise
in the cost of construction of a flat, a
provision of Rs.70,000 per unit irrespective
of the place where the flat is to be
constructed doey not appear to be adequate.
To illustrate, Law Commission has been
furnished with information that when some
quarters were built in the year 1987 in
Himachal Pradesh, the cost of construction
'per unit was Rs.2.60 lakhs and the
accommodation was a modest one; It is,
therefore, necessary for the Ninth Finance
'Commission _which is at present functioning,
while sanctioning grants for construction of
quarters for Judicial Officers, to take into»
.accounts a very important factor of.high rise
in cost of construction and grant adequate
sums: so that the desired objective [may be
achieved.
3;lS. Law Commission, in its search for
adequate information, was informed that while
tmany ' states proyide reasonably decent
accommodation to most of the High Court
Judges, andhra Pradesh is one State where 55%
of the High Court Judges were without
Government' accommodation. The situation
generally as regards the subordinate judicial
officers, to say the least, is depressing.
In Bihar, 80% of the judicial officers are
37
not provided residential accommodation; and
even .after utilising the grant made by the
Eighth Finance Commission, 42% of the
judicial officers would still be without
residential accommodation. The situation is
equally bad in Andhra Pradesh where 58% of
the judicial officers have not been provided
residential accommodation and in Maharashtra
§3% of the officers are without governmental
accommodation. -The information does not
clarify the position whether the grant- made
by the Eighth Finance Commission has been
taken into account while furnishing
information. Assuming that it is not, then,
even after- the award, 36% of the officers
would -still ' be ' without governmental
accommodation.16
3.16. On the advent of the Constitution,
ever proliferating activities of the State, a
rapid process of urbanisation, a large scale
migration of population coupled with
awareness of rights, all have contributed to
the tremendous increase in the -workload of
the judicial system. -However, the system
functions without much of a change,
completely devoid of moderen management
techniques and technological advances,
38
neither of which have kept pace with the
increase in the workload. In concise terms,
most courts nee( study, structural overhaul
and reform. '
3.17, The court system has evolved over a
period of many-years and the methods employed
to deal with its problems have been piecemeal
Statewise. There has been.little systematic
planning and development keeping in View the
national perspective. Of course, the Law
Commission has submitted two reports
recommending re-structuring of subordinate
- courts in all the States on identical lines
.'as prelude to the setting up of Indian
17
Judicial Service as an a1l--India service.
Staffing Pattern
3.18. To say that increase in the workload
must result in corresponding increase in.the
staff of the court is to state the obvious.
But 'this obvious is uholly neglected. .The
'court staff require a special set of scales
'to be able to function because court
administration involves duties which are
unique in character. But, the courts
generally do not follow any uniformity or
scientific pattern of -staff recruitment.
39
while, as pointed out earlier, norms or
guidelines have been prescribed by some
States for setting up additional or new
courts when the workload rises beyond the
prescribed marimum, yet when the additional
court is not sanctioned simultaneously, there
'is disinclination to sanction the increased
staff and the courts have no power even to
create the post of a peon on the specious
plea 'that it entails financial liability
' which cannot be incurred without the sanction
of the Finance Ministry of the State
'Government; To illustrate, in Rajasthan, a
clerk who was required to handle 350 files is
now required to handle 2,000 to v3,000
files.18 No specific qualifications are
prescribed disclosing the special skill
needed to we K in court' administration.
There is no realistic estimate of what staff
requirement for each section ought to be. As
for example, in Supreme Court, there has been
considerable increase in junior clerical
staff and peons but there is no corresponding
increase in other staff. Such increases have
V 19
to be looked on as part of overall-policy.
40
3.19. ' To deal with this aspect more
effectively, the Law Commission solicited
information on the staffing pattern at each
level of the judiciary. . Most of the States
have submitted the figures of total number of
staff without 'providing' the 1eve1--wise
'information. 'Andhra Pradesh and Punjab have
provided the prescribed staffing patterns and
in these two states, the staffing patterns
are almost similar but the strength of the
staff 'is ,higher than what the Finance
Commission allows while sanctioning the funds
ylfor additional courts and their' staff. As
for example, in the district courts under the
High Courts\ of the afore-mentioned two
States, staff consists of 35 members apart
20
'from process servers and attendants. on
the other hand;'the Finance Commission allows
,a staff strength of only nine members per
. 21 -
district court. The difference is too
glaring »to be missed. :The only explanation
one can offer is that probably the district
court workload is far above the_ prescribed
lmaximum and, therefore, the additional staff
is sanctioned.
3.20. There has to be a prescribed minimum
staff requirement at each level Vof the
41
judiciary and thereafter the needs for staff.
expansion can be determined scientifically.
At present the courts are not following -any
fixed criteria. Most of the States have
replied that the additional staff is employed
if the workload is more than the prescribed
maxima but no scientific formula is being
followed to determine the kind of staff.to be
recruited and the additional staff to' be
sanctioned.22 Such gg Q99 mechanisms cannot
serve the ends of the courts because there is
no fixed criteria for deciding the type of
staff which is to be recruited.
3.21. A detailed study has been made with
regard to the staffing patterns in the Supeme
Court of India and Allahabad High-Court. The
study reveals that over years, there has been
.a substantial increase in the strength of
Class IV employees. The situation in other
High Courts may not be different. Ordinarily
in most of the High Courts, _after the entry
at the grassroot level, the staff vertically
moves upward by promotion. An employee who
joined as an Assistant and, after acquiring
qualification of stenography, reached the
highest position. of the Registrar in the
Supreme Court. Some years back, a senior
A')
District Judge from the State Judicial
Service was recruited as Registrar of the
Supreme Court 0. India. That practice was
discontinued but very recently, post of
Registrar-General has been created and a
judicial 'officer from the State Judicial
service of the rank of a District Judge has
been recruited for the post. The method of
vertical promotion rising to the highest rank
' was justified on the assumption that during
this upward journey, these members of the
staff collect lot of experience and become
mature to handle the post .at the highest
'leve1.- However, because of_ the upward
T
movement, they also acquire rigidity,
narrowness of outlook and become .status
guoist. while the institution grows, the
sheer size of the institution demands
'efficiency, imagination and initiative. This
can hardly be expected from the staff moving
from the lowest to the highest, being totally
devoid of any administrative and managerial
23
skills outside the court structure itself.
3.22. It is notorious that there is no
arrangement for any in-service training to be
imparted to the staff recruited on general
qualifications. In order to raise the
43
efficiency ratio, the staff manning the
courts have to be selected with some special
qualifications and trained in a systematic
manner. This approach necessitates
systematic recruitment with higher prescribed
qualifications, in--service training and
greater degree of specialism. This
specialism has' to be linked to the new
technology that might be introduced as well
0
as to the functional demands. Therefore,
training _ programme 7 workshop/conferences
should be developed for court executives to
aid in the development of a comprehensive
body of court management theory and_of the
standards, qualifications and functions of
court executives.
3.23. It may be of some use to mention that
the post of Registrar, the highest
ministerial officer in the Judicial Service
, of the State is manned by a senior. District
Judge. The Registrar is also assigned some
non4contested judicial functions. This role
is admirably carried out by them.
3.24. The complex environmental network,
internal and external, places a strain upon
the administrative machinery of the courts.
44
_Atypical demands for management competence
are created that exposure to ordinary
administrative work rarely provides. Courts
are as 4complex as any organisation in
'contemporary society. An average degree of
'management . success is possible only if
competent managerial skills are brought to
i'_bear on managerial prob1ems.24
Management §§ the System25
3.25. 'As the system functions today, Judges
have also to undertakei the management of
'court and justice system. ludges are trained
in law and through experience become experts
.in the process of adjudication and judicial
"decision-making. iiwhen recruited from the
Bar, gthey have glittle or no knowledge of
modern methods or management of the court and
'court system. After being 'recruited as
Judges, no training is imparted in. modern
methods. Therefore,. they lack expertise in
administrative matters. It is perhaps too
much 'to expect that-someone with little, if
any administrative training, exprience or
expertise would acquire skills 'without
training to successfully manage a system as
complex as that of our courts. This would
45
imply that Judges are not necessarily the
best candidates to manage the courts single-
handedly.
1
3.26. If Judges develop a managerial.
expertise among their onn ranks, then they
are quite possibly the best gualified
individuals to directly manage the courts
because they are in.a position to comprehend
all the ramifications of the system that 'an.
administrative vdecision might bring 'about.
But. development of managerial gkill and
expertise'cannot be acquired overnight. And,
forget not, 'the decisionemaking process and
stages at adjudicatibn-keepiJudges'very busy.
They hardly» have any spare time to 'acquire
the managerial expertise and iii 'they do
eventually acquire administrative expertise,
they may have hardly time to both administer
' courts and continue to exercise their
adjudicative function.
-3.27. vuspecialisation,ingcourt management is
the. only.realistic solution. . The question,
'however,' is whether it is practically
feasible, given _ the present strain' on
judicial" manpower_and the unlikelihood of a
large scale increase in numbers. of Judges
appointed. So, the possibility of selecting
46
alternative personnel to manage the courts
should be explored.
Creation of a new rofessional :
The Court Executive
3.28. The 'Court Executive should be given
control of managing the courts. The person,
of necessity, must be highly qualified. His
areas of exprtise should include, amongst
'others, broad managerial skills, knowledge of
the structure of judicial system, familiarity
with legal procedures, comprehension of
computer sciences and data processing
techniques and 'skills .and _ personnel
recruitment, selection and' placement. It
might take considerable time to develop such
a highly qualified and specialist expert.
Nevertheless, in order to pioperly and
efficiently manage an organisation as large
and complex as the courts, it is necessary to
cultivate and nurture such knowledgeable
administrators. In short, a new profession
would have to be created. Inter-disciplinary
education programmes could be established to
train individuals as Court Executives.
3.29. The primary responsibility would
remain with the Judiciary to formulate
management policies of the court and it would
then be up to the Court Executive to ensure
that these policies were implemented (under
the supervision and scrutiny of the
Judiciary).
3.30. It thus transpires that, in order to
improve judicial" administration, the
utilisation of management consultants and
other experts who can bring their knowledge
to. bear upon this subject is unavoidable.
,Use of the expertise in meeting problems of
judicial administration is indispensable.
Apart from the Court Executive, what is
needed is a 'National Judicial Centre', which
can form part of the National Judicial
Service Commission (Commisson will not only
be dealing with appointment and training of
judicial officers), for the co-ordination and
development of -
(a) court staff: their conditions of
service;
(b) training procedure for the new
staff;
(c) standardised court room facilities;
and
(d) recording of cases in computers on
a national regular comprehensive
basis.
48
3.31. Entry of mechanisation and modern
court management systems into court has been
delayed too much. Tape recorders;
dictaphones, zeroxing machines, calculators,
computers, micrphones and whole arrary of
other gadgets, when put to use, will minimise
avoidable court time and economise time spent
in existing methods of administration. The
fossilised court system can be discarded and
'new technology introduced which will quicken
the pace and streamline the assembly line
operation of the case flow.
The Use of Computers and
Other Technological Tools
3.32. The most sophisticated of the new
management technology is the computer. The
computers efficiently speed up the court
proceedings.
3.33. Data processing is one of the foremost
uses to which computers are put in an attempt
to ease case backlogs and increase court
efficiency. In planning, for the adoption of
data processing programme 'within a court
system, three essential steps must be taken:
(1) It is necessary to design a system
of reporting each step of every case.
(2) It must be determined what
49
electronic equipment is necessary.
(3) It is necessary to have an
adequately trained staff capable of dealing
with the information provided by the
equipment. A properly programmed computer run
by skilled operators can produce an infinite
_number of comparisons and information which
would enable the courts to better control the
26 V
cases and thus reduce the backlog.
3.34. .The courts which have a great,vo1unc
of activity are readily adaptable to da*2
processing because such a progamme reduce:
the number of personnel needed to keep court
records current and would eliminate to a
great extent the. bulky filing equipment,
thereby reducing the space needed for record
27
keeping.
3.35. Data processing has speeded up the
process of motor vehicle violation in the
traffic courts and, on the civil side, it has
provided valuable information and statistics
to prevent calendar conflicts for attorneys
28
and insurance companies in the area.
3.36. Computer can also increase efficiency
in the area of court calendaring since
congested and conflicting court calendars
S0
29
cause delay in court' proceedings.
Computers can not only be used to improve the
clerical aspect of judicial administration
but also to retrieve case law and statutory
material, the latter being more necessary in
view of frequent amendments of the! statute
30
law.
3.37. 'The computers in courts offer an up-
'to-now unheard of capacity for analysis and
.\ 4
evaluation or court.operations, ' The use of
computers allows a-systems analysis of courts
and' judicial» process. Systems analysis
examines the operating 'relationship .of .3
V"
isystem's part to determine Vhow will they
operate together, because the system is seen
as the sum of its parts. At the same time,
systems _analysit "keeps a global or system
wide 'perspective while working on .detai1.'
The parts of the whole system are important
in so far as they contribute to the system's
goals. I V I I
3.38; "The ultimate object of the analysis of
a system is to determine its effectiveness.
Effectiveness "is measured by how well it
operates, including SJCh factors as the
presence or absence of delay between points
51
'in the process. Effectiveness can
be
according to the workload and cost
measured
to produce that-workload when compared with
other court systems without a systems
examination; it is often impossible to know
whether some parts are duplicating efforts of
other parts or are incompatible with one
another. Systems concept together with the
computers have begun to force long-range
thinking outside daily operations, that is,
' 3l
- planning and research.
3.39. Many courts abroad have found it
worthwhile to computerise their information
system. However, it is essential to remember
that no computer can be brought into a court
'to 'solve' that court's delay problems.
Unless the court has a plan to reduce delay,
the court will not be able to tell computer
programmers what information to collect and
what reports to produce. Computers have
often played an important role when they have
accompanied efforts by courts to reduce delay
through active case flow management, but
computers have failed when they have merely
been substituted for planning and hard work
32
needed by the human beings Within 8 C0UFt-
52
Court Records
3.40. The court records are maintained
according to the rules framed by each High
Court. Generally, the records are placed in
files. The files are given numbers and then
stored in steel almirahs or most often racks.
