The Supreme Court witnessed a rather tense but telling hearing on Friday, with the bench openly expressing irritation at the Punjab government’s “complete inaction” on judicial infrastructure. The matter related to two government guest houses in Malerkotla-currently occupied by the Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superintendent of Police-that the Punjab & Haryana High Court had ordered to be vacated so they could be allotted to the District Judge.
Background
The State of Punjab had approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s directions, insisting that its officers needed the accommodations and that the order was harsh. But even before the matter took off, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi appeared unconvinced.
When the State Advocate General, Maninderjit Singh Bedi, tried to defend the government by saying the High Court’s demands had been fulfilled over time, Justice Kant leaned forward and asked sharply, “Show us a single project in the last fifteen years where you’ve constructed a judicial complex. Just one.” The courtroom fell quiet for a moment.
Court’s Observations
Once arguments began, the exchanges became almost uncomfortable. Justice Kant remarked, “What is wrong with the High Court order? You have not spent anything on judicial infrastructure for fifteen years. Nothing at all.”
When the State’s counsel mentioned that Malerkotla became a district only in 2021 and was notified by the High Court in 2024, the judges didn’t seem impressed.
Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi stepped in later, saying politely that the High Court’s remarks were “not fair.” But Justice Kant refused to soften his stance. “It’s absolutely fair comment,” he shot back. “You don’t know what is happening in Punjab. We are struggling. They don’t allocate even a small site for judicial courtrooms. But funds are somehow available for other things.”
Justice Bagchi joined in, noting that many states delay their matching contributions to centrally sponsored schemes. “Because of that, everything gets stalled,” he said, almost resignedly. Then came the sharper warning: “If we order an enquiry, you will realize how much of the central grant has already been consumed elsewhere.”
At one point, the bench even questioned the political motives behind declaring new districts without basic infrastructure. “What was the business to declare a district without preparing court buildings or residences? You know the SSP needs a house… but you don’t think a Sessions Judge needs one?” Justice Kant asked.
Even when Dr. Singhvi pointed out that five judicial residences existed on record, Justice Kant retorted, “Then give those to your officers. Let the DC and SSP stay there. They will understand the condition.”
The judges also floated a broader concern: “Time has perhaps come for minimum budgetary allocation for judiciary. It’s not even one percent of GDP,” Justice Bagchi observed, with a tone that suggested long-standing frustration.
Decision
Sensing the mood of the bench, the State withdrew its petition. The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the High Court’s order and told Punjab to approach the High Court on Monday with a status report, a proposal, and most importantly proof of genuine intent.
Case Title: State of Punjab vs. District Bar Association, Malerkotla
Matter: Punjab challenged a Punjab & Haryana High Court order on vacating two government guest houses in Malerkotla.
