The Supreme Court on Friday said that Central and State governments must begin earmarking a minimum share of their budgets for the judiciary [State of Punjab & ors. vs. District Bar Association Malerkotla].

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while deprecating the State of Punjab for failing to create basic court infrastructure despite repeated directions from the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Court also pointed to possible misallocation of Central funds meant for the judiciary by State officials.

“If we order an enquiry, we will find out that they have already consumed the central grant for other purposes,” Justice Kant said.

The Court was hearing a petition by the State of Punjab challenging orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a public interest litigation on judicial infrastructure and transit accommodation for judicial officers in Malerkotla district.

The High Court had earlier recorded that Malerkotla was declared a revenue district in June 2021 and a separate sessions division was approved in August 2023, but the State had not created permanent courtrooms or residences for the District and Sessions Judge and other judges.

On August 22, it directed the State to issue fresh administrative and financial approval for two additional courtrooms in the existing complex and asked the High Court’s Building Committee to examine whether the Deputy Commissioner’s guest house and other buildings occupied by executive officers could be used for judges.

Finding little progress, the High Court on September 12 passed a stronger order.

It flagged repeated delays despite the Building Committee’s resolution and directed that the guest house presently occupied by the Deputy Commissioner and another house occupied by the Senior Superintendent of Police be vacated and allotted to the District and Sessions Judge as residence and, if possible, as courtroom space.

When the State sought recall of that order, the High Court observed that the review application “bordered on contempt” and summoned the Secretary (Justice) to explain.

It was in this backdrop that the Punjab government moved the Supreme Court.

Appearing for the State, the Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi submitted that the State has acted on the PIL and created posts and facilities for Malerkotla judges.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, also appearing for Punjab, argued that the High Court’s criticism of the State was unjustified.
He suggested that the PIL was limited to establishment of court at Malerkotla and that the State had already provided flats and other facilities elsewhere.

Justice Kant, however, disagreed with that characterisation.

After noting that the State had not shown any completed court complex projects, he backed the High Court’s assessment.

"You don’t know what is happening in the State of Punjab. They don’t even allocate a site. They have enough money to spend on so many other things. If we order an enquiry, they will realise it,” Justice Kant said.

The Bench also questioned the State’s priorities in creating new districts without first planning for judicial infrastructure.

Referring to Malerkotla’s elevation as a revenue district, Justice Kant pointed out that the State had not ensured basic facilities for courts and judges.

He asked why the State could quickly provide accommodation for other officers but not for the judiciary.

“First of all why did they declare a revenue district. Only for political appeasement. When they knew infrastructure was not created. In any case you say you require house for SP, but you don’t require a house for Sessions Judge?” Justice Kant said.

Justice Bagchi drew attention to a larger structural issue - poor budgetary support for the justice system.

He pointed out that court infrastructure often depends on centrally sponsored schemes and that State contributions are either delayed or diverted.

He then suggested that a more systematic budgetary commitment may be needed.

“Time has perhaps come for prescription of a minimum allocation in State and Central budgets for judiciary. It’s not even 1% of the GDP,” Justice Bagchi said.

In response, Singhvi sought time to consult the State leadership and requested permission to withdraw the petition and approach the High Court instead.

He assured the Court that the State would place a detailed status report and explanation before the High Court and seek suitable modification or extension of time.

The Supreme Court agreed to that course.

The Bench allowed the petition to be withdrawn with liberty to move the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It also took note of the impending compliance deadline fixed by the High Court’s September 12 order.

It then issued a limited direction to ensure that the State is not shut out on technical grounds when it seeks time.