There is a provision for maintaining some
part of records for a certain duration and
,some have to be maintained permanently. This
method of storage takes a lot of space which
itself is scarce. Law Commission has
received information from some courts that
for want of storage space, the files and
bastas containing the court records are lying
on the floors. The files are maintained with
loose sheets which can be tinkered with very
easily. Thus,_ this method of storage not
only exposes the records to mutilation by
insects and pests but also to tampering. No
court in India has introduced any modern
technology for storing court records.33
3.41. Courts of the last quarter of the 20th
century require modern record systems,
efficient procedures for storing and
undertaking and retrieving information from
these records. It should have built in'
controls to ensure confidentiality, privacy
S3
'and security of the data being maintained.
It should have a conscious policy of
34
retention and ditposal.
Microfilm
3.42. The use of microfilm is another method
to effectuate an efficient handling of court
records to make better use of court
facilities and personnel. The advantages of
such a system are several: more storage space
.is available for court records; the handling
of court records is facilitated: lees danger
of loss or tampering of documents;, and it
allows for more efficient use of court
personne1.35' (To be precise, the microfilm
acts as a security measure for preventing
loss or alteration of documents by having two
rolls of film processed. The negative is
immediately provided to State archives and
the positive roll is sent to the court to be
36
filed.)
3.43. Microfilming is adopted for many
courts abroad but its use must be selective
and cautiously judged. Microfilm can also
create blurred, hard to read copy, and
deteriorate with time. The user, therefore,
'S-1
must be informed and discriminating in
applying this technology. There are other
sophisticated technologies to preserve court
records, such as introducing filing system
and colour coding to facilitate easy storage
and retrieval, etc. "Each court must decide
what is available in the market and what can
best suit its needs.
55
CHAPTER IV
FINANCIAL PALLIATIVE FOR THE COURTS
4.1. It is crystal clear that the available
resources for the courts, both manpower and
material, are woefully inadequate. A
constitutional democracy founded on rule of
law must of necessity provide adequate
facilities for determination of basic legal
rights. Rule of law survives where its
transgression or violation is remediable at
the hands of courts. If the courts are
overloaded and are unable to redress the
wrong quickly and efficiently, it would pose
a threat to the constitutional democracy
itself.' Once éthe respect for rule of law
deteriorates or disappears, the foundation of
the constituticgal democracy gets shattered.
For its continued health, efficient care
system is a pre-requisite. And the court
system, to justify its usefulness, must be
able to render quick, efficient and just
justice. As already pointed out by the Law
Commission in its interim report on Manpower
Planning in Judiciaryl, the Judge:population
ratio in India is grossly inadequate and
requires to be enhanced at least five times
in next five years. If this recommendation
56
is effectively »implemented,. new' courts,
additional qualified staff, streamlining of
staffing pattern, modern office equipments
and, above all, attractive service conditions
for the Judges and the staff will be needed
as a first priority. Inputs under all these
heads would require funds and the Law
Commission is conscious that they are in
,short supply and not readily available.
4.2. Justice system does not stand high in
the list of priorities for disbursal of
public funds. Expenditure on administration
of justice has still the dubious distinction
of being styled as non-plan expenditure.
4.3. The salaries of Judges of the Supreme
Court of India are- a charge on the
2
Consolidated Fund of India. Similarly, the
salaries of the Judges of the High Court are
a charge on the Consclidated Fund of the
State.3 The administrative expenses of -the
supreme Court, including all salaries,
allowances and pensions payable to or in
respect of the officer; and servants of the
Court, are also a charge upon the
4
Consolidated Fund of Irdia._ There is an
analogous provision in respect of the
administrative expenses of the High Court.5
4.4. Except the funds charged on the
Consolidated Fund of India or of State, some
additional funds required by the Supreme
Court or High Court for maintenance of its
administrative establishment are required to
be voted in Lok Sabha or State Assembly, as
the case may be. In this respect, the court
'system .is very much at the mercy of the
Legislature because funds which are votable
can be varied each year. Formally, the
budget proposal may emanate from the Supreme
Court or the High Court, as the case may be,
but the nodal Ministry in each case has
hardly made an arrangement for a two way
dialogue in respect of financial and
management questions.6 After the budget is
received from the Supreme Court of India or
the High Court, amounts in respect of votable
items are re-set by the nodal Ministry.' some
cuts and alterations take place at this end.
The 'revised proposal is sent to the Finance
Ministry which has its own constraints and
riders and ordinarily what finally emerges
and is placed in the hands of the Court is
much less than not only what is proposed but
what is the minimal reqrirement. In
58
processing through the Departments which have
no vision as to the essential requirements of
the' courts; the whole exercise becomes a
bargaining event and the representative of
.-the court, if at all consulted, may be able
to mould the situation both the ways
depending upon his persuasive capacity. The
hard fact that remains is that Judiciary has
very little say touching the power of purse.
And this aspect has consistently thwarted the
growth and expansion of judicial services.
This is a grey area fairly visible in the
matter of relationship between the Executive
and the Judiciary.
4,5. ' Since_1973, and especially after the
judgment in Kesavananda Bharati's case
popularly known as Fundamental Rights case,
followed 'by the first supersession, the
Judiciary in general and Supreme Court of
India in particular acquired high visibility
profile. The decisions in Sankari Prasad
~ 8
Signh Dev v. Union of India and Sajjan
9
Singh v. State of Rajasthan confirmed the
power of Parliament to amend any Part of the
Constitution including Fundamentalv Rights
which' gave rise to a debate that the Court
accepted the supremacy of the Parliament over
59
Judiciary. Consequently, the Executive
retained its regard for the relative autonomy
of the Judiciary In Kesavananda Bharati's
case, the Court, by a slender majority, while
conceding the power of the Parliament to
amend any Part of the Constitution, ruled
that the basic structure/feature of the
Constitution is beyond the amendatory power
of the Parliament which, amongst others,
includes the power of judicial review. The
Jurists writing on the functioning of the
Court and the viewers of the Court's judicial
process perceived certain threats emanating
from the Executive to the independence of the
Judiciary.l0 while examining the views
expressed by the Jurists on an earlier
occasion, the Law Commission reviewed the
power and the procedure for appointment of
Judges to High Court and Supreme Court and,
for detailed reasons stated therein,
recommended a new forum for appointment of
Judges to superior Judiciary.' The underlying
purpose was to make Judiciary self-reliant in
matter of appointments, staffing patterns,
necessary lay out on administration vof
ll
justice, t a1.
4.6. The Jurists who prizevindependence of
60
Judiciary have always lamented that the
touchstone of judicial independence is the
power of purse which unfortunately it sadly
lacks.. Every proposal, except the non-
votable . items, which entails financial
liability emanating from the Judiciary can be
implemented only if endorsed by 'the
Executive. ' And in 'the priority of the
Executive in the matter of distribution of
its available resources, administration of
justice is at a much_ lower rung of the
.ladder. The independence of the Judiciary
'_can be seriously undermined if the requisite
financial resources for its efficient and
independent functioning are not made
available. Ehe arrears piled up at all
levels in courts can be partly attributed to
inadequate infra~structural facilities, which
is compounded by lack of adequate and timely
funding. Funding of courts is given little
public attention'and much of the <Judiciary's
independence is taken away ggbi silentio.l2
The tragedy is that when the demands' for
grants are votedv upon in relation to the
nodal Ministry which 'includes' the budget
proposals in respect of courts, that is,
administration of justice, the members are
'not given informaton what requirements were
61
advanced by the courts in their budget
proposals and how the nodal Ministry has
tinkered with the same, the reasons for the
same, I and whether the restoration is
possible. further, the view of the Judiciary
is not made available to Parliament.' The
case generally goes by default in the sense
that the. nodal Ministry becomes the final
arbiter in respect of the requirements of the
Judiciary. Apart from being unscientific,
the third most important limb of A the
constitutional democracy, namely, Judiciary,
has no say in the matter of disbursal of
funds, including 'for its maintenance,
sustenance, growth, expansion, etc.
4.7. Some. illustrations in this behalf may
prove revealing. The Chief Justice of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court desired that the
staff .of the court be put on par in the
matter of pay scales with their counterparts
in secretariat service of the Executive
Government. Now undoubtedly article 229
empowers the Chief Justice of the High Court
to make appointments of officers and servants
of the High Court. Clause (2) of article 229
provides that subject to the provisions of
62
any law made by the Legislature of the State,
the conditions of service of officers and
servants of a Hirh Court shall he such as may
be prescribed by rules made by the Chief
Justice of the High Court provided that the
rules made under this clause shall, so far as
they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or
pensions, require the approval of the
Governor of the State, meaning thereby the
State Cabinet - in actual working, the State
- Finance Ministry. The staff aggrieved by the
negative attitude of the State Government
filed a writ petition seeking a writ of
mandamus against the State Government
directing it to implement the recommendations
of the Chie£.Justice as made under article
229. The submission of the Association of
the staff was t.at article 229;l) read with
rule 19 of the A.P. High "ourt Service Rules
empowered the Chief Justice not only to make
appointment of officers and servants of the
courts but also to prescribe their conditions
of service and the requirement of approval of
the Governor was merely a constitutional
formality. The fligh Court allowed the writ
petition and directed a mandamus to be
issued. On a certificate granted by the High
Court. the matter came to the Supreme
63
13
Court. The Supreme Court, while in terms
disapproving the approach of the Government
in not accepting the recommendation of the
Chief Justice, on an interpretation of
article 229, held that the approval of the
Governor, as contemplated by article 229, is
not a mere formality but is a matter of
substance. The fall out of the judgment can
be best described by observing that there is
no real independence 'if unaccompanied by
power of purse. To .some extent, these
provisions have considerably 'thwarted the
growth and expansion of .judicial
administration.
4,8. A diametrically opposite view was taken
by the Delhi High Court when it ruled' that
apart from the constitutional provision, as af
matter of convention, the Executive must
accept the. recommendation of the Chief
Justice made in 'exercise of the power
conferred by article 229 and should not treat
it, on par with the recommendation made by
some bureaucrat.14 'The occasion for making
this observation arose on when-the staff of
Delhi High Court long clamburing for equality
of pay with their-counterparts in the Centre
and Delhi Administration moved in this
64
behalf. This was vehemently opposed by the
Executive. The High Court issued a mandamus
to step up parity. The Court observed that
the sovereignty of people is reflected in
three \limbes of the Constitution e the
Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary.
'The Chief Justice is the 'head 'of the
Judiciary.' when, therefore, he makes 'a
recommendation, the necessary presumption is
that it has been made with a full. sense of
responsibility and circumspection and after
having weighed various public interests as
well as tinancial aspects involved, Barring
*0
xceptional circumstances, the
recommendations of Chief\justice should 'be
treated ,as binding and acceptable. If' the
_approval of the Government was withheld or
refused on extraneous' or' ._irrelevant
consideration or in an arbitrary or
discriminatory manner, it would amount to
violation of the principles of equality laid
"down Ey articles 14 and 16 .¥of «the
is
Constitution and a mandamu§_can be issued.
4.9. 'The Supreme Court Employees vwelfare
Association was long since clamouring for
extending to them the benefit of pay scales
and allowances which were in vogue for the
65
-officers
and members of the staf of the High
Court of Delhi, the parity to be established
cadre-wise; The Chief Justice of India had
appointed' a Committee which had recommended
'that the question of revision of pay scales
of 'the ,officers and staff belonging to the
Registry of the Supreme Court of India may be
referred to the Fourth Pay Commission. In a
"petition filed by the afore-mentioned
Association, the Court directed by way of
interim relief the parity as prayed for and
directed the Union of India to make the
necessary reference as recommended by the
Committee. The interim relief also entailed
financial responsibility; In» view of the
VCourt's direction, the same could "not be
demurred on the plea that the direction had
"not the approval of the President as provided
in proviso to article» 146(2) of ,the
16 -
Constitution.
4510. The principle enunciated in the
aforementioned judgments may be-extended a
step further. It is the duty of the State to
'set, .up adequate number~ of courts for
expeditious disposal of disputes arising
between the residents of the State. It is
the fundamental obligation of the 'State to
66
create courts which can exercise the judicial
power of the State. Failure to perform this
duty may permi a mandamus to be issued to
the State' to perform 'its constitutional
obligation, one such obligation being to set
up 'adequate' number of courts and to place
funds at their disposa} so that they, in
their turn,p can carry out.the obiigation to
dispense justice independently, expeditiously
and efficiently. This logically toliows from
a _view,enpressed by one of the Judges of the
Supreme Court_composing the bench, _in judges
case; ' After undertaking a detailed analysis
of the continued neglect on the part of the
._'>
- Government in not making a proper review from
':
_ time to time' of the number_-of -permanent
Judges necessary for each'High Court and _not
-4
; mating appointment to that - extent, he
yidirected that 'the Union _Government, which"
has that responsibility of appointing
sufficient number of Judges in every. High
éourt, Lahould be directed to review 'the
strength. of permanent Judges in every _High
'Court, to fix the number of permanent Judges
that 'should be appointed in that-Highl Court
on the basis of the workload and to fill up
the ' vacancies by _appointing permanent
67
Judges.... A writ in the above terms shall.
.17
be issued to the Union Government'.
4.11. Independence of Judiciary is one of
the foremost concerns of the Constitution of
18
India. A writer on constitutional law is
of the opinion that independence of the
Judiciary is one of the cardinal features of
our Constitution. Fearless justice which can
_only emanate from independent Judiciary is. a
prominent creed of the Constitution and 'the
independence of the Judiciary is a fighting
faith of our founding fathers'.19 p Reverting
to' the 'same subject; it was observed that
"the creed of judicial independence is our
constitutional 7 !re1igion" and if the
A Executive imperils 'this basic' tenet,' the
20
court may do or dieF; To fbutteress this
independence, it is now necessary to clothe.
the courts with power.to determine_ its" own
requirements which,_ .of necessity, 'must
include -the power to set up adequate number
.of courts and to-appoint adequate number Lot'
Judges. If'the power of purse remains dwith
the Executive and the financial constraint is
trotted out as an excuse to deny adequate
financial resources for setting up additional
courts, 'judicial independence becomes a
68
teasing illusion'21 and a promise of
Unreality. The Constitution set up an
.independent Judiciary and it cannot be that
while it vested it with powers over the
persons and property of every citizcn, it
will deny to itself the consequential' power
'to determine its own needs as to »men and
material. Continued,efficient working of the
o.
.JudiciarY - is simply t indispensable'; and
'essential for the balance of constitutional
22
power.
