Adequate Judicial Infrastructure A Constitutional Duty: MP High Court Calls For List Of All Pending Projects Relating To Courts’ Infrastructure Work

The High Court was considering a Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by an Advocate and Sanyojak of Jila Vikas Manch, Anuppur, seeking directions for construction of a new District Court building at Anuppur having 14 Court Rooms.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal held, “We need to remind the government that the judiciary is one of the pillars of democracy and the same cannot be treated as a government department for providing necessary infrastructure. The administration of justice is an essential sovereign function. Adequate judicial infrastructure is not a matter of executive discretion or administrative largesse, but a constitutional duty owed to citizens to ensure access to justice under Article 21.”

“Shri Yugal Raghuwanshi, Registrar (Works & Infrastructure), High Court of M.P. is directed to provided the list of all the pending projects of the High Court and District Courts relating to the infrastructure work to Shri Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal - Senior Advocate and Shri Anshuman Singh - Advocate appointed as amicus curiae who will assist this Court in respect of measures that can be taken in future”, it ordered.

Advocate Anubhav Singhal represented the Petitioner while Advocate General Prashant Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was brought to the Court’s notice that Anuppur, a tribal-dominated district declared as a civil district in 2009, has been continuously functioning in the old rented building, which lacks adequate space and infrastructure. According to the petitioner, the existing facilities cause considerable inconvenience to advocates, litigants and members of the public attending. The Jabalpur Bench, vide a memorandum, directed the Principal Secretary, Law and Legislature Department, to take prompt action regarding the pending administrative and financial sanction for construction of the proposed new District Court building at Anuppur having 14 Court Rooms. The District Bar Association submitted representations requesting sanction for construction. new Court building and pointing out the inadequacy of the existing infrastructure.

The respondents informed the petitioner that the estimates relating to construction of various District Court buildings recommended by the High Court, including the proposal concerning Anuppur, were pending for approval due to lack of budgetary allocation. The Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, also addressed a communication requesting that appropriate action be taken in the matter. The petitioner claimed that despite the aforesaid representations and communications, the respondents had not taken appropriate steps for sanctioning the budget for construction of the proposed 14 Court Rooms in the District Court building.

Reasoning

The Bench took note of the submission of the Advocate General that, as per the new SOR, the Evaluation Committee had recommended sanctioning an amount of Rs 45,87,72,036 in its meeting, but due to financial constraints there could be a delay in allocation of funds. The Advocate General assured that he would personally look into the matter and consider its earlier resolution.

The Bench was also concerned with various similar projects which were still pending with the State Government awaiting sanction alongwith the construction of the Court Building in Anuppur. The Bench noted that the list of all pending projects had been uploaded to the ERP by the Registrar and needed to be given priority by the State Government. “We have discussed in detail with the Finance Secretary about the inadequacy of the fund allocation for ongoing projects in respect of construction of court buildings, residential quarters for Judicial Officers, and employees”, it added.

Taking note of the submission that the budget allocated to the Law Department for this year had already been exhausted in two major projects, i.e., construction of 60 Court Rooms in the High Court building at Jabalpur, and M.P. Judicial Officers Academy, Jabalpur and a proposal for enhancement of fund allocation needed to be made, the Bench stated, “The necessary funds for infrastructure projects of the judiciary can be met out from the budget of the Madhya Pradesh Public Works Department, which normally undertakes the work of construction as well as maintains all court buildings and residential accommodations of High Court judges, judicial officers and staff”

“Lack of infrastructure in the judiciary is a serious matter, which is directly related to the public at large; hence, more deliberation needs to be done in this matter. We expect that the learned Advocate General will apprise the Hon'ble Chief Minister of this State and will appear on the next date of hearing with a solution”, the Bench held while listing the matter on September 30, 2026.

Cause Title: Basudev Chatterjee v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Case No.: WP No. 6278 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Anubhav Singhal, Deepak Kumar Pandey

Respondent: Advocate General Prashant Singh, Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly, Senior Advocate Kailash Chandra Ghildiyal, Advocates Karnik Singh, Anshuman Singh, ACS Finance Manish Rastogi, Secretary Law Mukesh Kumar

Click here to read/download Order