Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 279 OF 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022 OF 1989
All India Judges Association & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
O R D E R
This interlocutory application basically relates to
infrastructure of the courts especially in subordinate courts. A
detailed order was passed on 24.01.2011 which pertained to
various projects of court buildings, residential quarters and all
other aspects. On 04.04.2011, the following order came to be
passed:
st
"By our Order dated 21 February, 2011, we
had directed States of Maharashtra, Gujarat
and Uttarakhand to answer five questions,
which, for the sake of brevity, are reiterated
hereinbelow:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK GUGLANI
Date: 2018.08.02
13:42:18 IST
Reason:
[1] Since when Proposals/Projects are
pending and reasons why they have not been
cleared till today?
2
[2] For how long and why Proposals pending
for acquisition of land have not been cleared
by the Collectors?
[3] Why Government lands, which are
available, are not being urgently made
available for Court Buildings and Residential
Quarters?
[4] What steps are being taken to
expeditiously complete Projects which are
under construction?
[5] How many pending Proposals would
receive administrative and financial sanction
during the next Financial Year?
States of Gujarat and Maharashtra have
sought time to put in their response. Request
is granted. Hence, four weeks' time is granted.
No further adjournment will be granted.
As far as State of Uttrakhand is
concerned, we have examined the affidavits
st
filed on 1 April, 2011. The affidavits are
vague. The State of Uttarakhand was required
to answer each of the above five questions
projectwise and formatwise but they have not
done so.
In the circumstances, we direct the State
of Uttarakhand to file a proper detailed and
accurate affidavit to the questions posed. In
addition, we direct the State to answer those
questions projectwise and formatwise.
We may further add that vide Order dated
th
24 January, 2011, we had requested various
States, including States of Gujarat,
Maharashtra and Uttarakhand, to furnish
details of the nature of the work, the place at
3
which the project is located as well as the
amount to be spent in respect of each of the
project. Pursuant to the said order, we had
also forwarded the requisite format in the form
of Annexures I and II to all the three States.
Since we are adjourning the matter by four
weeks, we also direct the States of
Uttarakhand, Gujarat and Maharashtra to give
details duly filled in the formats Annexures I
and II.
th
Place the matter on 9 May, 2011."
2. Thereafter, the matter was listed on many an occasion but it
stood adjourned. In the meantime, it has been brought to the
notice of the Court that there has been progress in the field of
infrastructure inasmuch as the court projects (court rooms) have
been constructed and other steps have been taken. But there are
certain other spheres where immediate attention is required so
that things are set right.
3. A sound infrastructure is the linchpin of a strong and stable
judicial system. The responsibility for securing justice to the
citizenry of our country rests upon the judiciary which makes it
imperative upon the State to provide the judicial wing the
requisite infrastructure commensurate with the constitutional
obligation of the judiciary. It needs to be understood that without
a robust infrastructure, the judiciary would not be able to
4
function at its optimum level and, in turn, would fail to deliver
the desired results. While emphasizing the importance of judicial
infrastructure, the Court in
All India Judges Association and
1
others v. Union of India and others has observed:
"Justice Delivery System is the bedrock of the rule of
law, which is held to be the basic structure of the
Constitution and it is our view that, in the absence of
adequate judicial infrastructure, particularly for the
subordinate Courts, it would not be possible to sustain
rule of law in this Country. It is true that Courts do
not generally issue directions in financial matters,
however, we are of the view that Court fees, costs and
fines constitute what is called "Measure" of what is
spent on judicial infrastructure. This would be in
consonance of doctrine of Reasonableness under the
Constitution. Rule of Law assures the citizen of an
effective civil and criminal justice system and judicial
infrastructure is the cornerstone of justice delivery
system without which Rule of law in this Court would
fail."