{,l2. .The legislative appropriation and
executive-.ccntrol -over finances »cennot be
permitted to céstrate--or cripple the courts
by refusing or reducing requieite'grants and
0 Q
_ re~appropriations. To have the courts under
-he fiscal thumb of the Executive is in
I
\-
dircct violérion of tho xyirit of the
7nnstiLvF*»r ' The courte are frequently
called upon to pronounce on the acts of those
'who control public funds and, therefore, must
be kept free in such cases without fear of
retaliation, rofien or _ concealed. . If
independence of Judiciary is to be sustained,
it _must possess power over the purse. To
refuse to 'provide adequate funds to the
courts is to prevent them iron discharging
5
k0
their constitutional responsibilities and,
therefore, 'constitutes an encroachment upon
the exclusive area of the Judiciary. 3
4.13. while undoubtedly, as pointed out
hereinbefore, at least one of the Judges of
the Supreme Court has expressed a view24.that
a mandamus can be issued if the proposal to
open or set up additional courts is rejected
or negatived on extraneous or 'irrelevant
considerations but in practical life. it is
rather inconceivable that the Judiciary
should seek before itself a writ of mandamus
against . the Executive every time the
situation demands it. A spirit of adjustment
and compromise must inform the 'deliberations
in this behalf. I some workable solution has
to be devised so that the stringent,
occasionally counter-productive, J financial
control of the Executive over the courts even
in the face of legitimate pressing needs can
be countered.'
4.14. The Law Commission vwould like to
suggesti a working solution in this behalf.
The Law 'Commission has already recommended
setting up of the National Judicial Service
25 ..
Commission ' fior dealing with problems of
70
appointment of judicial officers at various
levels, restructuring Judiciary by setting up
Indian Judicial Service , training of
27
judicial officers ; et al. This body can be
.--.-----_
entrusted with additional task of determining
and ~ finalising the financial needs and
budgets« of the courts. iNational Judicial
Service Commission 'itself may set up a new
body; called the 'Finance4 "Consultative
' Committee', ehich must undertake the task of
_Judiciary at various levels and.it must have
periodically assessing financial needs of the
9
liaison . with the Finance"Ministry and
.ordinarily its recommendations - must be
accepted. The Committee may-consist of e W
t(1) The 'Chief Justice .of' India' in
2
_ resoect of the-Sfipreme Court or the Chief
,Justice of the High Court in respect of ~the
High Court;' ~
(2) Administrative Judge of' the ifligh
»Court;
»(3) Administrative Officer of the court
in charge ofzfinance; H
x (4) Secretary? Ministry in charge .of
Judiciary; and H
(5) Secretary, 'Ministry ~of Finance,-
Department of Expenditure.
71
4.15. . Ordinarily the budget should be
proposed by the High Court or the Supreme
Court, as the case may be. If the budget is
to be approved, the matter should be referred
toi this Committee and it must finalise the
same. This Committee will provide a meeting
' ground for an inter--action and' inter--facing
between the representatives of the court and
the executive branch and by sheer discussion
.and dialogue, consensus can be arrived at.
4.16. Once 'the administration of courts is
modernised by introducing management' erperts
_as' Court Executives, trained court- staff
aided by modern facilities is provided and
the financial ,bottlenecks are removed by
setting ' up of Financial Consultative
Committee, large number of problems which
have proved irritants between Executive "and
Judiciary will disappear like the morning
'dew. Once the irritants are 'removed, this
iapparent confrontation between Executive and
Judiciary would wholly disappear, ensuring
smooth functioning of court and quickening
disposal of cases.
72
CHAPTER V
TAPPING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
5.1. Under the genus 'Administration of
Justice', there are two broad divisions of
species. Courts for rendering civil justice
is one broad division and the other is
criminal justice system. Undoubtedly,
administration of tax laws, labour laws, land
laws and administrative law are so _styled
that, broadly speaking, they form part of
civil justice system. The distinguishing_
feature between the civil justice system and
criminal justice system lies in the fact that
civil justice system provides fora for
resolution of disputes between individuals,
'between individuals and the State, and" even
between the State and the State where a party
complains of wrong being done to it and seeks
redres. Administration of criminal justice
system partates the character of a regulatory
mechanism of the society whereby the State
enforces discipline in the society 'by
.providing fora for investigation of crime and
punishment. It is the duty of-the State to
set up courts for administration of criminal
justice. A society governed by rule of law
envisages numerous laws of regulatory
73
character for an orderly development of
society. A breach, infraction or violation
of law is made punishable. To set up courts
'for trial of offenders who, if found guilty,
may be punished is an obligatory function oft'
the State. The State must pay the entire
costs of administration of criminal justice.
5.2. In the matter of civil justice, the
State provides fora where citizens aggrieved
of having suffered wrong at the hands 'of
other citizens or State may seek redressal
either in the form of specific performance or
compensation or damages. Parties to a
dispute can choose its own forum by
appointing an arbitrator and conferring on
the arbitrator the power tot resolve the
dispute and to make the decision binding.
Parties who can get their disputes resolved
by a forum of their choice need not go to the
court. But parties are not usually so well
behaved as 'to seek out the services of an
arbitrator. being the forum of their. own
choice. The State, therefore, sets up courts
conferring on them the power to render
justice, being the gpwer of the State.
Parties to a dispute can invoke the
jurisdiction of such courts. In this sense,
74
the courts render service. Viewed from this
angle, the levy of court fee has been styled
as, 'fce' and not as 'tax{ because the dictum
is fee must be commensurate with the service
rendered. Therefore, those who avail of the
services of fora must be ready to pay fee for
the services obtained. If parties go to an
arbitrator, being a forum of their choice, it
is implicit therein that they pay for the
"services of the arbitrator. A Judge
presiding over a court set up by the State is
'none-the--less an adjudicator and renders
service by adjudication of the dispute.
Therefore, the State providing for such
,service has been enabled to recover court
fees. That is the genesis of court fees.
5.3. therefore, the levy of court fees} when
questioned, "it must be shown that the levy
has reasonable correlation with the services
'rendered'by the Government. "In other words,
the levy must be proved to be a Quid E59 339
for the services rendered?.1 The question
again -figured before the Supreme Court .and
the Constitution Bench observed that the
State has no power to 'tax litigation and
thereby to augment revenues and make
litigants pay, say, lfor road--building or
75
must
fmaked-a levy a tar.
.bé -direct, a
the
or other beneficial schemes that
education
2
the State may have'. It is thus
unquestionably established that as far as
administration ofi civil justice is concerned,
the state renders service and 'for the
services so rendered, collects fees and there
be guid Ero guo between the quantum of
_service rendered and the fee coliected. To
some extent, this view.was departed from
when, after reviewing the earlier decisions,
the .Supreme Court held that 'there is. no
.generic difference between a tax and a fee,
though broadly a tax is a compu1sory.exaction
as part of a common burden, without promise
or .any special advantages to classes of tax-
payers. whereas a tee is a payment for
.4
services rendered,i benefit' provided . or
privilege conferred. Combuision is not. the
'.hai1mark of the distinction between a tax and
a fee. That the money co11ected_does'not go
.into a separate fund but igoes into 'the
consolidated_ fund does not also 'necessarily
! Though a fee must have
relation' to the services rendered," or' the
advantages conferred, such relation need not
mere causal relation may be
enough. ~Further, neither the incidence of
fee nor the service rendered need be
76
V
uniform. ~ That others besides thosev paying
the fees are also benefited does not detract
from the character of the fee. 'In fact the
special benefit or advantage to the payers of
the fees may even be secondary as compared
with the primary motive of regulation in
public interest, Nor is the court to assume
the role of a cost accountant'. it is
.neither' necessary nor expeditious to weigh
too. pmeticulously the. cost of services
rendered xetc. against the amount of fees
collected so as to_evenly balance the two. A
broad corelationship . is; .all that is.
necessary. Quid pro guo in the strict" sense
is not- the 'one and only true index of -a
.. . P _ _ .._ _3
£ee:nor is it necessarily absent in a tax.°
V'5.4. ' Even. th:ugh' the demarcating~ line.
between fee and tax is getting blurred and is
likeiy "to evaporate in near future, keeping
in view the traditional "approach to 'the
'problem'of fee and tax}'it may be stated with
confidence that court fee is ievied by the
State for the service rendered by the courts
set 'up by the State to :the litigants' in
. search- of fora for-resolution" of disputes
whose decisions have a binding character ;and
are enforceable by execution.
77
5.5. A debate, was going on whether in a
country like India, levy of court fees
creates an impediment in access to justice.
The Conference of Law Ministers of States and
Union territories in' June 1982 set up' a
Committee on the'question of rationalisation
of court fees. This exercise uas undertaken
pursuant to a recommendation of the
Consultative Committee of the Members of
vParliament attached to the Ministry of Law,
Justice and Company Affairs for abolition of
,_court fee. The view expressed was that there
.was general agreement at the Conference that
though the objective, namely, abolition of
court fee -was commendable in principle,
.v
;keeping in view the financial constraints,
.the approach should be to go in for
rationalisation of court fee rather than its
abolition. The consensus emerged on two
'points:r
(i) the really needy person should be
helped and exempted from. paying
court fee: and
(ii) particular types of cases should be
4 identified for which there should
be either no court fee or a very
nominal court fee.
78
5.6. It' is in this background that the Law
commission, while making extensive
recommendations in this report read with it:
report on Manpower Planning in Judiciary,
will have to indicate available resources for
f
larger lay out on administration of justice.
5.7. At the outset it must be stated without
fear of contradiction_that the administration
of justice' in a constitutional democracy
operating under written Constitution and
founded on~ rule of »law in a_ developing
country is- a social overhead and -must be
I .
provided for irrespective of any _resources
';the service itself may generate.' However, in
a country like India cursed with. extensive
poverty! 'allocation of resources on priority
basis may itself compel necessity 'for
additional resources where larger lay out 'is
recommended on 'administration, of. justice
which may .not find high placement in the
national priorities. Accordingly, even
though administration of justice is a service'
which the State is bound to render to its
citizens and that court fees is;looked upon
with disfavour, one should not lose sight of
a situation that stares into face that ours
79
is a poor developing country with scarce
resources and its equitable distribution must
answer some priorities. To assert that it is
the duty of the State to provide .for
resources for administration of justice even
at the cost of other competing claims on
account of our attaching very high value to
justice and it being a necessary component of
development, though laudatory and may be an
ideal to be pursued-but when one comes down
to earth it sounds as a mere rhetoric because
there are not just enough funds and the
State, even if willing, may not be able to
provide for all the funds essential for
efficient and quick administration of
justice. Therefore, this report seeks to tap
additional " resources within the system
itself. To do this, four steps will have to
be taken:--
(a) A review of the existing resource
position and whether anything necessary to be
'tapped has escaped;
(b) _A policy decision whether all
users of the system'should be charged 'at a
uniform rate:
(C) whether any one is taking an unfair
advantage of the system and, though in a
position to pay more, is not contributing
80
anything; and
(d) Any other source.
5;8. Before an exhaustive inouiry is made
with regard .to all the four steps, -it is
necessary 'to point out convincingly that the
State.' spends next to nothing on
administration of justice.
5.9. Before we assume the responsibility for
indicating 'areas where additional -resources
may be generated from the service itself,
namely, administration of justice, it is
imperative to point out that the State today
spends precious little or, to say the least,
practically 'nothing on the administration of
justice. _While more often a very tall claim
is made that administration of 'justice 'has
become a; white elephant and that in -return
for service rendered by it, the- cost of
'maintainir~ service is exceedin 1 hi h and
':1 , .
the cost benefit ratio works in reverse gear,
th"
(1
re is nothing more misleading than this
statement, and this would become self-evident
from the information discussed here. ' while
recommending for upward revision of the
'Judge:population ratio in the Report on
,_ « , 5 _
Manpower Planning in Judiciary, the Law
Commission utilised the information collected
8l
by the Ministry of Law and Justice on the
question of court fees, rationalisation and
6
relationships. That statement is being
reproduced here with a view to indicate
percentage-wise co-relation between the
"expenditure on Judiciary to the total State
tax receipts for the year 1981-82. Barring
'Manipur and Trip ura, most of the States
spend between 0.15%--A.P. to 3.53%4H.P. and
the rest of the States are hovering around
_between 1% to 2.25%; lconvincinglyg this will
'show that administration of justice has
. ' I
received negligible funds for its upkeep as
well as its growth.7 In this report as the
Law' Commission is concerned with more
specific" enquiry about expenditure on
proposed expansion of Judiciary, the
information ~ supplied by the . Planning
Commission when tahen into consideration
reveals almost the same state of affairs.8
In our effort to ibe 'more precise and
accurate, the Law Commission made its own
Venquiry and collected information from the
States directly} Whatever has been made
available has been tabulated in appendix 5
V
(iii) and one cah confidently say that the
situation has not improved at all.
82
'Therefore, the emerging scenario is that
small States like Manipur and Tripura
spend much more than the bigger States
and more especially like the Maharashtra
State where the receipts are very high
and the expenses marginally the lowest.
One can - confidently say that the
'Judiciary. has received 'a~ niggardly
treatment at the hands of "the States.
Let it be recalled that the finding of
the 'First. Law Commission was that the
receipt. under the head 'court fee' was
far, in ekcess of_the' cost' neededi for
administration of civil as. wellv as
criminal justice. The finding was that
the surplus was ploughed in the general
9 .
revenues of the State. On gleaning~ the
informations , collected by' the Law
Commission, it appears that the receipt
from the administration of justice, made
up of court fees and fiines, only
partially covers the expenses on the_
courts. There has been a progressive
83
decrease in the percentage of expenses
covered by the receipts of the courts.
For example, the figures supplied by the
Bombay High Court show that in the year
1978, the receipts of the Court covered
.about 94% of the expenses but in the year
1985, they covered only about 48% of the
expenses. Similarly, in Andhra Pradesh,
'the receipts covered about 78%" of the
yonly'54% of the expenses. In Punjab,-the
expenses but in l986~87, they covered
10
figure has come down from 35% to 20%.
At this rate of progressive decline,it is
apprehended that after a few years, the
situation will so materially alter that
the court fees as at present structured,
_coupled with the exemptions granted, wlll
cover only a very small percentage of the
expenses.
