- (1.) ARTICLE 235 of the Constitution of India vests the power of superintendence and control of the subordinate judiciary in the High Court. This is apparent from a bare reading of the aforementioned ARTICLE which runs as follows : 'Control over subordinate Court-The control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto Including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to the judicial service of a State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge shall be vested in the High Court, but nothing in this ARTICLE shall be construed as taking away from any such person any right of appeal which he may have under the law regulating the conditions of his service or as authori E. M. Parekh v. Emperor, AIR 1926 Rangoon 188 Sukhdeo Singh v. Hon'ble Chief Justice, AIR 1954 SC 186 cordance with the conditions of his service prescribed under such law." There are cating of decisions of the Apex Court explaining the true meaning and scope of the aforesaid article but we need mention only one for the present. In All India Judges and Association v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 165 :1992 ALJ 185, the Supreme Court has observed thus : "We must indicate with all the emphasis at our command that the system has to be solved as for a civilised society an enlightened independent judiciary is totally indispensable. The High Courts must take greater interest in the proper functioning of the subordinate judiciary. Inspection should not be a matter of casual attention. The constitution has vested the control of the subordinate judiciary under ARTICLE 235 in the High Court as a whole and not its Chief Justice alone. Every Judge should, therefore, take adequate interest in the institution which is placed under the control of the High Court." (Emphasis supplied)
(2.) A committee was constituted consisting of G. Malviya, S. N. Sahay and I. P. Vashisth, JJ., for drawing an exhaustive questionnaire for inspections by the Inspecting Judges of this Court. The said Committee vide its report dated 25.9.1994 suggested, inter alia, that it will also be desirable for an Inspecting Judge to arrange a meeting with the District Authorities, namely, Divisional Commissioner, I.G.. D.I.G., D.M.. S.S.P. or S.P., A.D.M. (City), President of the local Board, so that general problems relating to the dispensation of justice, cooperation of the civil and executive authorities with the Judges, Magistrates and Presiding Officers may be discussed and sorted out. The committee had also suggested conducting surprise inspection of the judgeship by the Inspecting Judges. As to in what manner the Inspecting Judges will hold Inspection, however, the Committee left the Judge to decide. The element of surprise is bound to disappear if the Inspecting Judge informs the District Judge of his tour programme. Naturally after his surprise visit the Inspecting Judge will require an accommodation in the circuit House/Inspection Bungalow/or any other Government accommodation. Imagine a situation when the district administration refuses, on one pretext or the other, to afford an accommodation to such an Inspecting Judge. G. O. No. 6648 MS/XXIII-PWC-45 MSA, dated 8.5.62 of the Government in regard to Inspection House of the State reads thus : "(e) Chief Justice and Administrative Judge of High Court as below : (a) The reservation of accommodation made Jot the Chief Justice and the Administrative Judge of High Court should, on no account be cancelled except under very special circumstances in which case, the Executive Engineer concerned should sent telegraphic intimation to the Hon'ble High Court and also inform the Mukhya Abhiyants. S. N. Vibhag accordingly giving reasons, therefore, if the reasons given by the Executive Engineer, are not found unavoidable action may be taken against him (Executive Engineer). (b) The tour programme of the Hon'ble Judge should be sent direct to the Executive Engineer concerned well in advance. (c) The reservation of accommodation for the Hon'ble Judge may be restricted to only two suites of room, where an Inspection House more than two suites of rooms. (d) The reservation of accommodation made for the Administrative Judge of High Court will have to be cancelled or refused in case, the accommodation is required for Minister who has given more than one week's notice. If the Minister has given more than one week's notice, the better suite of rooms will be reserved for the Minister." The State Government through its P.W.D. Department had framed a rule which was circulated to all concerned through office memo bearing No. 1172 CB/83/23 P.W.P.-VIII/8-221 CB-81. dated 16th April, 1983. This rule governs allotment, etc. of Circuit Houses, situated at Almora, Dehradun, Bareilly, Meerut, Agra, Kanpur, Allahabad, Faizabad, Varanasi Headquarters as well as to such Circuit Houses, which may be constructed in future. According to this rule, the allotment has to be done in the following order : (relevant portion only) (A) V.I.P. Room for President/Vice President/Prime Minister/The Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Governor of U. P. and Chief Minister, U. P. If the V.V.I.P. Room is not required by them it will be allotted to the guests of following categories : (i) Cabinet Minister of the Union/Union Minister of State. (ii) Speaker, Legislative Assembly, U. P. (iii) Chairman, Legislative Council, U. P. (iv) Chief Justice of High Court, Allahabad. (v) Chief Election Commissioner/Auditor and Controller General of India/Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, Chief Vigilance Officer, Judges of the Supreme Court and the officers equivalent to the rank of secretary of the Government of India. (B) Re-V.I.P. Room. (1) Cabinet Ministers of the State Government/Dy. Minister of Government of India/Dy. Speaker, Lok Sabha/Vice Chairman Rajya Sabha. (2) Dy. Speaker of Legislative Assembly and Vice Chairman of Legislative Council. (3) State Guest. (4) Leader of the Opposition Vldhan Sabha/Parishad. (5) Judges of Allahabad High Court. (6) Chairman, Public Service Commission, U. P. (7) Advocate General/Addl. Advocate