[Emphasis supplied]
2
4. In , the
Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and others
Court, while highlighting the infrastructural needs, has said:
“Article 21 of the Constitution of India takes in its
sweep the right to expeditious and fair trial. Even
Article 39A of the Constitution recognizes the right of
citizens to equal justice and free legal aid. To put it
simply, it is the constitutional duty of the Government
to provide the citizens of the country with such judicial
infrastructure and means of access to Justice so that
every person is able to receive an expeditious,
inexpensive and fair trial. The plea of financial
1 (2010) 14 SCC 705
2 (2012) 6 SCC 502
5
limitations or constraints can hardly be justified as a
valid excuse to avoid performance of the constitutional
duty of the Government, more particularly, when such
rights are accepted as basic and fundamental to the
human rights of citizens.”
5. The aforesaid two verdicts, as is noticeable, lay stress on
infrastructure in the context of Rule of Law, effective civil and
criminal justice system and the constitutional duty of the
Government to provide the same and the principle of access to
justice that does not accept the excuse of the Government as
regards financial limitation.
6. It has to be firmly borne in mind and accepted as a reality
that raising the infrastructure standards in the court complexes
is the need of the hour as it is the basic requirement for the
courts in the twentyfirst century. We are absolutely clear that
when people are aware of their rights, their desire to get the
rights realised is enhanced and they would like to knock at the
doors of the Court to shape their aspiration into reality. It is a
welcome phenomenon and conceptually, Rule of Law nourishes
and garners the said idea. The idea of speedy and quality justice
dispensation system cannot be treated with status quoist
approach, for the definition of infrastructure and the
understanding of the same in all associated contexts changes
6
with the passage of time and introduction of modern technology
in many a sphere of life. The consumers of justice expect prompt
and effective delivery of justice in an atmosphere that is
acceptable . Therefore, infrastructure enhancement will go a long
way in strengthening functioning of the court and would improve
the productivity in the justice delivery system.
7. Be it noted, a court complex is not just a building. It is the
building of justice which breathes and infuses life into the
exalted and sublime ideals of justice. The widening gap between
the ideal and the real and between the vision and the pragmatic
realization of justice has to be bridged by proper access to justice
for all.
8. It brings us to the focal point, i.e., judicial infrastructure
which has been given relatively low importance, if not long
neglected. That needs an overhaul. Apart from the metropolitan
cities and State capitals, infrastructure in Courts, especially in
the interior parts of the country, is dying out. It would not be
wrong to say that some of them are just on the ventilator. A
decrepit or crumbling court infrastructure inevitably results in
causing impediment in access to justice. Undeniably, access to
justice and rule of law is intrinsically linked. No democracy can
7
afford to undermine the core values of rule of law. Thus,
strengthening of court infrastructure requires immediate
attention in the form of planning, enhanced budgeting and
structured implementation or execution of the plans. Presently,
most of the States are making budgetary provision as low as less
than 1% of their total budget for the judiciary.
9. In view of the above, we deem it extremely necessary to
declare that it is essential to provide basic infrastructural
facilities, amenities, utilities and access oriented features in all
Court complexes around the country as it is axiomatic that
infrastructure forms the core for efficient and efficacious
dispensation of speedy and qualitative justice.
10. The court development plan should comprise of three
components a short term (or annual plan); a medium term plan
(or a five year plan); and a long term plan (ten year plan). The
annual plans so prepared shall be incorporated into the five year
plan which, in turn, rolls into the ten year plan. While focussing
on judicial infrastructure, due regard has to be given to adequate
and model court building, furniture, fixture, judges chamber,
record/file storage, adequate sitting and recreation arrangement
for staff and officers, sitting/waiting room for litigants and bar
8
members, latest gadgets and technology. In other words, the core
factors in the design of a court complex must reckon a)
optimum working conditions facilitating increased efficiency of
judicial officers and the administrative staff; b) easy access to
justice to all and particularly to the underprivileged, persons with
disability, women and senior citizens; c) safety and security of
judges, administrative staff, litigants, witnesses and undertrial
prisoners. The court complex must consist of:
I. COURT BUILDING
Court rooms
Judges' chambers
Judges' residential complex
Litigants' waiting area
Administrative offices
Conference Hall/Meeting Room
Video conferencing rooms
Mediation centre/Legal Services Authority
Common rooms for male/female staff
Staff canteen
Destress rooms for male /female staff
Office space for Government pleader/Public
prosecutor/ Advocate General/Standing Counsel for
Union of India with separate cubicles for conducting
conferences and including space for accommodating
their Secretarial staff and files
Support facilities like ramp, crèche, etc.