83A
5.10. Since the 14th Report of the Law
Commission and for years thereafter, it was
generally believed 'that the court fees and
fines recovered are enough to meet-the cost
of administration of' justice. To further
clarify the position, the Law Commission
- ' ' - 1 1
requested the Planning Commission to supply
the same information which the Planning
Commission readily agreed. However, that
made- the task of the Law Commission all the
more pdifficult because there was a wide gap
between the information supplied bY_some "Pf
Ehe .States and the information supplied by
the Planning 7Commission,'. The figures'
supplied iby> the blanningicommission show 4a
much larger percentage or'éipedses which' are
made from the income from the« courts. The
explanation for this lies in the fact 'thatV
perhaps the states project lcwer figures to
Planning Commission in order to wrangle. more
funds.. .Be that, as 'it may, ifrop the
I .
information 'sent,»by the States and the
Planning Commission, the Law Commission may
not be in a gppsition- to_ come to any
'definitive conclusion; The purpose for which
this information was called for "cannot 9be
served by the information supplied hy some of
84
the States, though the Planning Commission
supplied full information from its records.
One inference is, however, inescapable from
both the sources of information that it is
not possible to cover the expenses for
administration of justice exclusively from
the income generated by the administration of
generally made up of court fees and
justice
fincs.
5.11. The Law Commission was taken by
surprise en recvipt of the information thwt
the funds generated by the administration of
justice are not sufficient to meet its
even though there has been a
expenses
large incrtnsc in thc institution of cases.
Consequently, the receipts of the courts must
have also increased but still they have not
kept pace with the rising expenses of the
courts.
5.12. There can be several reasons for this
state cf affairs. One reason may be that
there has 'been no pro--rata increase in the
court fee and fines according to the cost of
living index while the administration
expenses, including salaries of Judges and
staff, dearness allowance and other
incidentals, including expenses Ono
additional courts have increased manifold.
On the income side, ordinarily there is
reluctance to pay the fines and in an
increasing area, exemption from court fees is
granted. Further, the increase in judicial
work is under the heading 'writ petition'
where the court fees have remained static.
with the index rising at regular interval
with ~corresponding increases in the shape of
salaries of the staff and the Judges, the
income under the known two heads gradually
dwindlcs. some years back, the Minister of
Law and Justice, Government of India,
expressed an opinion that court fees should
be totally abolished. But as 'court fees' is
in the State List, the States did not agree
with this suggestion. If the court fee is
totally abolished, the gap between the.income
and expenditurc on service is-- likely to
12
further widen.
5.13. On the other hand, the receipt under
the head 'fines' has its own story to tell.
with the modern notions en the theory of
punishment, more often depending upon the
age, maturity and other aspects of the case
of the accused, he is giveh the benefit of
the Probation which relives him from the
86
_,.,,.. .. y «
.4 yum: 4.
obligation of paying fine. This is one
reason why the income under the head 'Fine'
is depleting. Moreove.,the main penal statute
is the Indian Penal Code of 1860 vintage.
The value of rupee in 1860 and 1988 if
compared, the outcome may be a shocking one.
Yet the fines as prescribed in the Penal Code
are over 125 years old have remained static
as they are. It is not for a moment
suggested that the fines must be» levied
keeping in view the establishment expenditure
of the courts. Fine is a kind of punishment
and must be commensurate with the gravity of
the offence. Having said all that, a fine of
Rs.l0O or Rs.50O or Rs.l,O00 today has really
no significance. The punitive purpose is
lost when the fines are still
those' stagnant rates which now come to very
nominal amount. Therefore, there should be a
realistic revaluation and the fines to be
imposed should be increased in relation to
reduction of the value of the rupee over all
these years. Once this is done, there should
be periodic revaluation to eliminate the
effect of inflation. Similar exercise may
have to be taken in respect of rates of court
fees with certain exceptions.
87
imposed at'
'time,
u mnqvo «:>
there is a very
}L14. As pointed out earlier,
nominal court fees in respect of writ petitions
and the maximum increase in the litigation is
under this head. This is one of the additional
irecoipts of the court not keeping
14-
pace with expenses.
reasons for
5.15., While conferring writ jurisdiction on the
High Courts and Supreme Court of India, the
expectation was that the disputes by these
higher Courts would be solved quickly. However,
writs have piled up so much with the result that
cases coming under other jurisdictions of the
High Court, such as second appvnl, first appeal,
revision, criminal revisions, criminal appeals
are pushed back.and
and original side.matters,
have to wait in qgeue for a long time for their
turn to come. The writ jurisdiction is largely
availed by tax--payers, commercial magnates
9
industrialists, iamindars and princes -- in
short, the haves of the society. And they enjoy
the benefit5 of this: jurisdiction 'by either
nominal or practically no court fees at
paying
all. appropriate entirely the court's
And they
leaving the havenots -- the Vagricultural
tenants, the industrial workers, the urban
property tenants, seekers of maintenance and
others -- without any-time for the redressal of
their grievance.
88
)
or
5.16. Is it proper to treat litigants in one
class only for the purpose of availing
courts' services? why should a tax-payer
complaining of levy of tax be able to invoke
court's jurisdiction by paying nominal court
fee? why should an industrial magnate
utilise court's time for redressal of his
supposed injustice without adequately paying
for the court's services? Why should" an
industrial magnate and an industrial
a tenant and a_landlord, a zamindar and his
tiller, a maharaja and his subject, a
commercial magnate and the user of his
product .be put par in the matter of
on
availing the gervice of courts? They do not
form a class. They may be litigants. But
amongst litigants, they are haves and if they
.want to utilise the service of /the_ court,
they must be made to pay for the entire
service. The question which stares into the
face is whether the courtfs service (what is
meant is civil justice system) should' be
provided to everyone at the same rate
irrespective 'of the nature of the case and
the time spent by the court.
15
5.17; In Bscort's case, Justice Chinnappa
Roddy decried the faot that corporate battles
89
worker,
V
3 were being fought in the courts" He said:
"Problems of high finance and broad
fiscal policy which truly are hot and
cannot be the province of the court for
the very simple reason that we lack the
necessary expertise and, which, in any
case, 'are none of our business are
sought 'to be transformed into guestions
involving broad' legal principles in.
order to. make them.the_concern of the
court; _Similarly what may be called the
'political' ' processes of 'corporate
democracy' are sought to be subjected to
investigation by us -by invoking the
principle of' the' Rule of Law, with
.emphasis on the rule against arbitrary
State action. An expose of the facts of
the present case will reveal how. much
legal ingenuity may achieve by way of
persuading courts, ingehuously. to treat
the variegated problems of the world of'
.finance, , as ' litigable public right
questions. Courts of Justice are well-
tuned to_ distress 'signals 'against
arbitrary action. So corporate giants
do not hesitate to rush to us with cries
for justice. The court room becomes
their battle ground and . corporate
90
battles are fought under the attractive
banners of justice, fair play and the
public interest. we do not deny the
right of corporate giants to seek our
aid as well as any Lilliputian farm
labourer or pavement dweller though we
certainly would prefer to devote more of
our time and attention to the latter. we
' recognise that out of the dust of the
battles of giants occasionally emerge
some new principles, worth the while..
That is how the law has been progressing
until recently. But not so now. Public
interest litigation and public assisted
litigation are today taking over many
unexplored fields andy the Adumb are
finding their voice.".16
He was constrained to observe that such cases
block the "more worthy cases of lesser men
who have been long waiting in the queue and
the queue has consequently lengthened".
5.18. t In this case, oral arguments were
heard' in the Supreme Court for -28 -working
17
days by a Bench of 5 Judges. In 'effect,
this implies that this case occupied over 2
months of the Court's working time which
91
ifitself is very short inasmuch as the Supreme
Court Judges work 5 days a week and only 182
days a year. Ordinarily only 3 days are
available for final hearing matter. because
the rest of the sdays are utilised for
tackling admission and miscellaneous matters.
Having regard to the time available for final
hearing, 5 Judges heard this case for ever 2
months, at the end of which the Court awarded
eost to the Union of India, the Reserve Bank
of .India and the Life Insurance Corporation
rule,
of India and, departing from the old
directed not the company in the name of which
the litigation was brought but the persons in
charge of the company were made liable to pay
costs.
a portion of the Accordingly, lthe
Court directed as under:
"3/Sths of the tlxed costs in each case
.Prasad Nanda,
will be payable by Har
hy Swaraj Paul and l/5th by the
1/Sth
' 1 3
Punjab'National Bank";
To them this was a flea bite because swaraj
Paul was fighting for salvaging his
investment of roughly Rs. u_crores and Nanda
was trying to retain control of the company{
And both of them used the Court for an unduly
long time. It is, therefore, time now to
realise that fairness demands that such
92
;,
people who use the Court for vindicating some
of their supposed rights relevant only to
bath of them alone atd not to society should
pay fully for the entire service of the
Court.' They ,cannot just use the eourt by
paying a nominal court fees in the.nameb of
vindicating their supposed ' tundamental
rights. And it is these people who use the
Court the maximum. To illustrate this point,
cne may look at the length or time spent .by
the Supreme Court of India in hearing 'cases
hereinbetore referred' to.19 Bank
Nationalisation case was heard for 37 days,
\
that is, more than 3 months, before a Bench
' I
cf 11 Judges, which was then almost the whole~
court as 'the. sanctioned Judge strength
including Chief Justice was 12. Fundamental
Rights case (Kesavananda~Bharati) wasi heard
for 68 working days, that is, almost half the
year or one term of the Supreme Court, ;by a
Bench of 13 'Judges. The case. involving
challenge to National Security Act was heard
by a Bench of 5-Judges from -9thj.December,
1980 to 30th April, 1981. And Juages case
(S.P. Gupta) was heard by a Bench of'7 Judges
from 4th August, '1981 to November 16, 1981.
Given the limited number of.worKing days in
93
Lxthe Ccurt, it is very clear that a major
chunk of the Court's time was taken up by
thCSb
J
c'ses herein mcnticn.u. An? amongst
litigants who" were prcminent? And what
claims they were trying to vinlicite through
the use of the Court?' A bank magnate, a
zamindar, a mathadhipati and a maharaja, all
of 'whom used the Court seeking to perpetuate
status gug anfi protecting private property to
the detriment of the common men of India. It
is in this context that a perceptive viewer
of the Indian court scene has observed that
haves ccme cut better in court prcceedings.2O
And in all this litigation, the complaint was
violation of supposed fundamental right to
? .
property for which a writ petition was filed
on nominal court fees. It is a travesty of
truth to put on par a litiqant.coming from
the economically depressed class complaining
of violation of fundamental rights in the
matter of use of the service of the court
/
with those who ccmplain of an erroneous tax
demand, who complain of deprivation of
property without compensation and who
com lain cf de.rivatien of rivile es and
P 9
concessions, in the matter of payment for
services of the court. They do not form a
single class. Tr group them together is to
94
o .".»g. . . ,.' ' v* - o, 7'-. gyunga
'entire court servlce. 'By_ent1re.courtL;t'1s
bring uneouals on a footing of equality which
is violative of the cstablisheo doctrine «oi
classification. In the matter of payment for
scrvtcés of the court, (those who can afford
and have cushion und who complain of supposco
violation. of some fundamgnta; right and cook
redressal of ;§riéyance _muét hpay _£ori the
*meant 'that not only Qhat ckbcnses the Stote.t
incurs 'on a_Judge per daytbut aléo on -cburg"
hestablishmeht uhich otfn'ceé§ity:muot'inciude£%P"fA#>rn'"9f
_inputs§7f in gvegy cqdét; it wou;d*bofea§§htoh
" his. ones
'a 1 . . ,. at R, »;u+ u.~r," -«A
-take 1 account 70: this r.pay;f" pcrquisites;
nlittlc:
'maint5ining a;ngEc}¢oq£§;°1E§&¢r:£ées;5£6<
. --..=s>._,;:.f'-
"lOf'¢JUd9¢
even;déprec
fétiéfi of building and Suchl othcr
_. r,"__ ',.
. -j,'.r;'« -
work,cut Qhat eh; Stéte ggehaé on.¢ Judgc for
'w£"i§5:p ',..;.~: 4.» m»~«-;» ~. - *»~'
' Q ,' _ _.,- -' 3 ,_ ) .- ,. ,; € .~..' < «z. 4. -- ' ~ ' - 'I- ,' V
/ full day working-zntcourbtwhxch must'
"«;$%%yi§¢s:¢i:;*¢",o"K5:£L.~.'p" v"'" * " '* 1
L' 'x- .'
es£abiishEéh§'1 Eoéfi§'."b£-~fCé§ur£}~?:.¢ourth
f":. uE',.,ofluVfi;-_{ I 5.x l_¥ :tm,tifi
£urn1ture,L eigfinscg on court staff and every'
\
' ' \ \ . ."- '_'-'.._» V»; .5 '.--»'I'_,_ Kt... ' 'L' . ..,....v__ _."_ -
,thihg uonQ which Vstate spends "for
~ ~' ' I-~'~'~ ~~* ~ » ~~*'<g1:z
obé
i:;<.;f3\:, *.:: :'_ ;*.i 'f;':,.i:::z:$: 'E§{§7 ;I- .i{2t{ ',;A3: ". 'é*v
1¢vied*:mustfibe:th9:mu1tipli9t"o£wth°?Tnu@be?
:45' -L' '.
égmg¢g;i§§£n;g?g.g5§¢ «f.g#& fig
S,§by§mqnqaysfspentvin6_'
1 -sa? d '%fi%%fiflfiU: i>$--¢§%£%~@fi'.
case;'p1us~af10%fsurchaggeffor«"giving
the~hdvenots~whose
'
'fistotair
é ,'4_ : .'¢-1%.."
:91ief¥ct¢- aééééé to céufi
must "ho~w1thoutHincurrin§V$hyt4iiébility uéiz
paying court fees. 'ThiE'cSn génorate"éourcée
tov an eitent_where tho conccpt of court fed
¢
95
Q
is fully vindicntafl bocnusv {hr {or must he
commcnsurntt with the service rcnJere6.
F;inciple of quid pr- quc which must inform
fee will thus be fully vinCic3t-d.
5.19. It would be appropriate to recall the
view .\.l1v.\<ly «'x[~xc£:s:ud in this C<ntL-XL vn an
earlier occasion. Law Commission recommended
re--structuring of courts at grassroot level.
