Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Expansion Necessitates Allotment of Sarangpur Land, Chandigarh Administration Directed: High Court Bench Proclaims

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant move aimed at addressing the burgeoning requirements of the judiciary, the High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to allocate land in Sarangpur for the expansion of High Court facilities. The decision came in the wake of the court’s observations about the increasing strength of judges and the corresponding need for more space.

During the hearing of case numbers CWP-PIL-9-2023 (O&M) and CWP-27621-2013 (O&M), the bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta noted the substantial growth in the number of judges and advocates over the past decades. “As on today, the sanctioned strength of the High Court Judges is 85 and there are about 10,000 to 12,000 registered advocates in the High Court,” the bench observed.

Highlighting the historical perspective, the court pointed out that the sanctioned strength of the judges has risen from 9 in 1954 to 85 in 2024. This dramatic increase, along with the projection of a further rise to approximately 140-150 judges in the next 50 years, necessitates a significant expansion of the High Court’s infrastructure.

The proposed expansion includes the allotment of three plots in Sarangpur, comprising two plots of 6 acres each and one plot of 2.86 acres. This allotment is seen as crucial for accommodating the growing number of judges and the administrative staff. The court made it clear that, contrary to the earlier order dated 21.12.2023, the High Court will not relinquish its buildings in Sector 17 and Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.

In its ruling, the court directed the Chandigarh Administration to ensure the allotment of these plots, keeping in mind the future needs of the judiciary. The case is slated for further hearing on 24.01.2024, with the court’s order expected to have significant implications for the judicial infrastructure in Chandigarh.

The High Court’s proactive approach in planning for future requirements highlights the dynamic nature of India’s judicial system and its commitment to adapting to changing circumstances. The decision marks a significant step in ensuring that the judiciary’s infrastructure keeps pace with its evolving needs.

Date of Decision: 19 January 2024

Vinod Dhatterwal and others  Vs. Union of India and others

 

Latest Legal News