BRIJ MOHAN LALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                            BRIJ MOHAN LAL                                    A
                                     v.
                       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                            MARCH 31, 2005

                  [S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]                          B

      Administration of Justice :

        Fast Track Courts Scheme-Recommended by XI Finance Commission-
 Continuation of-Joint conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices C
 resolving that scheme be continuedfor a period of 5 years beyond 3 I. 3. 2005-
 Held, all accused are entitled to speedy justice in terms of Article 2 I of the
 Constitution-Speedy justice is an obligation of the State-Administration of
justice is a State subject-Maintenance of Fast Track Courts has to be looked
 after by the States-They cannot disown their responsibility ofproviding speedy D
justice by pleading financial crunch-At the same time Union ofIndia and the
States are expected to treat this as a joint-venture, particularly in providing
funds to the States-Since the Court has repeatedly been assured that the
scheme would continue, Union of India is directed to continue the Scheme for
a period of one month pending hearing and disposal of the writ petition-The E
 unspent amount lying with the Central Government would not lapse on
 31.3.2005-Meanwhile Union of India and the States would furnish the
 information as mentioned in the order-Constitution of India-Article 21-
 Fast Track Courts-Continuation of

     All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ,       F
(2002) 4 sec 247, relied on.

       CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Case
(C) No. 22 of 200 l.

                                    WITH                                      G
     T.C. (C) No. 23/2001, S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7870, 10645/2001 and W.P. (C)
No. 140 of 2005.

      G.E. Vahanwati, Solicitor General, A. Sharan, Additional, Solicitor
                                    103
                                                                              H
    104                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A General, Rajiv Dutta, Chander Shekhar Ashri, S. Ravi Shankar, R.Yamunah
    Nachiar, Ms. Sunita Sharma, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, P.
    Parmeswaran, P.S. Narasimha, Ananga Bhattacharya, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit
    Singh , Ashok Bhan, Ms. Sunita. Sharma, Ms. Anil Katiyar, Tara Chandra
    Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Tarun Sharma, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Shomila
B   Bakshi, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mrs. Sadhna Sandhu, Ashok K. Srivastava
    Saurabh Trivedi, Janaranjan Das, Swetakeatu Mishra, Ms. Moushumi Gahlot,
    Ms. Smrutirekha Mohant)i, Amit Pawan, Amit Kumar, Subramonium Prasad,
    Gopalakrishnan, Abhay Kumar, Rahul Jay Kishor Singh, Kh. Nobin Singh,
    V.G. Pragasam, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, R.K. Rathore, Addi. Advocate
    General for State of Punjab, A.K. Sinha, Manjit Singh, Radha Shyam Jena,
C   Dileep Tandon, Rani P. Mehrotra, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Addi. Advocte
    general, for State of Uttranchal, K.K. Srivastava, S.K. Agnihotari, Rohit K..
    Singh, Amit Mishra, Ms. Suprana Srivastava, Ms. Deepti Singh, Rajesh
    Srivastava, Ms. A. Subhashini, Aruneshwar Gupta, Addi. Advocate General
    for State of Rajasthan, Naveen Kumar, Ms. Shivangi, U. Hazaika, Satya
D   Mitra, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Krishana Sarma, V.K. Sidharthan, Atul
    Kumar, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Ramesh Babu M.R., B.B. Singh,
    Ashok Mathur, Ranjan Mukherjee, Altaf H. Naiyak, AG, for J&K Anis
    Suhrawardy, Ms. Shamamma Anis, Sanjay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra, A.
    Rohen Singh, Anil Srivastava, Mrs. D. Bharthi Reddy, B. Vikas, Ms. Sneha
    Bhaskaran, K. Ram Kumar, B. Sridhar, J.S. Attri, Addi. Advocate General
E   for State of H.P., Ms. Supama Srivastava, Rahul Srivastava, Rajesh Srivastava,
    Ms. Deepti Singh, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Prashant Bhushan, V.N. Raghpathy,
    Javed Mahmud Rao, Annam, D.N. Rao, T.V. Ratnam B.S. Banthia, Mrs.
    V.D. Khanna, Raj Kumar Mehta, M.N. Sharma, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, J.P.
    Dhanda and Mukesh K. Giri, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.
F         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          The Fast Track Courts Scheme was recommended by the Xlth Finance
    Commission for setting up 1734 Courts to dispose of long pending cases,
    particularly on the criminal side in the subordinate judiciary. In that regard,
G   Rs. 502.90 crores was allocated. The allocations recommended by the Xlth
    Finance Commission covered the period 2000-01 to 2004-05.