The ccurt was to be a participatory model,
gbearing the name Gram Nyayalaya. Its
jurisdiction covered most of the disputes
arising in rural areas. The question of
.adequate fees on petitions coming before such
nyayalayas engaged the attention of the Law
Commission. while recommending a higher rate
of court fees for the corporate and elite
s ctor she aggrandiz the court tim: on non-
issues, the Commission felt that in respect
of proceedings before the Gram Nyayalaya,_ no
court fee should be lcvief as the court
service would be catering to the neefis of the
21
rural poor. In reaching this conclusion,
the Commission has cbservefi as unjer:-
"In fact, the elite and the corporate
sector, who use courts for a shadow
boxing in respect Of issues which are
unreal, heavy court fees should be
Cb
levies and it must be so high as to make
them pay the entire cost of the court
establishment. There is nothing new or
startling in this suggestion. Beginning
has already been made in California
(U.S-A.) in this behalf.".22
5.20. The higher judiciary is also
increasingly being usefi against the
Government with decisive effect in the form
of interim relief. Litigation is-initiated
only for snatching interim relief. The
effect of interim relief is to freeze an
issue until it is finally disposed of and
that may happen years later. This is
especially done in tax cases. A large number
of writs are fileo.or references are get made
questioning the correctness of the oriers of
tax authorities. If the matter is
entertained, a stay of further proceedings is
allcwei as a matter of course and the hearing
is held up for decades.23 There have been
several- cases where collection of public
revenue has been seriously jeopardised and
-butgets of Government and local authorities
affirmatively prejudiced to the point of
precariousness consequent upon interim orders
24
made by the courts. The Supreme Court,
97
the pr! Cf_'.<!'.,
25
'rpvv-rd! inc H153: pvwvtimw , has: not
whilr
hclpv'. in rrrriovinn tho .-.i9n.1t:ir'~n. 'l'hern
n_:;= mvmrrrust cnson inwhivhnt Hm [inn]
heaving ycnr.-1 after tho May is: grantnf, Hm
c<.~r1t:c\m.iv~n has been (run! to be either
ftlv-:]:~us: Or utterly Un.¢;ustaInnble and, in
fnr y<-.'~.r.v~. Hm tax rec::>very is
w!rhwnt.'1'ny f.nrJthr:~t 11ah'1.uty to
25 A
' fhc lass. ny the interim stay,
helrt up
make an
the Htinnnt' nvt ('r1ly.1v¢'l»!.-4 pwyimj Court
for-5: hy 1'nvr~kin0 thr wr i f. _)llri.'3'.]i('f {run
rtrnfr r rw I <1] the (" In t- v: hnr wins an
27
ur1"r.-'.r.rvr~" r<x<=pitc frrm rr~vr'v|m~ lnwsz. Tr
nvvi" zturh nIf.".Hr'.r\!*f I-«UH nvrvicr_.- in all
myrrh r"H*.r-'3 .'al.".«», .1 mrrthrv' r'hrul'7 ho «!<=vf.°.r:u!
to r>~Ilm~t~ hiqlmr r_1!~o of (hr-urt fees whir-h
musth
r-I Hr? mu,»-r. The Law Cvmmir*-.<={(>n is hhppy to
rrrcwll hcrn Hwv' n( z-riryfvnlify Clnimw!
for this' vim-I 1'nw..°.n1u<'h .1.-: it has thr-
v'1<3Vr1!H-".!1" "V """"PHn('J fhn. virxw ct.".Pr€ss:r3-I bY
tho finmrmnr» f'r'IH'f', nwmviy, that: the levy of
r'r'urf- f<W."- nhrnlr'. hnvr: -1 hrrmzl r(~Inri"v1.=':|fip
wit h 1-hm m-at Hf .-rlminintr.-s\Hon vf _*}u¢=l.icro,
that is, Hv'-r-A slwtllvf he .1 rulnticvnrzhip
Hun r:<r'_vin<:n h'rv?«=-re" mm' the Court
7:: ~'
]v'v1'rh!.' Thir: W1'? ".r>ciz.Trv' in A ('f'I.'?(?
In-twv «tn
f('.C.'7
'IR
in(:lw'r. r"~{ nectensity rmtwblinhmervt costs'
. .-..a-n .\-
whore the court fee was found to be excessive
but this very pvsition would no doubt hold
Pr'" Cenvorscly also that is, when the court
f<w levied is not prcperticnntei to the
svrvicts obtained.
5.2]. Svmc lessen can be learnt of advantage
Hrnwn fr<m 'a parallel. The parties' to a
JiRpULe instead vf apprvnching a court may
Chwpfiv it r«fur the Uisputo to an arbitrator
Ci1r'."'-('H by thcm. \r'hifr.'1t.(>r acquires
«f the parties.
.Turin"icti"n by cvnsent
ArhitrnI<r is thus a substitute for a court
functions of a Court
y
any w.nI flischnrqo
nhmely rcselutien cf disputes. Costs of
nrhitrnti.n is bzrne by the parties to the
cispute or a party whem the arbitratcr holds
respunsihle for costs.
Enwvers
5.22. It has been succinctly established
htrcinhefrrt that nflministrnticn cf justice
is J SLrViCC [WE the benefit of the consumers
Hf jnntic . Litinnnts are the ccnsumers of
justice whc, in form ef payment of court
fces, pay fer the service obtained from the
cpurt systcm. It is, htwever, a riddle
99
wrnppuU in enigma that the lawyers who make a
Hvinr) thrcugh ccurts '!e not contribute
.-\nyl.hinu ft-r the npk-cc-p nn.' maintenance of
cnuttn withvut which their prcfessiun wculd
lack innlificntian. -An analvqy may he nnuqht
frvm lhr cane r~{ r.z»|In'.- vinitinq c'.«.x<:fr.:r.=~'. whf'.
are nr! cmpfnyrrs «f the hrspital but they
give a certain [cc tr the huspital for using
hcfipital facility. Lawyers pay to the_ Bar
Ceuncll fcr their vnrnlmcnt 1nd ncthing to
thu cnnrt. ThrTflrCTC, it is time to deviée a
mcth<J hy which the lawyer should also
ccntrihutv a prupcrljrn of their income for
upkeep cf afiministratiun cf juétice apart
frcm the inc me-tax that they may cr may not
be' payi nu.
!!lJ£L§E _I'2111r.£c|"n_22.t.
5.23. Situations not infrequently arise
where the State ccllccts semc levy which is
subsequently declared by the court to be
ultra vircg. Levy at sales tax on certain
'items frequently ccmes for such treatment' at
the hands of the court. The State has
already ccllrctud the levy tc which
nnhnrqucntly it is shvwn tn ht not entitled.
Fairness and jH5tiCu demands that it must
100
refund the same. original payer is net
The State is hot entitled to
undét ihvalid
traceable.
retain the amount collected
levy. This preblem has confronted the court;
anfl the cvurts have selved this brcblom ih
diffctent ways.
Punjab Agricultural
Market
5.24. Section 23 of
Produce Markets Act enables the
Crmmittee tc levy :n gg vglgrgm basin fee on
agricultural produce bought er sold by a
licensee in a nctified mnrket'area.
transaction of
The fee
was raised from Rs.2 per
t~ Rs.3. This enhancement was
1»
Rs.l00
challenged (H the grcund that the raise i!
Q
not commensurate with the service rendered;
Bench of the Supreme Court
Rs.100
A Constitution
held that increase beyond Rs;2 per
lacked justification. The question which
then arose was: were the Market Committees
to retain excess 'amounts
or had it
to be permitted
which they had already recovered?
to be refunded to the traders notwithstanding
the fact that they had already passed on the
burden to next purchasers? .In ether words,
were the traders to he allowed to get a
refund from the Market committees and
unjustly enrich themselves as it was hot'
I
101
pnsnihlo ti (YJPu individual consumers who
hrr: flu-iwnrflon? §0(Tizv1 23A was introduced
in the Act pvrufi thing the fcumalready
rxroivod tn hp retained by Market Crmmittoos
wn! provontofl rrfnnd of the same to the
Ntnlcrs whv had wlrvnfly pnesod on this burden
to the cvnnnmrrn than nwt traceable, on the
Qrvun" that thv Mwrkvt Crmmitfoes, who wore
rc rvcvnrino the intwrcsts of Cnnsumers and
P
pnhlic, mfiy rrtnin iha nm<unL an? use it for
hwnLfi| of pnhlir frwm whom this was
('r 1l«~r~lr~'.. '|'li< r" n':I ii.lIfi(ll.'1] Val iflify f.-f.
nwrtirn 71A wwm vhwllonovfl. Thy Cunrt hold
ihwt F(*Wi'1) DIA prwvvnts uuijusf enrichment
by miwnn if r<fnnW I whirh tho pcrswn
('In imliin it' liwn nz nu'rnI cvr ecnlitrflplc
viHii'1(.~in<~nt. Ii' Gives U' the public thrrugh
Lh< Mwrkct Crmmittco what it has taken frcm
fhw public an' is fine to it. It does not
29 V
vnlidnrz an ilioawl levy. In ancthor
TU
cnnr , unpaid nrrumnlnticns, that is,
v1rf1nw's KHIC ti' tlui onu'1r;u:GS lnut twat clniined
by them frrm thr C mpnny were directed to be
trnnsfwrrof t< Lnh<ur welfare Fund for
utilizing rh: Qflmn fvr the welfare of Labour
in general.
5.25. In 1&1 such cases, the effort has been
102
)
ifhnt cvrn if nrmo rnvnvory is nhrwh to he
in§nli4, rrfnnd shrnld nvf ho rrdcfo4 ifl
fnvcur rf prrnzns whv hnvo nv mhtni of
cquiinifl¢~ rrviiilvmoni lw- rhn nnmo nfid who
wcnld Onjry nnjugt cnriohmont in the event
refund is trfivrvfl. In nnrh a situntién, {he
Lcqislnrnvn Novisvd nnfi fhn rrnrt affirmed
fivat nnr4v fvnv'c iv1cfrar?r~f iv*ind refinxdofi
wnrirhmonr ho nsvd for {he
the
giving unjust
boncfit «F porpiv clrsoly nrnnvctvfl with
activity crnvotncd. Rut, in n ccmpidk
s«cicty, rrhvr cnsvs may C"WO tu Sflffncc
where it is difficult tf frncn the cfigihni
payer nnfl nisv nrt p hsihlr tr use the éamd
fvr fhv bvnrfik cf tho Gfihernl Dnhiit fit
large ir1v~]\nv7 in n1iivw!:1niivity. in éhbh
cnsnn, insivnd «f upprrpriniinq iho mcney in
thc Sinio, if Pan hv ttnnnfoirod th d fflfld;
called 'Judivi1l Dcvnlnpmnnt Fund'. The
mrnoy trnnsFnrro4 to fhin Fund cculd he ufiod
f"r_ providing h rrer public Rervicefi ih Ehé
cwnrt wnfl fvr clrnnmlinind fhv wdmihiflttntioh
Pf crurrn. In wpprnnbhihd ihn finitéf ffbfi
this nnqio, tho Crmmissinn is guided by ihé
r'c~r!!3irir2lr.'xfimI iil'i' mrxfii r-1mm 'f the iiiiiliiiit
Onrivhmvni ntinn uni If rrurfi pkncbbdihdg.
Thvrvfvrw, whwf has hnvn W340 1VniinhiD by
Int
the court prccess must be utilised for
improving administration of justice.
5.26. To conclude, the haphazard manner in
which administration of courts is _conducted
has contributed its own mite to the problem.
The reetmmendaticn regarding streamlining of
staffing patterns, introduction cf management
experts and new technology will ensure that
courts will be able to carry out their
fnnctirns more efficiently. Its needs at a
particular time will be much more defined and
specific. This would reduce the present long
winding process of presenting inflated
estimates and subsequent bargaining and
wrangle. The introduction _ef 'Finance
Consultative Committee' would reduce
bureaucratic bottlenecks. The computation of
court fees and fines by realistic assessment
according to ctst of living index and the
utilisation of alternatives mentioned for
additional resources would help to ease the
financial constraints.
5.27. On an overall View, this report, read
with report on Manpower Planning in
25
Judiciary, would constitute a blueprint for
totally modernising the court system with its
l04
wwn nnlf--f!nnnrina wfrnnoomenlé.
R.?R. Wm rcrvmmnnd ncrwtdihdly.
(n.A. brunt)
rnnrnmnn
(v.9. RAMA DEVI)
Mnnnnn snchnrnnv
Nnw DELHI,
JUNE Vumm, Iunn.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
£HflEI§E E
Allen, quoted in Repcrt of the Labour Laws Rovigg
.4 1. ~
§§gg§ttooi_4 (covornmenfi of Cujafat; .
Art. 18, Universal Declaration ti Humafi fiiqbté
Apprcvcd by the Gufiérnl Assembly of EH6 Ufiitéd;
Nntirnn.
Lcr, 14th Report
§Qm1n1strntion{ p. 587.
>V ........._......._..
on Reform, pf . a_ua1%1a1
. ' 1
Ousted in H.T. Rubin, gbe ccurteL Fulérum cf tbé
l2§£i£2_§x§££m» 209-' \'
LCI, 120th Report on Hahpéwcf planning j,1n
Judiciary: A Blueprint. &
K
16., p. 1. '
16., p. 3.
LCI, 121st
Qppcintmonts.
Rcprrt on A New Forum fuf fJudlJia1
ch Mafipower Plahhinq E in
LCI, 120th Report
Judiciary: A Blueprint: n33' 1
I71sE Rcpoft on ATnewwEcrum_~£ot$¢dud1¢ia1
Aggulntments. . ' - '
106
10.
11.
12.
I3.
14.
§
'.._C. :-_._M.'€}_1_t.i',._. V '
H. Tor} Rubin, Tho Ccurts: Fulcrum of. tho Juétice
5Y$E?Wt xiii-
_IJ2L:3_ ~
Ouwtcd in 0.9. Mctiwnl, ¢hanging_Aspéct9'o£.Lau
gglgusgjce. 9.
33]., p. 10.
M. Cnpollcttl, Agggss to Justice, 6-7 (Beck 1).
Prdf. Vance ui Yale, as quoted in flgfl. ncagg; 0.
(1978) 3 scc s4I"at'§53.
.5 5:3 §_3.-<_;?._J1a "<:5a.s.*J t.r_:=.T.v
U. Rnxi, ._3_p_cl Judicial Intetvéntiéii
(Minnow) .
.Q2§£4Fv
LCI, 114th Ropcrt on qggm Nyayalaya.
£g., Chapter V1, p. 39, para 6.20.
£1 Rao N1] n ukat v. Dr; Maheéh Iflédhdv
7"TI'7§ §77"I" sec 757'.
hiya
('S7lV
U i 9I.'_'__'.3f_.I__'1_'.i..¢'3./
£;§;.,B1§§2n.9z§ma9. v- .wn19h o£_LnQmé; £1992) 2
SCC 2182
E;§;W_§gQ"_v. _Q;g. Hassan Uzzmahp etc.. (1§85l'4
SCC 699
Sadig All v. The Election Cbmmiésion cf Ihdibp
RTE 1§7§'§c 187.
