BRIJ MOHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-5-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
May 06,2002
BRIJ MOHAN LAL
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
B.S. JAG JEEVAN KUMAR VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2017-4-49] [REFERRED TO]PARTH SARATHI SEN & ORS VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-5-104] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR DAS VS. HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [LAWS(CAL)-2011-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV KAUSHIK ETC VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ETC [LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-469] [REFERRED]
DINESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2020-4-56] [REFERRED TO]
Heramba Chandra Dani VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2008-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
Heramba Chandra Dani VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2008-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
JATINDRA PRASAD DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2011-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
SATISH JAGGI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(SC)-2007-2-154] [REFERRED TO]
N KANNADASAN VS. AJOY KHOSE [LAWS(SC)-2009-5-58] [REFERRED TO]
N KANNADASAN VS. AJOY KHOSE [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-178] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDRA VERMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHANDRA VERMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH: ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
K. ANBAZHAGAN AND ANOTHER VS. REGISTER GENERAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2018-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
P RADHA VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-143] [REFERRED TO]
CEDILA HEALTHCARE LTD VS. LUPIN LABORATORIES LTD [LAWS(GJH)-2006-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SAMAR ROY & ORS VS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA & ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. R S GUPTA H J S SPECIAL JUDGE D A A [LAWS(ALL)-2002-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
KRUPESH RAMAKANT VORA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2010-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH BABU VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2018-4-26] [REFERRED TO]
ANANDRUP JAIDEEP DEV SHARMA VS. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, BHUBANESWAR & OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
SUDEEPTI SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2013-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
BISWAJAIT SARKAR VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2008-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
TAPAN KUMAR DAS & ORS VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR [LAWS(CAL)-2009-7-123] [REFERRED]
PANCHANAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2019-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUMITA DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-2008-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
GUNJA BHUUVANESHWARI VS. HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNEESH BANSAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2022-9-170] [REFERRED TO]
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ORS. VS. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-197] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. R S GUPTA SPECIAL JUDGE DACOITY AFFECTED AREAS JALAUN AT ORAI [LAWS(ALL)-2002-8-123] [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR ROY & ORS VS. PARTHA SARATHI SEN & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-5-51] [REFERRED TO]
SUO MOTU ACTION TAKEN VS. SADHNA UPADHYAYA ADVOCATE DISTRICT ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-220] [REFERRED TO]
S S S JAYA RAJU, S/O JAYA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2018-6-52] [REFERRED TO]
K PANDURANGAN VS. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-9-408] [FOLLOWED ON]
C YAMINI VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD AND 2 OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2018-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
R DURAISAMY VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2010-3-432] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP DESHMUKH VS. STATE OF C.G. AND ORS. [LAWS(CHH)-2003-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRKANTBHAI BHAICHANDBHAI SHARMA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-140] [REFERRED TO]
EVEREST LYNGDOH NONGPIUR VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2009-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA SWAROOP JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2003-12-9] [REFERRED]
AJIT PRASAD VERMA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE LAW SECRETARY [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
GAUHATI HIGH COURT THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL VS. GOTO ETE AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2018-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
DEBABRATA DASH VS. JATINDRA PRASAD DAS [LAWS(SC)-2013-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRABHU PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
SUKRM PAL VS. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT [LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-115] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PREMKALA SINGH HJS AND OTHERS VS. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THRU R.G. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-6-21] [REFERRED TO]
DWIJENDRANATH ROY BARMAN VS. REGISTRAR GENERALCUM-SECRETARY [LAWS(CAL)-2014-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN K. ILLIKKADAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-1-145] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BHUSHAN BASOTIA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J. -
(1.)All these cases relate to the establishment and functioning of Courts described as Fast Track Courts and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. The Eleventh Finance Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Finance Commission') allocated Rs. 502.90 crores under Article 275 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') for the purpose of setting up of 1734 Courts in various States to deal with long pending cases, particularly, Sessions cases. As allocation of funds made by the Finance Commission stipulated time bound utilization within a period of five years, various State Governments were required to take necessary steps to establish such Courts. It appears that the Finance Commission had suggested that the States may consider re-employment of retired judges for limited period, for the disposal of pending cases, since these Courts were to be ad hoc in the sense that they would not be a permanent addition to the number of Courts within a particular State. Challenge was made to the Scheme known as the Fast Track Courts Scheme in various High Courts, primarily on the ground that there was no constitutional sanction for employment of retired judges and effective guidelines were not in operation. It was also highlighted that infrastructural facilities were not available so as to make Scheme a reality. Several such deficiencies were pointed out. A plea was made that instead of retired officers, eligible members of the Bar should be considered for appointment.
(2.)Stand of the Union of India on the other hand was that on the recommendations of the Finance Commission, a note was prepared by the Department of Justice, Government of India. There is no mandatory requirement for appointment of retired Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges or other officers. Ad hoc promotion of judicial officers was also contemplated. It was pointed out that consequential vacancies created on account of ad hoc promotions can be filled up by a special drive so that there is no shortfall in the personnel of the lower Courts.
(3.)Learned counsel appearing for the various parties were unanimous on one important aspect i.e. the problems created by long pendency of cases in different Courts all over the country. It was also conceded that any effort for reducing the pendency is a welcome step. Keeping in view the importance of the matter, learned counsel for the parties were asked to give their suggestions. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Solicitor General has given several suggestions with which we shall deal later. Learned counsel for the other parties have more or less agreed to the suggestions, except to the suggestion regarding appointment of retired judges, more particularly, those with adverse service records.
(2.)Stand of the Union of India on the other hand was that on the recommendations of the Finance Commission, a note was prepared by the Department of Justice, Government of India. There is no mandatory requirement for appointment of retired Sessions/Additional Sessions Judges or other officers. Ad hoc promotion of judicial officers was also contemplated. It was pointed out that consequential vacancies created on account of ad hoc promotions can be filled up by a special drive so that there is no shortfall in the personnel of the lower Courts.
(3.)Learned counsel appearing for the various parties were unanimous on one important aspect i.e. the problems created by long pendency of cases in different Courts all over the country. It was also conceded that any effort for reducing the pendency is a welcome step. Keeping in view the importance of the matter, learned counsel for the parties were asked to give their suggestions. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Solicitor General has given several suggestions with which we shall deal later. Learned counsel for the other parties have more or less agreed to the suggestions, except to the suggestion regarding appointment of retired judges, more particularly, those with adverse service records.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.