The Court was hearing petitions related to filling up of vacancies in district courts across the country, and creating infrastructure for the lower judiciary.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who is one the Amici Curiae in the matter, had submitted a report on Tuesday stating that the stand of the Central government that the primary responsibility of development of judicial infrastructure rested with the states, was flawed.
He pointed out that after the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, the subject Administration of Justice; constitution and organisation of Courts, except Supreme Court and High Courts, being entry 11A of List III of the Seventh Schedule, falls under the Concurrent List.
“…it is the joint and concurrent responsibility of both the Centre and the States to contribute funds for constitution and organisation of all Courts, which includes infrastructure for the Judiciary. 3. It is further submitted that the amount of ₹1061 crores (Central share ₹700 crores) for the entire FY 2023-24 is too meagre, even in comparison with the funds released for infrastructure of District judiciary under Centrally Sponsored Scheme in the earlier years,” the Amicus’ seventh report in the case reads.
Further, the fact that most states do not have specific sectoral schemes in this regard was also highlighted.
Source: Barandbench
