Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay High Court

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