          By affidavit dated 8th July, 2004 filed on behalf of Union of India, this
    Court was informed that the matter of continuation of the above Scheme
    beyond five years has been taken up with Xllth Finance Commission. By the
H   said affidavit, this Court was further informed that the Law Ministry had
                          BRIJ MOHAN LAL v. U.0.1.                             105
written a letter on 17.4.2003 to the Chairperson of the Xllth Finance                  A
Commission to favourably consider the proposals for the upgradation of
judicial infrastructure including continuation of Fast Track Courts Scheme
and also for creation of another 1500 Fast Track Courts of Magistrates for
dealing with non-sessions cases and other criminal matters.

      A further affidavit was filed on behalf of Union of India on 13. l 0.2004        B
by which this Court was further informed that in the joint conference held at
Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi on 18.9.2004, attended by Chief Ministers and
Chief Justices, it was resolved that Fast Track Courts Scheme be continued
for a period of five years beyond 3 l.3.2005 and that Fast Track Magistrate
Courts on similar lines be established.                                                C
      The period of five years in terms of the said Scheme comes to an end
on 3 l.3.2005. Till 28.3.2005, when the matter came before us, there was no
indication as to whether the Fast Track Courts Scheme would continue beyond
31.3.2005. In the circumstances, we called upon the learned Solicitor General
to look into the matter and inform the Court by 30.3.2005 as to whether the            D
said Scheme would continue beyond 31.3.2005.

      The learned Solicitor General stated before us that although the. Union
of India was keen to continue the Scheme, no financial sanction has been
accorded by the Xllth Finance Commission. The learned Solicitor General of
India, however, stated that out of the sanctioned allocation of Rs. 502.90             E
crores, till date the amount disbursed is Rs. 420.03 crores leaving an unspent
amount of Rs. 82.87 crores, lying with the Central Government.

       All accused are entitled to speedy justice in terms of Article 21 of the
 Constitution of India. The question has been raised as to whether the State
can deny its obligation to set up such number of courts as are necessary for           F
fulfilling its constitutional obligation on the ground of financial constraints or
otherwise. In this connection, it is relevant to note that in terms of the Annual
Report of the Ministry of Law for the year 2003-04, the total number of
pending cases runs into the figure of 2.27 crores (approximately). Further, in
the year 2000, the Xlth Finance Commission had allocated Rs. 502.90 crores             G
under Article 275 of the Constitution to set up 1734 courts. The allocation
stipulated titne bound utilization. Suffice it to state at this stage that the funds
have been utilized effectively. We have examined the statistics and the status
reports submitted by the States which indicate· success of the Scheme and
time bound utilization of funds. Therefore, the question which arises for
determination before us is of importance. Is it open to the State not to fulfill       H
     106                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      (2005) 3 S.C.R.

 A its obligation with regard to speedy justice on the basis of financial crunch,
     particularly when the judge- population ratio of 10.5 judges per 10 lakh
     people in India is the root cause for huge backlog of undecided cases.

