Photo used for indicative purpose only
Shimla, May 9
Himachal Pradesh High Court once again came down heavily on the state government over the alleged neglect of judicial infrastructure and inadequate budgetary allocation to the judiciary, observing that the government appeared more focused on “vote bank politics” than strengthening the justice delivery system.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chandra Negi made sharp observations while hearing a public intrest matters recently relating to the creation of new courts and judicial posts in the state.
The court ordered the Chief Secretary to remain personally present before the bench on May 20 and termed the financial data placed by the government as “juggling of figures.” The bench remarked that while the government claims to support judicial reforms and access to justice, its actual financial priorities lie elsewhere.
The court noted that the judiciary was allocated only Rs. 272.64 crore, constituting 0.46 per cent of the total budget for 2025-26, while the proposed allocation for the next financial year was Rs. 290.25 crore or 0.53 per cent. In contrast, the Panchayati Raj Department’s budget had been increased from ₹878.95 crore to ₹1040.41 crore.
Also Read
Himachal Pradesh High Court pulls up State for ‘stonewalling’ judicial infrastructure demands
The bench observed that although the government attributed the increase to Finance Commission grants, the real reason appeared to be the upcoming Panchayat elections.
The matter related to the creation of 34 Civil Judge posts and three Additional District Judge courts in areas including Hamirpur, Jogindernagar and Nalagarh. The government had questioned the need for new courts citing financial constraints and sought details regarding pending cases.
Expressing displeasure, the bench said that on one hand the state talks about doorstep justice, while on the other it hesitates to provide even basic infrastructure and staff to courts. The court further observed that the government was merely paying “lip service” to the judiciary.
The High Court also objected to a communication issued by the Special Secretary (Home), which questioned the necessity of establishing new courts. The bench observed that prima facie the communication amounted to criminal contempt, as it virtually questioned the functioning and necessity of courts themselves.
About the Author
