The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has made strong observations against the Government of Himachal Pradesh over alleged delays and resistance in strengthening judicial infrastructure across the state.
Terming the state's assurances "lip service" and its promises of delivering justice on citizens' doorstep "hollow", the court directed the Chief Secretary of the state to explain the developments that have taken place over the past two years and why assurances of favourable Cabinet consideration were followed by contrary official communications. The court summoned the Chief Secretary for May 20.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi made sharp observations against the state government for delaying judicial infrastructure projects and citing financial constraints to defer creation of courts and judicial facilities.
The Bench observed that in the prevailing circumstances, it had no option but to summon the Chief Secretary and seek an explanation as to why an assurance had been given during the previous hearing that the matter was pending favourable consideration before the Cabinet on March 31 whereas a subsequent communication on April 28 undermined the authority and dignity of the High Court. The court remarked that the conduct of the state amounted to continued contempt.
The court further observed that the downgrading of facilities available to the judiciary was visible at every level, including both the High Court and district judiciary. It stated that the state government's "lip service" was unacceptable and that its promises of delivering justice at the doorstep of citizens appeared hollow.
Highlighting deficiencies in judicial administration, the Bench noted that four posts of Additional District Judges and five posts of Civil Judges created earlier were still functioning without requisite staff support. Even posts of record keepers, as mandated under the staffing pattern, had not been created.
The court also pointed out that permanent Lok Adalats had not been established despite the state's statutory obligation under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
After considering the material placed before it, the Bench observed that a prima facie case of criminal contempt was made out because an officer holding the rank of Special Secretary (Home) had questioned the very functioning and necessity of courts.
The court also took a strong note on the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary (Finance) and termed it a "classic case of financial jugglery of figures". The affidavit stated that the judiciary's budget allocation for financial year 2025-26 stood at Rs 272.64 crore, constituting 0.46 per cent of the total state Budget, while the proposed allocation for the forthcoming year was Rs 290.25 crore or 0.53 per cent of the total Budget estimate.
The Bench contrasted this with the substantial increase in allocation to the Panchayati Raj Department whose budget reportedly rose from Rs 878.95 crore to Rs 1,040.41 crore. While the state justified the increase on account of grants from the Central Finance Commission and State Finance Commission, the court observed, "It shows the priority of the state that the sole purpose is only not to develop judicial infrastructure but to pander to votes."