General of U. P. (8) Ex-Governors of U. P./Chief Ministers of U. P. and Governors and Chief Ministers of other state who are not in official Tour. (9) An other guest authorised by the secretary of the Estate Department. In course of our hearing, the State produced before us a Government order as contained In Letter No. 5107/DB/84-23-Public Works/Lucknow. dated 15th December, 1984 sent by the Secretary, U. P. Government to the Secretary, Department of Irrigation/Urban Development/Forest Department/Department of Energy, U. P. Government with copy to others, sent through Fax message dated 15th April, 1996 of the present District Magistrate. Chamoll, Intimating that it has been decided by the Government after full consideration that one suite of which every department of each Inspection Bungalow Rest House In which there is more than one suite shall be kept reserved for stay of V.I.P. and it shall be reserved as a reserved suite which shall be allotted by the District Magistrates clarifying that In the definition of Very Important Person the following will stand included: 1. President/Vice-President/Prime Minister/Speaker, Lok Sabha/Chief Justice of India, Governor of Uttar Pradesh and Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. 2. Members of Central and State Government. 3. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, Chairman, Administrative Council, U.P. 4.Chief Justice and the Judges of the Allahabad High Court. 5. Chief Election Commissioner/Chief Controller of Accounts, Government of India/Chairman, Public Service Commission, Chief Vigilance Officer, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court and Officers of the Government equivalent to the rank of Joint Secretary and Higher Officers. 6. Chairman, Board of Revenue and its members. 7. Secretary of the different departments of the Government. Special Secretaries and Chief Head of the Departments. & Other Very Important Person declared as such by the Government. A copy of this G.O. was issued by the office of the District Chamoli to concerned officials of Chamoli including the A.D.M. and Protocol Clerk to act accordingly. Surprisingly this document has not been filed on affidavit. A subsidiary warrant of precedence has been filed meant for only ceremonial purposes and not day-to-day functioning of the State. It appears from the Judgment in Justice S. T. Ramlingam's case supra, AIR 1994 Mad 252, that the question of providing accommodation to the Hon'ble Judges of the Madras High Court had also cropped up during hearing of that case and It was observed and held at follows: "Judges.........................do go on tours and most official tours for inspection and other purposes." (Paragraph 38) "We have Indicated earlier in the course of hearing of the case about matters how Judges of this Court are treated................how the Government fix their accommodation where they go in circuit work to the district and such other stations of the State.........................." (Paragraph 36) "The first respondent is duty bound to honour the status and sovereign and independent position of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court by directing all concerned that...........(3) that the Judges' security is met equally to that of a Cabinet Minister at their residences, the Court premises and other station other than the headquarters where they are on visits to such stations as well as in the public." (Paragraph 50) (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) IT is common knowledge that whenever the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court go on tour, it is the District Judges, who inform the District Magistrates for providing a reserved accommodation to them. Any dilly-dalling on the part of the District Administration is bound to embarass the District Judge, who is vested with the powers of revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of a Magistrate/District Magistrate, in a number of ways, and may necessitate the cancellation of the tour itself. We are in know of facts that when one of our then Hon'ble Chief Justice visited Judgeship the V.V.I.P. room situated in the District was allowed by the District Administration to be occupied by a student on the ground that he happens to be the grandson of one of the Ex-Presidents of India. On yet another occasion, when a senior Judge of this Court visited another Judgeship, an Inspector General of Police of the State refused to Vacate the reserved room meant for the former and created unpleasant scenes but when the matter was reported to High-up, vacated the room. The illustrations are many but we do not want either to multiply or to disclose the name and place, etc. in the larger interest of Justice which are also known to the learned counsel for the State. IT is said that silence is golden but continued silence at the cost of repeated obstruction is not always golden. We were informed during the hearing of this proceeding that the Chief Secretary has assured the Court that the incident like the present one will never happen and that he had issued instructions to all concerned. We are pained to point out that despite the assurance given by the Chief Secretary of the State to us during hearing of this case, yet the Court on its administrative side again come to know that when one of its Hon'ble Judge (name not being disclosed) visited Judgeship, the Addl, Collector despite reserved allotment of accommodation, caused obstruction in occupying the same and as a result of which the State was informed which passed an order transferring him and issued warning to him and contented itself. This shows that the assurance given by the Chief Secretary has proved to be an empty formality necessitating passing appropriate direction to prevent recurrence of such incidents in future. In this context relevant is the decision of the Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P.) Ltd., JT 1996 (4) SC 679, holding that in addition to punishing the contemnors, the Court can pass directions to remedy the breach of its order or to prevent recurrence of contempt (Emphasis supplied).;