Case Note & Summary
This public interest litigation was instituted by a chartered accountant, Vihar Durve, raising concerns about the infrastructure of the judiciary in the State of Maharashtra. The petition sought directions for establishing an additional 867 courts, 20 fast-track courts for senior citizens, differently abled persons, and marginalized sections, 48 special courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, additional family courts in Mumbai, Pune, and Nagpur, and courts of District Judges and Senior Civil Judges at specified taluka places, including a District and Sessions Court for the newly created Nandurbar revenue district. It also challenged the applicability of the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (DCPS) to judicial officers appointed on or after 1 November 2005. The pension issue was earlier decided by the Court on 11 August 2017, holding that judicial officers appointed after 31 October 2005 are governed by the old pension scheme; the Supreme Court upheld this view and retransferred the remaining issues to the High Court with a rider not to deal with matters referred to the Justice Venkatarama Reddy Commission. During the final hearing, the main legal issue that emerged was which authority—the High Court Administration or the State Government—has the final say in determining the required number of judicial officers and additional courts. The State Government, through the Government Pleader, contended that its views would prevail, a stand it refused to reconsider despite the Court's opportunity. Affidavits on record revealed that the High Court had forwarded proposals for the new courts and posts years earlier, but the State Government delayed approvals by raising repeated queries and failing to provide budgetary support. For instance, even after establishing a new revenue district at Nandurbar, the government raised hurdles for a corresponding judicial district. The High Court noted the dilatory and obstructive approach of the State Government, particularly in creating necessary judicial infrastructure. The Court examined the legal position regarding the primacy of the High Court in matters of judicial administration and the obligation of the State to implement the High Court's recommendations. Although the available excerpt of the oral judgment ends prematurely and does not contain the final operative directions, the discussion makes clear that the Court was prepared to assert the binding nature of the High Court's views on judicial strength and to direct time-bound implementation of pending proposals. The pension issue, having been finally decided, was not reopened.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Separation of Powers - Judicial Administration - Constitution of India, 1950 - The Court considered the issue of which authority has the final say in determining the strength of judicial officers and courts; this arose as the State Government insisted that its views would prevail, contrary to the High Court's proposals (Paras 6, 10). B) Judicial Infrastructure - Delay in Court Establishment - State Government's Obligation - Various Acts and Finance Commission Grants - Despite repeated proposals by the High Court for new courts and posts, the State Government delayed decisions by raising numerous queries and failing to provide budgetary support - The Court noted the dilatory approach, especially regarding the creation of a District and Sessions Court for the newly established Nandurbar revenue district (Paras 7-12). C) Service Law - Pension Benefits for Judicial Officers - Old Pension Scheme vs. Defined Contributory Pension Scheme - Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 - By an earlier judgment dated 11 August 2017, the Court held that judicial officers appointed after 31 October 2005 are entitled to the old pension scheme and not the DCPS; this decision attained finality upon disposal of the State's SLP by the Supreme Court on 27 March 2018, and the issue was not reheard in the present PIL (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Which authority is empowered in law to decide the number of judicial officers and additional courts required in the State, and whether the views of the High Court Administration have primacy over the State Government's views.
Law Points
- Judicial officers appointed after 31 October 2005 are governed by the old pension scheme and not the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme
- High Court Administration's views on the required number of judicial officers and additional courts have primacy
- and the State Government is bound to follow them.