Thc dispute between the AiADMK Jayalalltha dfid
Jannki Ctnup, The Indian Bxpfoss, May 11; 1988;
p.4.
107
(1967) 1 SCC 395;"
V ¥
15,
I6.
17.
18.
19.
-20.
21.
é. 9hvtr~ot,_jThe*LIm1§§_
_§¥v9d1t1vU8 4U€§1e°> ~
U": xta-ox
-~ CHAPTER J1 trrnfd.)
»t in p_é¢,1.t_1.9_!1.L1U§.E_l. .4 * u
E 35.
Unlwn of India; nth 1970 9c sea'
73 I
R.C.Ccupor v. _ _ ' _m
,KEé5§56nfiU5 fihdtfiij v- %§£é§g_9£M§9:a1é».¢19
scc 225 _ z._ .
,g.,c«{ak_uatnN v. bfitnhc 9; Punjab. t1987i;D gen
62 .., ,W-.
ggfiny Rno Sclndln v. Unicfi of ?HdlAt Hffl 1971 Q8
_ 0 . ~~~ - '. uA»»mwM...«_;..m_
LC', '79!!! RGr|F,'Y_" (H 'I"1|.'3_' C"0Uf£-" A
£99k, para 4.10, p. 57. W 'M"""m ~""""*M"--'
§gp£Q nuke 15;
.$tak2~9£_H;B::. "9'°' 5 95°
§ajqnQ;n'pynsad v.
636. [" W'
Le), 121:6 Rnbntt on A Nob Forum for Judicial
§pD°intm0nt9- """""*"'"*"""" '""*"'
ggggg ncte 15 at b. 36.
s
Inn
1.
2.
10.
11.
12.
.13.
14.
15.
16.
CHAPTER III
K.E. Gopihath, "Court Rooms', KLT, 61 (1978).
G.M, Lodha, former Chief Justice o£
Judiciary: Fumes, Flames and Fire, 105.
1g; at 322.'
See Appendfix IV, Q. 8.
'Report of-the §;gh£h Finange C¢mmission_1§84, 81.
:-
Sugra fiche 4, Q. 7;
'Memc}ahdum"submi£téd by the High Court of Uttar
Pradesh.'*
'SuQra.hote 5.
Jaswéht'Sifigh Commiséiofi} Repdrfi En ifié Néed for a"
Bench cf.A11ahabad High Court in western Region or
Uttér$Pradesh. ' '_ .5; ' 7
Supra note 4. Q. 6(ii). G
Sugra.h§td«6.
Sugra ncte.4,
Supra note 2, p.
Q'. 6(.iv-')..
105.
ReporfLcf'th
Seventh Finance Commission, 1978, p.
74' ' ~ I ~ 7
Sugra note 5.
Sugra nqte'4, Q. 9.
109
Rajasthan,'
»CHAPTER III (COntd-)
17.
18.
193
20.
" ~Ccmmiss1on's Questionnaire.
31.
22.
23.
'244
253
26.
27.
.;g,
?9O
30.
'Aéministrativc _ A_'
''Law Review, 989, 997 (1972).
118th Report on gethod of Appointment to
Subordinate Courts/subordinate Judiciaryr_and
116th Report on Formation of All India
Judicial Service.
LCI ,
Supra note 4, Q; 6(i).'
R. Dhavan,' The Supreme Court Under strain : The
Challenge of Arrearg. p. 81? '
received _in response
Information to the Law
supra note 5.
Supra ncte 4, 0. 6(1).
R. Dhavan, Litigaticn Explosion in India, p. 112.
teadetship
Quoted V by G; Galina, "Judicial
12 The
Excellence : A Research Prospectus",
Justice system Journal, 39, 43 (1987).
¢.L. Ga11, "§fficientpy Court 2 Kenagement',
Expeditions Justice, 107, 111-113.
"Architectural and Electronic
Improving Ccurt Hcuae
6~su£fo1k.University
E. Tennessey,
Innovations for
Efficiency,"
Ibid.
5;. at 998.
Ibid.
Id. at 999.
110
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
CHAPTER 5;; (ccntd.)
See generally P. Miller, C. Baar,
Judicial
Asministruticn in Canada, Chapter 10. -
C. Baar, "ihe Use of Active Case Plow Management
to Reduce Delay", 5 (Mfmec). '
Sugra ncte 4, Q. 6(iii).
Sugra note 31 at 236.
'Supra ngte 26 at 1001;
_I_(~]_o ] .810
111
\.CHAPTER g
10
2C
3.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17'
v
(1977) 4 SCC 193.
LCI, 120th ggnpccwer Planning in
Judiciary :
Rcprrt cn
A Blueprint.
fhe Ccnstitution cf India, article 112(3)(d).
l§., article 202(3)(J).
;g., article 146(3).
£§., article 229(3).
R. Dhavan, Litigation Explcsicn in India! 112.
AIR 1973 SC 1461;
AIR 1951 SC 458.
AIR 1965 SC 845.
U. Baxi, Justice. an; Judicial
Intervention-(Mimec).
LCI, 121st Repcrt cn A New Forum for Judicial
Appointments.
Sugra note 6.
_ §
State cf Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gcpalakrishnan
Murthy, (19765 2 SCC EFT.
H.L. Vijh v. UniCn_of India,
§EUT___ __ .
Id. at 394-395.
iLR (1983) 2 Delhi
Emplcyeés welfare Asscciaticn v.
Suorcme C;;.t
Union cf Incia and Another, (1983) 2 Scale 121.
S.P. Gupta v. Union cf India, (1981) Supp. SCC
87 at 915-916 per venEataram1afi, J.
Union cf India v. Tggnkalchand Himatlal. Sheth, 112
19. Shamsher Sin h v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 931 per Krisana Iyer. J. '
20. .Supra note 18 per Krishna iyer, J., at p. 255.
21. Supra note 19 per Krishna Iyer, J., at p. 886.
22. M.L} Jain, "soluticns regarding Court Dispcsals and Functicns", 71 AIR Journal 89 at 90 (1984).
23. gg. at 91.' ' '
24. Supra note 17.
25. 'LCi,' 121st 'Report on a New Forum for Judicial . Appuintments. ' '
26. LCI, 116th' Report on.FcrmatiQn o£ an All. India' Judicial service.
27. LCI, 117th _Report on Training, cs aJudicia1 Officers. -
CHAPTER 3 »
1. The Indian Mica and Mercantiie Industries Ltd. v; The State cf Bihar and Otfiers, AIR 1971 SC 1182.
2. Gevernment of Madras v. Zenith- Lamp. and. Electrical Ltd., AIR'1973 SC 724, '
3. Mdnicipal. Ccrporaticn cf belhi V; Mend. Yasin, (1983) 3 SCC 229 at 235. ' ' -
4. LCI, 120th Report .cn Manpcwer Planning in_ Judiciary : A Blueprint. ' so 6;. ;g-, Appendix 1(3),.
7. See Appendix V (1)
8. See Appendix V (ii).
~'y Chapter 1! (ccntd.) 113 \-
CHAPTER 3 (Cvntg)
9. .LC1, 14th Repcrt an Refprm Lf Judicial A;min}§;rati;n, £C4--503.
10. See Appenxix II. II. Sm" I'.pp;~I\':i\' III.
12. Repcrt cf the Committee of Law Ministers cn _RatiCnalisaEign Cf Ccurt Foes, Octéber 1987.
13. S.360, The Cede cf Criminal Prccedure, 1973.
14. LCI, 124th Rcptrt en The High Ccfirt Arrears -- A ':Fresh Lock, 41. - H .
15. LIC v.' _z~:sTc--.crts Ltc.1., (1936) 1 sec 264 16; at 274."
V17. -1513.
18. 1; at 349.
19. Sugra ngte 16 :f Chapter II.
20. Mark Gallantcr, Why the 'Haves' Came Cu? hhcad?:
Spcculaticn cn the Limits cf Legal Change: Law and
21.'TLCi,Ai14thVRep:tt ch Gram Nyayalaya,
22. para 6.15, p. 36. 23; LCI{ 115th Report cn Tax Ccurtsy p. 6..
24. Assisfént Ccllgptcr of Exéise; Chander Nagar, west ' _Ben al 'Va Dunlap Ingia LEfi., AIR 1985 SC 33v Ht A§3'3'.i '."
-25.-'Si1igu:i Municipality' v. Ahalcncu Das, (1984) 2 Sci,' 436: ' Titaghur- Paper _Mi1ls Cr. Lti.v v. State cf Orissa, (l§§3) 2 SCC C33; ' '-+----.___ Un;cn cf -Inflia 'v. Cswal Wccllen Mills. Ltfl., (1984)'2 SCC 646;
Amarnath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 218.
26. Lchia Machines Ltd. v. Unicn Cf Inflia, (1985) 2 SCC 197.
27. Su ra nrte.23, p. 66.
114L [CHAPTER 1 (CLntd.)
28. Gcvcrnment of Madras v. Zenith Lamp and
29.
30. Electrical Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 1924;
V3?T3U§_'HT§fi_Co»rts have_a1sc expressed the same view (see Lady Tanumati v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Afimedabad, 1. GLR 5 . Recently Bombay High Ceurt has held that prescription cf an upper limit cf court fees .£cr civil cases but ncne for probate and letters of administratien cases, where the service rendered is minimal and there_is far less strain upcn the rescurces cf the State in terms cf the time spent or persons engaged in the performance of the task, is viclative cf article 14 of the Ccnstituticn. The Court fixed the same upper limit fer probate cases till" the rules were revised accordingly. Jycti v. State, AIR 1988 Bom. 123. ' Amar Nath v.
State of Gujarat V. SC 1300. -
State of Punjab, AIR 1985 sc 218.
Shri Ambica Mills, AIR 1974 115 .2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Appendix I QUESTIONNAlRE The annual reports of Judicial administration for the last-five years."
what are the total annual receipts of the court during the last ten years on-account of s .
(a) Court fee:
F ines 0 what is the break up of the annual budget of the High courts and Courts subordinate to it in terms of the salary of the-judges,salary of the administrative staff, office expenses, etc. during the last ten years and the actual expenditure under various heads during the said peridd?
Do the presiding officers have any financial powers?m (1)
(ii) If no, through how many levels/channels the requisition has to pass to obtain the requisite sanction?» ¢ . -
If yes, to what_extent?4 what is the prescribed present staff strength in the High Courts and courts subordinate to it (Information may bej supplied separately~in respect of courts at each level).
To keep abreast with the increasing workload of.the courts:
(i) On what basis is the need for staff expansion considered? Is there any_scientific formula for determining the staff requirement at each level of the judiciary (officers,establishm2nt and ministerial).
(ii) Is any thought given to the need for the additienal accommodation for_the courts. Are the future needs 'and expansions kept in mind while submitting the proposals? '_
(iii)How are the court record maintained? Has any modern .
technology been introduced to aid and assist the staff?
(iv) what are the norms,if any,being adopted for the creation of a new court at a particular station?
Contd...
né
7.
8.
9.
10. _ 2 -
The Eighth Finance Commission had-recommended for providing additional court buildings,additional amenities for the present court buildings and additional quarters for presiding officers for upgradation of Judicial administration in various States. How far have these recommendations been implemented? ' what is the total number of subordinate courts in the State and how many such courts are functioning in rentotlbuildings?
How many High Court Judges and subordinxte Judicial officers have not been provided with residential accommodation? what is the percentage of such Judges/ subordinate Judicial Officers visaa--vis the total strength? » what are the financial powers of the Chief Justice?
(I7 Year n-....-snug.' 1977-78
-1978-79 1979-80 ' 1980-81 1981-82 1982~83 1983-88 1984--85 1985-86 1986~87
- .-'an-nu 1. -_a.. a.-4-.--..a.-.-neg».-8---.aa-.:;-<2 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 P@¥Xflié.PB£E§éfli f1 PFPr4(3\X
-Avéfége Ct.fees + fines expenses % of expenses ' covered by ct.
-mm1-m_m11_1 "-"dh_n fl%§;ti§Em.. 4,29,47,200 5,49,12,6OO 78.27 4,65,24,700 60,33,69,o0 77.10 5,32,64,600 70;,40,700 75.93 5,99,77,7o0 8,26,81,6OO 72.54 ' 6,56,03,800 9,84,31,7o0 66.64 _ 7,14,35,6OO l1,63,53,9OO 61.39 7,64,77,3o0 13,45,32,100 56.84 6,59,92,500 16,27,62,100 40.54 9,6o,26,6001 18,09,30,9OO 53.07 10,34,81,5OO 19,18,28,1OO 53.94 I. Average 63.6% §£EEfi£( 7,15,87,995 7.6o,94;956 94.07 '7.50,62.289 11,94,53,686 '"62.83 8,99,64,029. 12,23,36,944 73.50 8,62,1Q,979 11,61,85,58O 74.20 8,94,15,385 1,36,69;;701' 65.40 7,96,83,221 ' 14,22,84,846 56.00 11,30,90,790 }7,79,16,232 63.56 10,31,90,879 21,32,67,255 48.38 67.24% 1 E¥E¥¥#Ql.
Year Ct.fees+fin9s Expenses % Of PXPOHSOS covered by __- _ -1- -5 - . 9.1;---_f.9.e.:5-.-...-.. 1976-77 _ - -
1977-78 26,02,100 30,51,085 85.2 1978-79 33,04,800 27,33,037 120.9 1979-80 20,55,300 . 29,08,752 70.5 1980-81 31,00,000 33,27,473 . 93.16 1981-82 2,65,17,400 37,43,000 . 708.45 1982-83 3,43,54,500 43,50,550 787.00 1983-84 _ _ _ 1984-85 2,35,05,600' 72,54,597 325.3 1985-85 3,04,26,800 71,71,383 424,2 I Avefage 326.85% KEPALA 1979-80 2,09,57,914 '4,54,49,n09 46.!0 1980-81 2,37,n2,2on 5,13,37,727 45,54 1981-82 _ 2,65,89,890 5,78,92,095 46.10 1982-83 3,39,93,717 5,59,23,949 53.56 .1983-84 4,58,05,513 7,59,55,528 60.30 1984'85 4.68.09.5?0 8,49.55,517 55.09 "1 -*.7v;
50.79% AYFFJS?
