Imtiyaz Ahmad vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Heard.

By our order dated 1st May, 2014 we had directed the States of Andhra Padesh, Bihar, Delhi, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Punjab and Haryana, Maharashtra, Sikkim and Uttarakhand to file their response to the report and recommendations made by the Law Commission of India including the method adopted by the Law Commission for determining the need for creation of new courts and also the time-frame within which they would sanction and establish the new courts in terms of the recommendation. We regret to say that none of the States, mentioned above, except the State of Punjab have filed their response. Learned counsel for the States pray for further time to do the needful. We however see no reason to unconditionally extend the time for filing of responses. In our opinion, there is no justification for the States to sleep over the matter of considerable importance touching upon the administration of justice in their respective territories. We accordingly grant four weeks'' time to the defaulting States, mentioned above, subject to their depositing with the Advocates-on-Record Welfare Fund a sum of Rs.25,000/- each towards costs. The cost shall be deposited within four weeks from today and the responses filed within the same time.

The High Court of the States, mentioned above, were also requested to examine the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India and to respond to the same. The High Courts were also requested to examine the question of locating additional courts, recommended by the Law Commission of India, at a suitable place and the infrastructures available at those places having regard to the pendency of the cases. While the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has already responded to the said request, counsel appearing for the High Courts of Bombay and Gujarat undertake to file the responses during course of the day. The Registry shall send a suitable reminder to the Registrars General of the remaining High Courts, mentioned in the order dated 1st May, 2014, to expedite their response in terms of the said order.

We had also requested Law Commission of India to formulate its recommendations in regard to all States and Union Territories, not already covered by its report. Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the Law Commission of India, has already submitted a recommendation in terms of order dated 1st May, 2014 in regard to States of Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa and Rajasthan. In regard to the remaining States Mr. Venkataramani prays for some time for the Law Commission to finalise the recommendations and submit the same to this Court. We request the High Courts concerned to furnish complete and accurate data in terms of the requirements of the Law Commission of India as and when required by Law Commission to enable it to finalise its recommendations and submit a report to this Court. We hope and trust the Law Commission will finalise these recommendations within six weeks from today.

We also consider it proper to request National Court Management System Committee to examine the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India and to furnish their recommendations to this Court on the subject. A copy of this order as also a copy of the recommendations received from the Law Commission of India shall be forwarded to the Member Secretary of the National Court Management System Committee for doing the needful.

The Registry shall furnish to Mr. Venkataramani copies of the responses received from the State Government and the High Courts to enable Mr. Venkataramani to prepare a comparative chart and compilation. Post on Wednesday, the 12th November, 2014.