The Supreme Court in the case ML Sharma v. Cabinet Secretary of India and Ors observed and has issued a notice to the State of Uttar Pradesh, in a PIL petition filed by Advocate, Mr. M.L. Sharma, wherein seeking directions to the State Governments and Centre to provide complete infrastructure to District Courts as it has a bearing on the process of dispensation of justice to the Indian citizens as guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
It is stated in the petition that the cause of action to file the present petition arose when Mr. Sharma visited the Hathras court in February, 2022 and came to know that there are no district court premises, infrastructure and other facilities for judicial officers, the advocates and litigants. Thus, it noted that the District Court in Hathras is running in a rental area, in the horse stable, in an old fort.
Though, it had been sought by Mr. Sharma that the Court’s intervention to issue notice to all the States and Union Territories. The bench comprising of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli observed and though it fit to restrict itself to the grievances regarding the judicial district of Hathras for the moment. The court while issuing notice to the State of U.P., the Bench granted liberty to implead the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court and also issued notice to them.
The plea stated that the notice shall be issued to the State of UP impleaded as 3rd Respondent. Liberty is also being granted to implead the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad. Thus, the notice to be issued to the newly added respondent.
It had been asked by the concerned Registrar General has been asked to file an affidavit and within a period of 3 weeks, wherein indicating steps taken for setting up a proper infrastructure for the Hathras judicial district.
It had been directed by the bench that the first respondent, i.e. Cabinet Secretary of India to be deleted from the array of parties.
However, the first respondent shall stand deleted from the array of parties.
The PIL filed by Mr. Sharma seeking directions for framing a constitutional committee of Supreme Court Judges for implementation of infrastructure of district court and subordinate court in each district of the State and Union Territories. Further, it is pointed out in the petition that the Hyderabad District Court of Erramanjil, Kukutpatti , Medchall etc. are also running in rental buildings.
The plea submits that Entry (11A) of concurrent list in Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India bestows combined rights and duties upon State Governments and Union Government for judicial organisations of all Courts except the Supreme Court of India. It is asserted in the petition that in the absence of adequate infrastructure the virtual hearing system cannot be adopted by the district courts.
