Himachal Pradesh High Court Imposes Heavy Fine on State Government Over Judicial Infrastructure Failures
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a stern rebuke to the state government, imposing a substantial fine of Rs 10 lakh for its failure to fulfill constitutional obligations regarding judicial infrastructure. The court harshly criticized the administration for making what it termed "hollow promises" that have remained unfulfilled despite repeated directives.
Court Expresses Serious Dissatisfaction with Lack of Progress
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj expressed profound dissatisfaction with the state's inaction. The bench warned that failure to take proactive measures before the next scheduled hearing on May 4 could result in even harsher orders against the government.
The court order came during proceedings where Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Principal Secretary (Finance) Devesh Kumar appeared before the bench. Despite the state government citing financial constraints and requesting rationalization of posts as justification for delays, the court remained completely unconvinced by these explanations.
Special Courts for NDPS Cases Remain Unestablished
The bench highlighted a particularly concerning failure regarding the establishment of special courts to handle the growing backlog of cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Despite repeated communications from the Union Ministry of Law and Justice urging the creation of these specialized courts, the state has taken no effective action.
"The state, on the other hand, contends that it is taking active steps to eradicate such cases and to make Himachal Pradesh drug-free. It is, however, apparent that these assurances are hollow promises to remain unfulfilled, and no effective steps have been taken to enhance the infrastructure to deal with the increasing number of cases under the NDPS Act," the court remarked pointedly.
Infrastructure Woes and Glaring Inconsistencies
The court emphasized that special courts cannot function without proper infrastructure, noting that the state cannot expect to handle today's rising population, increasing caseload, and proactive litigants with the same judicial infrastructure that was established two decades ago.
The bench further exposed glaring inconsistencies in the state's approach to judicial infrastructure development. While a proposal for creating 34 courts has been pending without action, the government indicated plans to establish only two civil judge courts in Bangana and Haroli subdivisions of Una district—areas where no demand for such courts had been raised by the judiciary.
Meanwhile, critical requirements remain completely unaddressed, including:
- Creation of three civil judge posts at Una headquarters
- Establishment of additional district judge posts at Hamirpur, Joginder Nagar, and Nalagarh
Delays and Inadequate Responses
Highlighting the extent of delays, the bench noted that nearly three months have passed since an affidavit regarding these matters was filed in January. Despite regular Cabinet meetings during this period, no concrete steps have been taken to address the judicial infrastructure crisis.
The court also flagged the state's inadequate response regarding essential resources, pointing out that approvals for vehicles and administrative staff have been only partial and insufficient to meet actual requirements.
Financial Accountability Demanded
In a significant move toward financial transparency, the court directed Principal Secretary (Finance) Devesh Kumar to provide detailed information about budgetary provisions for the judiciary. Specifically, the court demanded:
- The percentage of budgetary allocation made for the judiciary in the forthcoming year
- The corresponding provision in the preceding year
- Whether any enhancement has taken place in these allocations
The Rs 10 lakh fine has been directed to be deposited in the high court registry, serving as both a penalty and a symbolic reminder of the state's constitutional obligations that have been neglected for too long.