II. SPACE FOR LAWYERS/LITIGANTS
Bar rooms for ladies and gents
Consultation rooms and cubicles
Stamp vendors and notary public/oath
commissioner/typist/photocopy/business centre
9
Library
Canteen for lawyers and litigants
Facilitation counter for litigants/visitors
Support facilities
III.FACILITY CENTRE providing for common facilities for
functioning of the complex unrelated to courts such as
bank, post office, medical facility, disaster
management, etc.
IV.UTILITY BLOCK for accommodating the utility services
such as A.C. plant, electrical substation, DG
set/Solar panel, STP, Repair workshop, storage,
garage, etc.
V. JUDICIAL LOCKUPS.
VI.STRONG ROOM FOR RECORD PRESERVATION.
VII.ADEQUATE PARKING SPACE for judges, lawyers,
litigants and other visitors.
VIII.IT INFRASTRUCTURE FOR COMPUTERISATION AND
eCOURTS
11. The finance needed for court infrastructure should be
ideally placed under the head of planned expenditure which will
be more specific, better managed and obviate any cut by the
Governments. The budgeting must be from the demand side and
cannot be from the supply side.
12. Apart from what we have stated above, we think it
appropriate to issue the following directions which are the most
10
fundamental and vital features to be provided at the earliest in all
court complexes:
(i) Basic amenities such as adequate seating space for
litigant public as well as lawyers, sufficient waiting area
with seating arrangements, proper lighting and
electricity, functional airconditioning/aircooling/
heating, accessible clean drinking water with Reverse
Osmosis (RO) facility, clean and hygienic washrooms
separate for men, women, transgenders and physically
handicapped persons, kiosk and functional canteens
selling beverages and eatables at nominal rates,
preferably managed by court staff are some amenities
and facilities which ought to be ensured at court
complexes throughout the country. If these are missing
in our court complexes, it would be an appalling
situation which requires immediate rectification.
(ii) We must further ensure that all our court complexes are
conducive and friendly for the differentlyabled and
towards this end, the Court complexes must have
certain features for the benefit of the vulnerable persons
such as persons with disability or visually impaired
11
persons. We have to move from disabled friendly
buildings to workable and implementable differently
abled friendly court infrastructure. Ramps for such
categories of persons must be operable, feasible, tried
and tested. Such ramps should definitely have steel
railings and handles. The court infrastructure must also
keep in view the accessibility for visually impaired
persons and, therefore, court complexes must have
tactile pavements and signage in braille for the benefit of
visually impaired citizens. That apart, for ensuring easy
movement of common citizens in the court complexes,
there must be maps and floor plans of the entire court
complex at entry and exit points and visible signage and
directional arrows with colour coding throughout the
court premises.
(iii) For saving the litigant public and other citizens from
running one end to the other without any guidance in the
Court complexes and for assisting them to reach their
desired place, it is necessary that all court premises must
establish a working and fully operational help desk at
major alighting points with trained court staff to brief
12
and guide the citizens about the layout of the court
premises.
(iv) Court premises must also have sufficient number of
functional electronic case display systems for litigants
and lawyers with the feature of automatic update in every
ten seconds.
(v) With the increase in motor vehicles, including cars and
twowheelers, it is imperative that court premises have
sufficient and proper parking space to ease vehicular
traffic and avoid crowding. All upcoming court complexes
must have provision for both sufficient underground and
surface parking facilities segregated into four broad
categories – for judges, court staff, lawyers and litigants.
As far as the existing court complexes are concerned, the
possibility and feasibility of constructing underground or
multi level parking facilities must be explored.
(vi) The court premises must have easy access at both entry
and exit points. End to end connectivity of public
transport systems must be ensured for court premises by
starting feeder bus service and other dedicated transport
services between major public transport points and court
13
complexes. Access to justice will forever remain an
illusory notion if access to courts is not ensured.
