‘Judicial infra a constitutional duty not favour’, Rajasthan High Court rebukes state

The Rajasthan High Court was hearing suo motu proceedings concerning the poor structural condition of its principal seat in Jodhpur, including the 21-metre-high central dome.

Reminding the state that judicial infrastructure is not a matter of government favour, the Rajasthan High Court has said that the judiciary “cannot be treated merely as an ordinary Government Department” when it comes to infrastructure and administrative facilities. The administration of justice is an “essential sovereign and constitutional function of the State” and adequate infrastructure is necessary for courts to discharge that function, it added.

Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur were hearing suo motu proceedings concerning the structural condition of the high court’s principal seat in Jodhpur, including its ‘Central Dome’, which is approximately 21 metres high. The court had first taken cognisance of the building’s condition on August 10 and heard the matter again on August 24. The matter will be heard next on October 5.

“It is necessary to remind the Government that the judiciary is one of the three essential pillars of our constitutional democracy and cannot be treated merely as an ordinary Government Department for the purpose of providing infrastructure and other administrative facilities. The administration of justice is an essential sovereign and constitutional function of the State,” the bench said.

“Adequate judicial infrastructure, therefore, is not a matter of executive discretion, administrative largesse, or governmental favour; rather, it is an institutional necessity flowing from the constitutional obligation to ensure effective access to justice and meaningful protection of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 (protection of life and liberty) of the Constitution,” it added.

Financial constraints can’t mean inadequate facilities

The observations came as the bench considered the state’s response to concerns about the high court building and the steps being taken to rehabilitate it.

Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said the ‘dignity and effectiveness’ of the judiciary required proper infrastructural and administrative resources.

The court referred to the Supreme Court’s repeated emphasis, particularly in proceedings concerning the All India Judges’ Association, on the need for adequate infrastructure, proper working conditions, residential facilities, courtrooms, staff and other administrative resources for the effective functioning of the judiciary.

“Financial considerations, while relevant to public administration, cannot be used as a justification for perpetually denying or inadequately providing the basic facilities necessary for the proper discharge of judicial functions and for ensuring access to justice,” the bench said.

The high court said judicial infrastructure should not be viewed simply as government expenditure provided to the judiciary at the executive’s discretion. “Judicial infrastructure must, therefore, be viewed not as an item of governmental expenditure bestowed upon the judiciary at the discretion of the executive, but as an essential constitutional requirement for the proper functioning of the justice-delivery system,” it said.

The bench added that the “dignity, independence and effectiveness” of the judiciary required adequate financial, infrastructural and administrative resources so that courts can discharge their constitutional responsibilities efficiently and citizens can obtain timely and meaningful justice.

Structural concerns triggered proceedings

The observations came amid concerns over the high court building in Jodhpur. On August 10, the court recorded an opinion by IIT Bombay that the approximately 21-metre-high ‘Central Dome’ was in a state of imminent collapse and could fall at any moment, posing grave danger to people on the premises.

On September 15, the state said the IIT’s September 3 final report found the building repairable, with the recommended work expected to extend its residual life by at least 20 years, subject to proper execution, materials and maintenance.

The report said nearly 40 per cent of the building needed urgent attention, while the rest also required repairs and preventive measures. The phased rehabilitation, covering 11,000, 12,000 and 10,000 square metres, along with preventive maintenance over 33,000 square metres, is expected to take 24 months. The estimated cost is Rs 117.65 crore, with Rs 27.41 crore and Rs 30.24 crore sanctioned for the first two phases and Rs 60 crore for phase-3 under process.

The state told the court that two nodal officers had been appointed to oversee the work, while eight officers were assigned inspections at different intervals. Four Public Works Department (PWD) officers were transferred for continuous supervision, and a dedicated team, including a superintending engineer and an executive engineer, was constituted on September 11.

Chargesheets were issued for imposition of major penalties against public servants, with the state expecting the enquiries to conclude within a month or two after giving the officials an opportunity of hearing.

The court had also sought Rs 1.5 crore to prepare a detailed project report for an extended building with 50 courtrooms, extendable by another 10, with financial sanction granted on September 11. It directed the state to take immediate steps to complete the restoration and process the proposal for the additional courtrooms.