H4 Y" xv r' 10!? ]..$¥_',' .l"F?f3-~?1f3 J.("_.'I\..R/1 19R4--R5 .l.'_'i7"»--.R(> 1QRG--R7 19 77--~7R .1978--7'~) .l97'.'--W.' 1900"?) Jon |..r * ;{v--'.;>4. .52 W, J."'¥?.'?- P/1 l_('R4-R.r> .I')f'..'\~-flfw JQH6~H7 ('pwvl :_.m_: 1} kg A _1 ':2 'I 2' fr 1 I«~t fivw"
],.
!\;-!}:',\r:
'1, '76, 1'}, mm 9, H, )1 (\?,Jfi,(Vx) nn,¢?,nno ~, 1 I , n"»,r'wr\n II)' '>x1,'7n,(\(~n lW,H!,4W,Un0 /'\\/M _;u_:r\ }'_l n1AJ_.A\_'z_ __ /~._un__ )1./\._H'r:/'Jl_/\_ .r, W, _1,4n,wn,yon j>,1y,.<w.,('«r.! (V1, 526' j>'\r'» p7'dH,rHfl ' ('H /xrv go,"
I 7 7
-3 .« , '7 vn,7n_1wn ()7, (V1, 74:1 'V
-s 00,96,667 q,4n,nn,o77 1' .1' is, .7' '3 ) nn,n~,v¢n n0,0n,ln6 fi7,o4,25S :>';~, 77, H7:
'1! \, 1.6, 765 1H,l7,"n4,4!n /\m 13:':-
f nxpnnqes r"~vr"7m1 by Ct. .1 "F" .9.
73 0 I / ?'7
37.lQ '1'» 110/ . 0 _/v
2.
3.
APPE.N,D..12,<._-.}_1.l ....-.o...
All the figures are in Crores. Figures for 1987-88 are "Latest Estimates." Figures for 1988-89 are " Estimates".
Source - Planning Commission.
:22' .l.0m)~.sz _l JWHJ~HQ ,l\Hl'-..::_I NW5!-R4 ,l<>R/1..n';\.
Jun5_na lQRfi~R7 JQU7~R8 l<){'.E',--.'39 1OR0~R1 108 .1.'-R 2 1032-03 lQ83~H4 J"R4m9fi JCHU~86 Jvu0~n7 JOR7~RR 198R~R9 LIZ /\l'Jl )| [H/\ I': ¢ADF.SH Jucnmn Expenses % of expenses '" ' ' ' " .0.0.\:¢.17.e.d...t91..i,r19.01n_q- I _!f)r3 8,62 .l8.09 I.uY JU.25 15.3 I, /1' .|.".()f> J/1,6 ' I,f»/1 J/1,04 11.6 I' 7.09 16.72 12.5 2.534 18.67 13.6 J.OO 19.83 9.58 2.34 27.37 8. 5 2.46 28.60 8.6 L,_E._Lntest Estimates. _E_---- E1'. Lirnates. gggpg lnnrmu~ F yvnxnos fiirwf 0x}nn1sos _covered by the _ -_ ..i...'.'.°.".'.".°. . ...._. 0,40 8.04 4.9 O, _l.() .l(7,0Fu 0.9 0.60 11.46 5.23 0,56 12.42 4.50 0,55 14,'? 3.7 (3.50 1.7.6') 2.8 0.49 20.26 2.4 ('.'7'° 70."? 2.3 0.50 2l.°7 2.2 I lC80~§l .1081--R2 l982«93 lQ93~R4 .l€7('/1--f'f» jHn5_QR Lohnpuy UWVLJ"1 Hnup:.w JQPQ_RR LOR3~04 l"Qfi<"m lfixshnfi _]n,'§r3,.-.<'-.7 lQU7-$H 1093-90 Income /}./ f§l-U./\I3z'}.T_ Expenses 6.06 6.76 8.09 10.16 11.80 13.46 l4.J9 %age of expenses covered by the ,i.r199.rm~=.-
23.26 2$.73 23.98 l8.~8 18.98 15.52 8.03 9.36 9.2 +l8.l8 . v-.-.-um-..-_.o.----u '
-.. .--_--- - vs. 19éo--81 19nJ-n2 1989-93 Jnnn-84 1084-85 1985-86 1n8rL4z7 1987-88 1989-89 1980-81 l§81-82 1932-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 Karnakaka lD9om9_ Expvnsga 0 .91} 7. 90 1.13 R.09 n;54 11.00 0.50 fl1.9G 0.59 14.R5 1.5. 1n.n1 3.97 13.97 4 . ()0 2.7? . (30 4.90» $5.7?
_KernL9.
[.78 5.96 .].o'1.(y' 1.54 ~ 7.29 2.20 8.39 3.56 9.59 1.67 12 .05 2.02 13.R4 0.99 14.41 1.03 15.27 1:? '1 %age of cxflgnsos covered 12.8 '12.6 4.90 4.19 3.9 9.25 20.92 17.10 l6.32 30.37 21.84 2].. 12 27.42 37.32 13.85 14.59 6.87 6.74 £1.-'.IriI_xs'.:1~P,1.'.<I.<19;;11.
%nge of expenses covered .u1_<:9¢_nc; 1.229952" .£:9.& px;1ncom9 ]'.'~RQ..R 1' 1. m 6.18 25 ,88 'yoszmurz 2.23 7.32 30.46 .1..0Rf3~..Q.'3 2.09 8.55 24.32 '1<;~r->.r1~.<2«v F2. :11 m . M 23.05 1f*.'M.--.R.'3 :1. :3 (1 10.90 20. 73 3.4,'! l5'.._l..'1 28,19 }<'.".,'3..R (3 25.46 1'.~.<'.r'_.0.'7 :x..';5."» T1..'1.<.M-- 1<.'t'~'/_s>..<>. -1.01. 1-1.5:: * 27.59 IUHHNHU 4.21 10.31 25.81 in! 1.ax.I'.:L='-1.1.9131. G5 . 8 7 1E'E?(\..F1 L '7 .'?"1 1.! .'ff3 lf\°'».i_-F'-P. Ll/.().'1 T3. 70 80.-51
15.'9 86.08 _l.E'R,?.--' 'I3 .1 .'3.'l.'~?
10.50 lR.fi3 56.36» ,1 '§'E?.'3--5"'1L l'.'{~'-1-5'-'.'3 (3.89 :2 L58 * 31.92 J.<.n"..'3-:»-". (1 .13. 30 9:3 .50 532. M I.<.'f7.('_."7 I-'1.<.~n .".$-'~.'7G 51.80 1€'87~Rf? M.-'70 (32.18 A 45.05 1_<_\.<:p._g2g 1.5;, :75 .'z';,55*. 453,56 .' (' ,\,7 Xn.'\;~ 1.05.10»-R 1 .195', 1.»-8 9 1982-83 ],'?8.'?-84.
ivsw/L-.<>..G l€'R.'§...Q G Jwz rL.R'g J€~R".LRR |§\f'.,"...F_2Q l_<_'.'~'.(,'----.'_*'- _L 1.98 .1.-R 2 ,l,EV'R ,'7,---R3 11.98 3...?/L 199/1-85 ].F'R.'3----8(§ ' .199 "~87
1."?-'\7-88 l€WM2,R9 J J ' __N J J\.."._ ('26 $1.80 4.1.2 /}..82 F .49 % of expanses covered ._._.. -,. L>.Y_.J.L1.£m1LQ.1._._......
9. 18
13. '70 12.59 16.19
4. '7'.-) 6.81
6.. 35 23.94
36. 65 LN 31
26..
Cd 2:'. .11 23.69 46.38 42438 41.98 42.42 x
-r 222;.
1980-8111 1981.-82 l982~88 1988.84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 l987~88 .
1988-89 _l980~8l 1981-82 l982~83 1983--8é 1984»35 1985»86 1986-87 1987-88 mw$9 __%A.lA.3.I.IiA_N.~..- 29.22199. E92992;
0.59 0.74 lsl6 0.93 l.2O 1839 1.44 1.54 1.62.
l_.98 2.27 4 2.58 2.27 8.04 ..T _A __M ..I _L ..N J» .J,3..U..
8.57 ' 8.76 8,92 4.31 4.76 556% 6.90 7.85 8.98 9597 l2-48 14.04
-.14. 74". 9 7.59 9.53 ll.O4 l2.66 Li.58 l7.l6 19.40 18.70 19.82 % of expenses covered 12599 lB.l2 16.81 ll.84 . 13336 'l3.94 11.53 M0596 '£0.99 9 26.08 23.81 2&91 3l98?
30.85 20.80 19.38 20.96 A 21.74 1331323123 Ifl$s 1 __E__s__n__ .. .__ X oI__' faxggnsefl covered Less- _ 111.9219. 5312:2222 - 3' income:
1980-81 _ 3:00 13.83 21169 l98L--82 3:105 15:30' 2o¢'2!6 198 2-83 3: 27 i9: :39 16. 8 6 1983-84 2. 63 22. 26 '1J..s81_ 1984-85 2;23 ' 25:55 8.72 1985-86 8176 281911 Homo 1986487 9:49 33:57 28; 26 g 1987-88 5.931". 43:66 13:60 1988-89 64 78 ' 45.84 'A 1 14. 79' .JJfiJ_&EEQ£k 1980-81 1.02 7.73 13.19 1981.82. 1.11 8.90 12.47..
1982-83 0.90 10.19 8.90 1983 -84_ 0.92 lO'.96 8.39 1984-85 6.87 11.79 7.37 1985-86 1.04 13.42 7.74. 1986-87 1.26 15.91 7.91 1987-88 A 1.28 17.51 7.31 "1988-89 L34 18.56 7.21 ;gnA S.No. High Court .££'_.:ND1X-IV, (TABULATION OF REPLIES SENT BY THE HIGH COURIS) Que stion No.4
1. Allahabad No. only the D.J. (1):
EU -- HC - Govt.
Govt. generally makes funds available to fmmsavflldfleto ' DOJC (:11) (iv?
2. Andhra Pradesh D.J. - P.A.b (i)'
(i)' Wooden & Steel ' flmmtwm -- '50
(ii) Ixaintenance (13-_)\_ & Repair -- 5000
(iii) Vehicle (1 v) Stationer y
(v)' Books & Periodi cal s other Offi cer 5 Power.
- 4000' (111 1* _ Full (ivy Furn1---ture- 100 under each kind 'Stationery "' in any court.
Que gtjgn NQ,6_ On the basis of workload. No scientific formula. Following staff for each new H.C. Judge. P.S., P.A. Bench Secretary, 2 L.D. Asstt. 2 routine grade Asstt., Jamadar, 2 Peons 2 daily labour.
Acute shortage of court rooms, residences etc. Cts functioning in improvised courts. Progress held up because of lack & funds.
Due to shortage of space Bastas and loose files lying on floor. No modern technology.
Vol. of work and availability of facilities like court building and residence of presiding officer for district headquarters, for creation of it at Tehsil -- Vol. c work, building for court and residence. Availability of lock up Malkhana etc. and Educational and other facilities for the children d'officers and staff, facility for Bar, library etc. Problem offransportation etc. $cientific formula. Subgect to uropo sal from D.J. if institution is heavy Govt. grants if funds available.
No Adequate thought given - Ye s. 7th Plan - 2 crores for subordinate courts. Proposal of 27.42 crores submitted to State No modern Technology. Workload Expected.
Munsif -- 500 main cases. S.J. ~ 300 main cases D'C. __ H. I).
+ Convenience of Litigants, Transport,Boarding Lodging + housing for court a staff.
Government.
"(I A, ""
a . r ~ Question No.76 Question No.4 . b _,.__................... (1))N°Hoi8ntif1c formula g ad, 3 am ay . L considered on the bags of workload.
(ii )) Yes - for the next 20-25 years.
(iii)? Records stored in steel almirahs -) treated pe-rioctically for pests.
No mo de rn te chnolo gy.
4_ Gguhati D. & S.J. AND C.J.M. (1)) A/C to workload.» exercise powers as per' ' Delegation of Financial (ii )'» Yes.
Power .Rules, 1960.
(iii)) No modern Technology.
' (iv)' On examination cfnumber of case s, demand from litigants and advocates a new Court is cneaated.
5- Gujarat (1)7 11/0 to workload YB 50
(iii) 9.8 per rules in High Court. Appellate side Rules, l960.
(iv) If the Sub-division gives rise to sufficient number of cases to fulfill the norms of its presiding officer, distance from' the HQ, transport ' facility - backwardness of the area, suitable bar and availability of accommodation for court and staff.
&vNe~ 43""?
itzszi n N Lg Q, Himachal Pradesh.
K ,J \
7. Jammu & Karhmir Presiding Officers of subordinate courts. ks 10 ~ 2000 on any one item of non--recurrin3 expense.
DJ -- Powers of controlling Officers in respect of TA/DA, Medical expenses qua the J.0. under them.
Matters requiring sanction of the head of the dept.ére referred to H.C. for CJ's sanction.
DJ - upto the limit of s. soo SJ - " " fl of m. 250 mmmr W " orm.un (1) On the basis of workload <11» (:11)
(iv) No. scientific formula. K Follow norms set by Punjab for staff strength. Though in most of sub. Courts the staff strength not a/c to norms.
Yes.
No modern Technology. Only photostat machines for giving copies of records to litigants.
No. specific norm - but distance to be travelled by litigant, no. of cases etc. are kept in mind. ' No uniform pattern & no scientific formula.
Generally, but not always.
Ct records maintained in part I, Bart II though not strictly fcllowed. N3 modern Technology.
a. Increas:
in litigation and pendency.
b. Creation is recommended at * Tehsil H.Q. where courts have not been established 50 fare' S .12. 317$
8 . Karnataka.
>11
3. Kerala <_3_u.es1:§,Qn 3'9, 6 (1)7 (ii )3 (.1411 (iv 1' Ci )5 (11)) 0.11:» ( a./c to vlorlc.'-.oa.d and staff pattern of Secrretariat, request for additional go sts only partly met by the fovt- IE0 scientific forntfla.
Records split in 'chree parts and kept steel alznirans- No modem tecnmlogy.
Average '.nst'...':::t:icn of cases in a 2;' more than a ceréain mnnber than a new court is recommended.
Eiznfif + JFSIC zourt - 150 stzits + 350 IPC 23.525 in a. 'l"a.lu.ka.-
\Ci*n'.l Judge Court -4G'orig:Lnal suits' and. LOO': Regular' Appeals.