(vii) Court premises must be armed with better crowd
management arrangements along with adequate security
measures. It has been seen, time and again, that at the
time of court proceedings of cases which are well covered
by the media, the crowd management in court premises
runs into utter chaos. Measures must be taken to ensure
that whenever court premises are thronged with
heightened crowds, there is smooth ingress and egress of
both vehicular traffic as well as citizens in the court
premises.
(viii) Creche facility at nominal rates for toddlers, falling
within the age group of 6 months to 6 years, of lawyers,
clerks of lawyers, bar association staff and officers and
employees of court registry must also be constructed.
The said creche facility must not be just for the
namesake, it has to be both functional as well as effective
with proper space and equipment such as baby proofing
and other toddlerfriendly provisions. That apart, the
14
courts should have a proper atmosphere for children and
vulnerable witnesses.
(ix) Professionally qualified court managers, preferably with
an MBA degree, must also be appointed to render
assistance in performing the court administration. The
said post of Court managers must be created in each
judicial district for assisting Principal District and
Sessions Judges. Such Court Managers would enable the
District Judges to devote more time to their core work,
that is, judicial functions. This, in turn, would enhance
the efficiency of the District Judicial System. These court
managers would also help in identifying the weaknesses
in the court management systems and recommending
workable steps under the supervision of their respective
judges for rectifying the same. The services of any person
already working as a Court Manager in any district
should be regularised by the State Government as we are
of the considered view that their assistance is needed for
a proper administrative set up in a Court.
(x) Adequate residential accommodation for judicial officers
and court staff is another infrastructural aspect which
15
requires immediate attention. The productivity of judicial
officers and court staff who are not provided with
residential quarters in and/or around the court premises
gets negatively hampered. Thus, residential
accommodation in proximity of court complexes for
judicial officers and court staff must also be provided.
(xi) There shall be solar power installation in each of the
district court premises initially and thereafter, the same
should spread to all other courts.
(xii) Keeping in view the obtaining scenario, CCTV cameras
should be placed at proper locations within the court
complex.
(xiii) To enhance the quality of speedy justice, video
conferencing equipments and connectivity to jails shall
be provided at the earliest.
(xiv) The district court complex should have a dispensary with
adequate medical staff and equipments.
13. It is clear that judicial infrastructure not only needs
attention and budgeting but also effective utilization of the funds
towards specific and proper ends so that the primary goal of
access to justice for all is realized. Prompt measures are to be
16
undertaken and procrastination in these matters cannot brook
delay where Rule of Law is supreme.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretaries of
each of the States by the Registry requiring them to constitute a
committee of which the Secretary of the Department of Law
should be a Member to formulate the development plan as per
the directions issued by us and present the status report so that
further directions can be issued. The committee shall invite an
officer from the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice
of the High Court. Copies of the order passed today be sent to the
Registrar Generals of all the High Courts.
15. Let the matter be listed on August 23, 2018 for filing of the
plan and the status report and for issuance of appropriate
directions.
.……………………………,CJI
[Dipak Misra]
.……………………………..,J.
[A.M. Khanwilkar]
……………………………..,J.
[Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud]
New Delhi;
August 02, 2018
17
ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.1 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. No. 279/2010 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022/1989
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION & ORS. Petitioners
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents
(FOR ORDER IN I.A. NO. 279/2010 IN W.P.© NO. 1022/1989)
Date : 02-08-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Adv./A.C.
For Petitioners
Mr. Bharat Sangal, AOR
Mr. S.N. Bhat, AOR
Mrs. Amita Gupta, AOR
Mr. Pravir Kumar Jain, AOR
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR
Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR
For Respondents
UOI
Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, Adv.
Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv.
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
State of H.P.
Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. Vinod Sharma, Adv.
State of Haryana Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv.
Ms. Gauraan Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv.
18
State of Mizoram
Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Adv.
Mr. R. Sathish, Adv.
Ms. A. Subhashini, AOR
State of Goa
Ms. Mayuri Nayyar Chawla, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Salvador Rebello, Adv.