            In the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Uniori of India
     and Ors. , reported in [2002] .4 SCC 247, this Court has held that an
 B   independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structures· of oiir
     Constitution and if sufficient number of judges are not appointed, justice
     would not be available to the people, thereby undermining the basic structure.
     In the s.aid judgment, it has been observed that the expense on adm~nistration
     of justice in the States is incurred by the respective States. It is for the States
 C   to approach the Finance Commission or Union of India for more allocation
     of funds. In the conference held on 18.9.2004, the States have agreed to
     continue the Scheme for a further period ·or five years beyond 31.3.2005.

           As can be seen from the above facts, this Court has been repeatedly
     assured that the said Scheme will continue beyond 31.3.2005. The said Scheme
 D   has two components, namely, financial and infrastructural. Having introduced
     the Scheme under which Fast Track Courts have become operational, the
     Scheme should not be disbanded all of a sudden. Judges have been appointed
     at Fast Track Courts from three sources, viz., by way of promotion, direct
     appointment from advocates and retired District Judges. If the entire Scheme
 E   has to be disbanded now, a chaos will be created inasmuch as not only
     services of several officers who had been promoted on an adhoc basis will
     have to be reverted to their. substantive post. Similarly, if corresponding
     promotion had been given to others, it will be necessary also to pass ordets.
     of reversion in such cases. Thousands of cases are pending adjudication
     before Fast Track Courts and some of them might have been heard in part.
F    Witnesses in many cases might have been summoned. The State Governments
     have also appointed Special Public Prosecutors. The requirements to continue
     the Scheme, furthermore, may vary from State to State. In some States, there
     may not be many session cases pending requiring continuation of the Scheme,
     as earlier proposed. In some States, the requirement may not be of such
 G   magnitude to appoint the number of officers specified in the earlier Scheme.
     All these qwestions must be worked out and the views of the respective State
     Governments should also be ascertained.

           As stated above, speedy justice is an obligation of the State. As held in
     the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. , (supra), administration
.H   of justice is a State subject. Therefore, maintenance of Fast Track Courts has
                               BRIJ MOHAN LAL v. U.O.l.                           107

      to be looked after by the States. They cannot disown their responsibility of       A
      providing speedy justice by pleading financial crunch. At the same time, we
      expect Union of India and the States to treat this venture as a joint-venture,
      particularly in providing funds to the States.

            We expected the Scheme to continue beyond 31.3.2005 as we were
      repeatedly assured that the Scheme would continue. We cannot allow the             B
      Scheme to be disbanded suddenly. We, therefore, direct Union of India to
      continue the said Scheme for a period of one month pending hearing and
      final disposal of Writ Petition (C) No. 140 of 2005 and other cases. For the
      said purpose, we direct that the said unspent amount of Rs. 82.87 crores lying
      with the Central Government will not lapse on 31.3.2005 and the disbursement       C
      under the said Fast Track Courts Scheme (including the sal_ary payable to the
      Judges and other staff) shall continue as in the past in accordance with the
      terms and conditions of the said Scheme. This order shall, however, be subject
      to any other or further orders which may be passed and subject to orders for
      adjustment of necessary fund by and between the Union of India and the
      concerned States. In the meantime, we would also like to know from Union           D
      of India the current monthly expenditure/costs State-wise in respect of the
      administration of the Scheme as we are informed that the establishment costs
      now stands considerably reduced, particularly on and from 1.4.2005. We
      would also like to know simultaneously from the respective States and
      respective High Courts to whom notices have been ordered to be issued, as          E
      to their estimate of expenditure/costs for administering the Scheme after
      1.4.2005. Lastly, we would also like to know from Union of India whether
      any portion of Plan-expenditure of Rs .. 1, 72,500 crores for 2005-06 (including
      Rs. 26000 crores under the new pattern of financing the States as recommended
      by Xllth Finance Commission) has been allocated for upgradation of judicial
      infrastructure as was done by the Xlth Finance Commission in its report.           F
           Office is directed to forward copy of this order to the Registrar Generals
      of concerned High Courts for compliance.

             List the matters on 29th April, 2005.
                                                                                         G
      R.P.                               Directed to be listed on 29th April, 2005. ·
---