_ a/c to workload after assessment by Organisation and Ivieizhod mpartment of the Govemxnent- Yes.-
A.s;$rru_.'LasofHig'::C'ourtc£ Ka::aJ.a.,19'73...
Na mgiem. "-.'>a;:':mc1o-gr.
_'c.1vy____Tt;___sur::.sn_ent_ ::::.mg:.L accnmdatzan. , c. mnveniezza of Public.
n . J-' '7- A State u"..€SulC:
;.- '2 , 4 .. f' : - " 4 - .-_ . - . _. . Diadhya Pradesh As per me :_:_.;r_:,ll «O (1) -.o .:c1e::w.."1: formula, 3€r1r:er.c;.' of =33, pcya'-Alaticn, local .-ee-cs no '..-. ;\.-. ~-_ ,-s __ .~.- :3':-.s:v";:':fll l...«:ed 3, sea, F1511 Court Rules. Bio :c-i-rn /"\ }.J-
<3 \»4 :1- ..
o :1, I A" __ . H".
T .'.<:.:'3 ::Ar_'I1d. CO...'_'1."_-olOr". ourts establi shed on Ton of basic facilities trsent of Judicial Of"ic-ers.
?.e~_:o*"
-v.
u .
-a
-
'u 50 C1' :3 [D 1 "\ J:
\-)) On the prescribed ya.rdsticl«: of method e.ri organisation State Cover;:':.er.':, decided on the strength. oi' staff for each level cf court.
'A(ii).7 Yes. But State %Vt. ielays the proposals . 43.310. of courts being held in :1s.keshii't arrangements funds are not given for creating additional cts offices, chambers etc. (iii )3 No' mo dern tec'n.*1olog:/. (,iv)' Pendency and yardsticks for disposal. Govt. meets the requiremerrt only. partially. Mail 3,279. State
--v\ 4 _.,. Raj asthan. I ' \ 1 , Que st;gn fig ,4 n-re currizzg m - P.A. Pmjab - upto 75. 2000(- on any one iuem. E:-_ryana. - '.;':.o ?3. 6000/- Eenior Sub Judge PL:n,jab - upto T3. LOCO/-, Earyana - 'zone :3. ?;COO/-- 9 X0 gowers '.-dth subordinate _o:2.'.':.ce:s arr'.-o feel ':1a:'.dicapped..
-3:113' 3.1' as heads of kpt. have oowers under Fizzancial Rules 5: Service Rule s. giue 21 IT 6.
Ii)) 3./c to '.-rorlzload, certain rules also.
Each. Sub. Judge Court ':0 Ltave 1 3c?'f'is*L:.. if files '75CO--'chan an Asstt. Ahlznad to be gven, Leave reserve Sterzogypiscs in 3. Sessions Division *" 20 _ _ ea ,o of total Jucicial Offlcers.
(ii) lies. The courts and its 3::.e:.i'3ies are built,a/o to norm :'.*_::ed '3 3122 Q, «-1 about .4;L~g.u.:
Ci...'-' 'J? 'Jo modern Technology.
s Ci)? fro scientific formula.
3./c to 1-rorizload only'. But State Zovt. not sanctioning the ':ec_1:i;:'.t 31:
to Ezeep pace ' 'sh 'Jeri-zload. 3i'~3u.=::;ic'"
7.i7en. Clerks who is tee. to "rlendle 2.60 files is ':1and.'Lin =- 2000-3000 3 ?"*,'vo r-
J-an--v50 A31'
6.':-
Cii)" '-fer'; Ltd. space. -'it some yzlaces the staff oi' the Court: sits in the court-
room for lack of space. Govt.» grants very limited amount as per P'.-I11. 0:13' :.d:2itional space is kept vacant for future need. Sovt. very slow in funds for expansion.-
(iii); As per rules. The ;'i3.es maintained with loose sheets 'Jmch can be removed added easily'. No modern Technology.
Civ)' New Court if cases at a perticulat ____"_ -_____oo\1r1':vu1ore than 700.. But this nom not fol18ve~<f'an.c£T 2000-3000' cases are pendin g at sum. 3 courts. 11¢ thought ;2;Lvan.ta it.
3.No. State 'us ri 2' Question 310,8 Que 5:192: :19 Q
1. Allahabad. 325 lacs granted till 1987- Total - 1406 :'LC. "' 1988. Works sanctioned in Regular Courts -9853 S T 0 85-86 are in progress., Imprevised " '--- 427 "" ' " 53% 86-87 partially in progress Collectorate and 87-88 not been started. Building -- - E Rented " -- I39.
2. Andhra Pradesh 590-IO lalchs granted till (1 )' 577. » Ci)' EIC-- About 65% 1988-89. To be used for not :_)ro'rj_d_ed 45 courts buildings (11) L01. courts in accomodation. 85 _- amenities in courts- 91 rented ':*--.zild- (1. 1, 3-0 58¢, 164 ---residential qrts- mgs 1 " " '° 1 -- court 'ouildmg complete __ ,7 5, V Excluding flgsgitaken up and 17 are in progress. " ' '° 8th l.F_ci'. another llaesidential quarter , Soo :~equi:ea., completed and 51 in progress. Amenities provided in 24 places' 5,; in progress in 30 places.
3. Bombay ' --- - (1) 3.0. 10.87% (11)? SJO'- 63%.
4. Gauhati - . (1)3 187 Ci)' 3.3. -20%
(ii) 5% in rented Cii)' SJO --- 50%, .. buildings.
5. Gujarat Alolarg. of about lsietlia-Jzs 4 (1)) 426 C1)? 11.0, 35% not een implemen so » .. ' far- (11)? 2.8;; (11 )' 53°' " °°% 6',H1m3,¢ha3_-- ~ ' - won: in progress. ~ Total. .-66 T . .. H.C.» -
P1'a-deSh~' Rented. builcflng .1 S.J'.O'.. .. 11$ 71'!
7. Iammu. and KaSm'ru
322.:-zzat aka.
9 . Kerala .
1.0. Madnva P:-adesh ll. Patna.
Cgg gtign 31; , 1 not been implemented so far.
it a. very preliminary stage of processing-
Some' work has been approved but not known whether in accordance with the recommendations. "
Award for 22 units of court building.) Nor}: on 14 in progress. Under amenities most taken up for execution.
Work in pmgre ss.
work in progress Q§;e:§§_'_lgg 29,3 <1)' 109
(ii) 3 (1).. 329 <11)' 4.9 (1)'-- 310 (iii $8 coLL:";s in V rented :Ld.'_ii:1g 25% .
1'otal - 759 Revenue Dept'. -30 Rented Courts -9..
es 7' 26 J0 '«rithout accommodation does zot give the total nu::1'Jer of the 3.705', 330 - £'S..L'5 3.70 39% 30-30 "
3.70 -- 25% 3030 "* 3.70 .. gag' Lfter i.mp].ementat:.'.on of award' of 81:11 Pinance Commission 42% Officers would. not get acoomnzo dation.
T?
S,,.g, State_ Qgestion Yb .2 Duestior'. 33.2. a Duegticn 3Io,9 12_ Punjgnb Ci)' Eunjab grant in aid not Punjab . - None made available so <1)' 213 (22 on , .
- ~ .'_4 re commenaation not zeputauon) S-O 1., implemented. 1.31 courts " ' "'°' . . .- ' " " ur"<' in rented He '7 "
(ii ), :.a:ya.na -- grant par'_t of (ii) -_3:.L{°¢;_n;"' W S:E3a;:°r:::,_9r?.g:Sed Dy (inforzagion ;':cm ID We ' J2"
-. ' be 4.. ' 'V 1 .' " n ' ., voddenfiu Works of Q], out 01 .2 divisions. Chandigarh lgeptts to be carried out ;Yal',]ana SJO - 1.0%. in Rh 3'ive year Plan- "
(i)' '.'73 (l2_on \ zeputauon)
(ii) 2.2 couz"-.:s in rented buildings (1110 from L2. out of :2 s:ons.)'
313. Rajasthm "fetal. -- 438 '-' "
fur1cticni11.g in very '.' 4 ,,; badly maintained S""°' -L"
builziings and in Panchayat buildings. Rented -10.
.,....
I .">IZ'"
A--m..r¢an12oe"§"fi'§§'-§%§3"(',11"'" _ 2-:r.ew;gnT1..Nr. _ or .3-E§.E.1.P3:§..A.§'.D_;.'§.5:~P£\*1Y2!.1'}3i§; . 'S J h L ,1! ' ' " ' ' " ' " " " ' " " 7 L." I' " " " 7 ' " Eur} Sareemaa (M in inkhs) M H iakhaa ggggglggy 'V __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -..___.J.1a£t|§d 1 .aMN%-....-,.,._AwM_~ 1---..- 4 - ~, » » u
1. Andhrn Pradosh 53790 101 0:13
2. Assam ' F3966 213 '4 2!,' '- 3-. Bzlhar 302% 543 2|'? _. '
4. Gujarat 59777 \ 669 1:15 2 Si Haryana 27091 214 _«
3. Hlmachal F"rnr1c.i=h 3587 125
7. Jammu 5. Kashmir 4995 1255 2530
8. karnataka 50797 914 'J;
9. Kcrala 35534 606 1:88. 10; Madhya Prndrzsh 307'". 6/14
11. Maharashtra 1257n9 133§ 1:66 '
12. Manipur 15 ?6 134 Mcqhalaya JR6
14. Maqn15na , 436 36 9:59
15. Oriana 14771 326 _'2|26
16. Punjab 37601 '$45 6:91 17¢ Rajardthah 27005 531' M: Z ,-,
19. Sikkim 295 14 'rlivfii 3 - 19; Tamil Hadu 52943 558 '1i§§""
20¢ Tripura 362 '70
21. Uttar Pradesh 52I3f16' 1413 5553
22. west Bengal 51274 869 'iuC§.
23. & Nicobar 43 -6 \ -'
24. Arunnchal Pr.-vdrzsh .12 1-' '3'! .
25. Chrmdiqarh ZHS 144 V rianédm
- us'
26.
27. 28,
29.
30.
31. Dndrn & Nnqnr Hnvwli I)c:l}\i Gon,Dnmnn & Din LI1k.';}'lndvJ(*_r vp Minornm Pnndifihurry .......---.o_.._ 12 28390 1980 N.I\.
1740----_,..._.-..
NQAC 26
----__~_ ._.........- .-, §gg¢ndix V{115 _ snnrnecr]ann.nq Comm as an F1qHfeh~10fi1~Q2 S".'A'['EM3N'1' or _I2EC!-'.I«I_"I'§ A1y)__;a;y_.13_1v,_t1g11'u1E = "*"'""'"'""' ' """ mfiignfiikurd bercénhaqé 'H sk,hn §E7E5 fax S O W fr1("(,"'[\",f3 Oh fv?(Hr'.4{H.'}' 6f 5 t9n1~fl? Ton --u2 eaae pkg (m in inknn) Nu jakhs 383MB an _ iaiary _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ -- -- -- _ -- --- J L} L- -- a-- - '
1. Andhrn Pradwnh 617nm 102% ilgg
2. Aggnm 1706!': ?7.7.
3. Bihnr aornn inns 5:31
4. Cujrnk fin??? 676 131g 5, Hnrynnn 77001 250 Oaéé
6. Himnrhnl Prndwnh 1"67 111 5139 7, Jnmmu K: $<.1sl1rMr /W95
9. Knrnaknkn 90787 902 ' 1:75 o. Knrnln 16634 651 1a7$ 1o.Mnnhya Pvhdnsh 3n772 732 1:64
11.Maharashtra 125709 1370 1356 1?.Man1pur , _ 1: 29 193335
13.Mnghn1aya 495 17 gldd 1n.naaa1nna 415 25 8:71 1S.Orissn 14771 fiflfi 934$
16.Punjah ~ avsox . 412 1.0a 1'7.Rnjn.=thr1r1 7.70"? 564 Q15"
10.Sikkim zés 17 5:26'
19.'l,'nnH.1 Mark! F»?! 43 943 15-0
20.Trip1tr 362 . '72 iglégf
21."ttnr rddnsh 62696 1530 2344;
22.x-Jnsh Rrmn.-11. @1774' 990 1513}
23.Anflnman & Nicobar ialnnds 43 ?4.ArunnchnY Pradonh 3? -- 4 2'3.Ch-'H1(1iCmrh 7.14'? --- -
26.Dadrn & Hnunr Hnvoli 1? ~ -
27.Dn1h1 28100 - --
2R,0oa,Damnn L Din 1990 » - ~ ?9.I;:rk:'.hadwc2r>p 2 --- - 30;M1zoram- u.A.' -- 2 31;Pondichevry 1740 -- fl (lpv I Agggpdix Vgiii) Source! Informatlbfi supplied by States.
sTATEg§pg_oF nEg§;gTs AND EXPENDITUIE _ "_ L __ ...--...-no ....._....-..--
S.No state state tax Expenditure" fierééfikégé receipts on judiciéry bf tafi 1981~82 (19a1~82) redeifits (m in lakhs) in lnkhs SHONE h judici y
1. Anflhrn Pradhsh 63280 994 1455
7. Assam R966 37a43 ' D341
7. Hihar 30286
4. Cujrnh 58777
5. Hdrynnn 2709] 6, Ilimnrflxnl l'rnrh*nh 3567 7, Jnmmn & Kashmir 4995 R. Knrnntnkn 50797
9. Kornln 36634 579 1.58
10. Mndhya Pradosh 38772 776 2.00
11. Maharashtra 1251002 1162 0.92 12; Manipur 15
13. Mcghalaya 486
14. Naqnlnnd 436
15. Orissa 14771
16. Punjnb+Harynna 27091 + 37591 537 0:82 -
~ (+na'ry'ah )
17. Rajnnthan 27095
18. Sikkim 285
19. Tamfil Nadu 62483
20. Tripura 362
21. Uttar Pradosh 62686
22. West Bengal 51274
223. l\nvJ:nnan F: N.'l(30h.1I.' 43 Islands
24. Arunnchnl Prndnsh 32
25. Chnndianrh 2145
26. Dndrn & Hagar Havnli 12
27. Wfllhi 20390
28. Gna,Damnn&D1u 1900
29. Iaa}<{:}1€1dvJv?0p 2
30. Mizornm N.A.
31. Pondichorry 1740 . -...¢._.'...-....
UH
-.._....-..-._. ....-....._........_._._..._ ...........