Mr. P.S. Sudheer, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv.
State of Karnataka
Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. Parikshit P. Angadi, Adv.
State of Telangana Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.
Mr. Mrityunjai Singh, Adv.
State of Arunachal P.
Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR
Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.
State of Tripura Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv.
Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Adv.
U.T. of Puducherry Mr. V.G. Pragasam, AOR
Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.
State of Nagaland
Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema, Adv.
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv.
State of Bihar Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR
Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shivam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Raina, Adv.
Mr. Shreyas Jain, Adv.
Ms. Aprajit Sud, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Milind, Adv.
State of T.N. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
Mr. S. Partha Sarathi, Adv.
Mr. T.N. Rama Rao, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. T. Veera Reddy, Adv.
Mr. T.V. George, AOR
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv.
Ms. Veena Bansal, Adv.
U.T. of A&N Ms. G. Indira, AOR
Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv.
19
State of Punjab
Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR
Ms. Navkiran Bolay, Adv.
State of Rajasthan Mr. S.S Shamshery, AAG, Rajasthan
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.
Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR
State of Chhattisgarh
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR
Ms. Charudatta Mahindrakar, Adv.
Mr. A. Selvin Raja, Adv.
Mr. Chirag Jain, Adv.
State of Kerala
Mr. G. Prakash, AOR
Mr. Jishnu M.L., Adv.
Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Adv.
Mrs. Beena Prakash, Adv.
Jharkhand HC
Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR
State of uttarakhand
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR
Ms. Monika, Adv.
State of Gujarat Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
Ms. Jesal Wahi, Adv.
Ms. Vishakha, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, AOR
Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR
Mr. Anip Sachthey, AOR
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR
Mr. B. D. Sharma, AOR
Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR
Mr. C.N. Sree Kumar, AOR
Mr. D.N. Goburdhan, AOR
Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR
Mr. K. Ram Kumar, AOR
Mr. L.K. Pandey, AOR
Mr. M. Veerappa, AOR
20
Mr. M.A. Krishna Moorthy, AOR
M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR
Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR
Mr. P.K. Jain, AOR
Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR
Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR
Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR
Mr. R.N. Keswani, AOR
Mr. R. Sathish, AOR
Mr. Surya Kant, AOR
Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR
Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, AOR
Mr. S.R. Setia, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Parikh, AOR
Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, AOR
Mr. Tara Chandra Sharma, AOR
Mr. T.L. Garg, AOR
Mr. T.G. Narayanan Nair, AOR
Mrs. V.D. Khanna, AOR
Mr. Pravir Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Anil Nag, AOR
M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR
Mr. K.R. Sasiprabhu, AOR
Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR
Ms. S. Janani, AOR
Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR
Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR
Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR
Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR
Dr. J.P. Dhanda, AOR
21
Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
Mr. B.S. Banthia, AOR
Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR
Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR
Mr. Kishan Datta, AOR
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR
Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR
Mr. P.I. Jose, AOR
Mr. Rajiv Mehta, AOR
Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR
Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR
Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR
Mr. Rashmikumar Manilal Vithlani, AOR
Mr. V.K. Sidharthan, AOR
Mr. Romy Chacko, AOR
Dr. Kailash Chand, AOR
M/s. Corporate Law Group, AOR
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR
Ms. Anitha Shenoy, AOR
Mr. Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, AOR
Mr. Anupam Lal Das, AOR
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AOR
M/s. Parekh & Co., AOR
Mr. Ajay Sharma, AOR
Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar, AOR
Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR
Mr. P.V. Dinesh, AOR
22
Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, AOR
Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Alok Kumar, AOR
Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR
Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR
Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR
Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR
Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy, AOR
Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR
Mr. Apoorv Kurup, AOR
Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
Mr. T.V. Ratnam, AOR
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Ajay Kumar, AOR
Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
pronounced the order of the Bench comprising His
Lordship, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and
Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
In terms of the signed reportable order,
certain directions are issued.
Let the matter be listed on 23.8.2018 for
issuance of further appropriate directions.
(Deepak Guglani) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Assistant Registrar
(signed reportable order is placed on the file)