What If Someone Takes Away Court Records? Apex Court Objects To Outsourcing Manpower In J&K Administrative Tribunals
The Supreme Court today sternly objected to the idea of outsourcing jobs of administrative staff to private agencies, raising the issue of accountability and the possibility of theft of Court records, upon being informed that the Central Administrative Tribunal Benches in Jammu and Kashmir are using the services of outsourced staff.
The Court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation on the infrastructural issues at the two Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Benches in the Union Territory of Jammu And Kashmir. The petition was filed by Advocate Achal Sharma.
A Division-Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said, “It may not be prudent to deploy outsourced staff in judicial or quasi-judicial situations where the maintenance of records, confidentiality and updating of records, etc. are day-to-day challenges” granting the Additional Solicitor General of India Aishwarya Bhati four weeks to seek fresh instructions in this regard.
On the Jammu Bench of the CAT functioning from a rented building, the Bench said, "It is highly desirable that there should be a permanent building of the Tribunal along with proper courtrooms, chambers for officers and other staff of the Tribunal."
During the hearing, ASG told the Bench that with regard to filling vacancies at the CAT, "we are using outsourcing in maximum numbers" and pointed to a status report filed placed before the Court. The Bench recorded from the status report that "out of 58 sanctioned posts, 26 are filled up on regular basis whereas ten are filled up with outsourced staff".
"That is the whole problem now," Justice Kant replied. "The members of a particular Tribunal met me when I was on an official visit. They said we are permitted to engage through outsourcing, but the cases are of very high stakes, sometimes disputes involve hundreds of thousands of crores. They said what if some outsourced staff takes away the records, who will be responsible?... (In Courts) you need to have somebody who is completely responsible."
With regard to the Jammu Bench, the ASG informed the Court that private accommodation has been arranged. Perusing a status report, the Bench noted that some modifications would have to be done to the building.
Reasoning that Jammu has "always been having a Bench of CAT" and there is "sufficient work to continue one Bench", Justice Kant asked ASG Bhati, "Why don't you create permanent infrastructure? Tomorrow, this landlord will file an eviction petition, then again, same problem."
"The courtroom should have an aura. [It cannot function from] a private house, in a drawing room converted into a courtroom. How can the Court function like this? The Tribunal is ultimately a substitute of the High Court." Justice Kant. "The State can allot some land and funds for construction. For the time being, it's alright," he said, referring to the rented accommodation.
The Bench also remarked that the permanent accommodation should ideally be constructed for members of the CAT, and quarters for staff members should be considered. The ASG told the Bench that the government will file an affidavit on what it plans to do in the long term on this and other aspects.
Cause Title: Achal Sharma v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 877/2020 PIL-W]
