Shortage of 5,000 district courtrooms in India

New Delhi : The district-level judiciary is facing space crunch as only 17,817 courtrooms are available against a sanctioned strength of 22,750 judges, marking a shortage of around 5,000 courtrooms and 9,000 residential units all over the country.

According to a Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy report, only 13,790 residential units are available for the district judiciary functionaries. Of the 17,817 court halls, only 15,042 are owned by the judiciary and the rest taken on rent either from the government or the private parties.

The think-tank has undertaken a comprehensive evaluation of the centrally-sponsored scheme for improving the physical infrastructure for judiciary in its report titled, "Budgeting Better for Courts: An Evaluation of the Rs 7,460 crore Released Under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Judicial Infrastructure".

After evaluating implementation of both the schemes, the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy found it lacked transparency and accountability. The centrally-sponsored scheme (CSS) for the judicial infrastructure was launched in 1993.

According to the report, Rs 6,100.24 crore was granted by the Centre to states under the CSS between 1993-94 and 2017-18. While Rs 650 crore was released in 2018-19, Rs 710 crore is expected to be released in 2019-20.

Contrary to the narrative of under-funding of the judicial infrastructure, under the CSS the Centre would have released Rs 7,460.24 crore between 1993 and 2020, mainly for the district judiciary and despite that there is a shortage of 4,933 courtrooms, according to the report.

The report also points to poor coordination between state departments and the state judiciary.

'Judges should possess sterling quality of integrity'

The judiciary is an institution founded on honesty and integrity, the Supreme Court has said, reasserting that it is necessary judicial officers possess the "sterling quality of integrity" to be able to serve the public.

It made the observation while refusing to show any leniency to a Maharashtra-based judicial magistrate, who had challenged his 2004 dismissal from service following allegation he passed orders in favour of the clients of a woman lawyer he had a "proximate relationship".

Impeccable integrity should be reflected both in the public and personal life of a judge, the top court said, and added judicial officers must always remember they hold high office and serve the public.

A bench of justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose said the petitioner did not live up to the "expectations of integrity, behaviour and probity" and no leniency can be shown to him. "Hence, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed," it said.

The petitioner was appointed as a judicial magistrate in March 1985. In February 2001, he was put under suspension and dismissed in January 2004.

He challenged his dismissal in the Bombay High Court but his plea was rejected. He then moved the apex court, which issued a notice on his plea limited to the question of the quantum of punishment.

"In this case, the officer decided the cases because of his proximate relationship with a lady lawyer and not because the law required him to do so.

This is also gratification — of a different kind," the bench said, explaining that gratification can be of various types.