Delhi Judicial Services ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr.
2000 Latest Caselaw 1170 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner is an association, having as its members, officers of the Delhi Judicial Service, and Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus, to the respondents to sanction purchase of personal computers together with its accessories including printers etc. for use of judicial officers at their residential offices. Petitioner's initial grievance emanated from the inaction of the respondents in approving the proposal of purchase and installation of the personal computers, despite the availability of funds and a budgetary provision for the same.

2. The Petitioner's case is brief is that the District Judge Delhi, sought approval of the High Court of Delhi, for purchase of computers for use at the residential offices of the Judges in the District Courts. The Chief Justice of the High Court after examination of the proposal, approved the purchase of personal computers together with Dragon Software, for the residential offices. Thereafter the District Judge on 17.2.2000, wrote to respondent No. 1 i.e. the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for its sanction Respondent No. 1 raised certain queries on expenditure being more than the availability and allocation in the budget. These were duly answered by the District Judge. Nevertheless, the approval was not received and the budgetary provision for the year ending 31.3.2000, lapsed. It is in this background that the present writ petition got to be filed.

3. Notice to show cause was issued, which was accepted by the Standing Counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi. During the course of proceedings, petitioners were directed to ascertain the precise requirement and configuration of the hardware, accessories required for the computers and the competitive prices therefor. Directions were also given to furnish to respondents cost of the training programme required to be imparted. The respondents filed a status report, wherein the stand taken was that the proposal required a policy decision to be taken in consultation with the Secretary (Information and Technology). Learned counsel for the respondents stated that the Government of NCT of Delhi, would examine the matter and consider all aspects as also the factors enumerated in the proposal of the District Judge.

4. This Court, vide order dated 15.5.2000, directed that the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi to convene a meeting, comprising the Secretary (Law), Secretary (Finance) was well as the District Judge and/or his nominee and any other officer or functionary considered appropriate by the Chief Secretary, to consider and take a decision on the proposal for purchase of computers for residential use of judicial officers.

5. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court, the Chief Secretary held the meeting on 5 6.2000. The minutes of the Meeting were filed before the Court on 7.7.2000. As per the minutes filed, thee was agreement, in principle, on acquisition of computers for residential offices of judicial officers, subject to purchase of computers out of the existing funds allocated to the office of the District Judge. The Minutes of the Meeting, as filed before the Court, are being reproduced in extenso:

Minutes of the meeting held in the Chamber of the Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi on 5.6.2000 at 3.00 p.m. regarding the purchase of computers at the residential offices of the Judicial Officers in the NCT of Delhi.

Pursuant to the, orders dated May 15, 2000 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CW No. 2021/2000 titles as Delhi Judicial Service Association v. Union of India the aforesaid meeting was taken by the Chief Secretary. The list of officers present in the meeting is at Annexure 'A'.

At the outset, the Chief Secretary enquired as to how many judicial officers are at present trained for the purpose of operating the computers. To this the District Judge informed that there are total number of about 262 judicial officers, out of which only 20% are computer trained at the moment. The Additional Secretary (Finance) informed that there can be no problem to provide computers to the judicial officers provided the office of the District and Sessions Judge is in a position to meet this expenditure of about more than Rs. 2 crores from their existing budgetary allocation by showing matching savings. At this the District Judge further informed that for the time being the office of the District and Sessions Judge is in a position to meet with the present requirement of purchase of computers from their existing funds and if at a later stage a need arises, then a reference could be made to the Delhi Government for providing more funds to the office of the District and Sessions Judge.

The Additional Secretary (Finance) pointed out that the play scales of the judicial officers should be made available as it would be helpful as and when the case is processed in the Finance Department. At this the District Judge informed that this information would be supplied within 2/3 days, but he pointed out that it would not make any difference since all the judicial officers are required to do more or less similar nature of work and as such computers are required at the residence of each and every judicial officer irrespective of his pay scale.

The Chief Secretary was of the view that in case the funds are available with the office of the District and Sessions Judge at present, then there can be no difficulty for the purchase of computers for all the judicial officers must be imparted proper training so that the computers could be fully utilised by themselves in the interest of administration of justice. He also observed that no extra person should be provided at the residence of the judicial officers for the operation of the computers.

The meeting ended with vote of thanks to the Chair.

6. With the filing of the minutes, as aforesaid, it appeared that the issue had been settled. However, since certain queries had been raised regarding the scales of pay of judicial officers, direction was issued for furnishing the same. Details of training programme, funds required therefor and the budgetary allocations therefor were also directed to be furnished to the respondents. The respondents, in this view of the matter, were then directed to process the case for financial sanction and apprise the Court of the outcome on the next date.

7. On 18.8.2000, there was a volte face from the stand taken and as reflected in the minutes filed. As affidavit was filed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Law, Justice and Legislative Affairs of the Government of NCT of Delhi, attaching the financial sanction for purchase of computers for the residential offices of only 27 judicial officers of the District Courts, who were in the Selection Grade, as against the "proposal for 262 officers. The 27 judicial officers for whom the sanction was given are in the pay scale of Rs. 18,400-22,400, equivalent to that of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the decision has been taken as the Government of NCT of Delhi was of the view that even in the Central Government, officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above were only eligible for personal computers at their residence. As far as the NCT of Delhi was concerned, similar benefit had been provided only to the Principal Secretary. It was, therefore, urged that there was no justification for the Government spending more than Rs. 2 crores for the purchase of 262 computers for judicial officers.

8. A direction was issued to the respondents to produce the records for considering the decision making process and the factors which weighed with the Government of NCT of Delhi. These are best reflected from the following extracts from the notes of the Superintendent Finance, Additional Secretary (Finance) and the Principal Secretary (Finance), which are reproduced below:

"The issue which is under consideration is regarding the administrative desirability of fixing the limits of pay-scale/grades for the officers who should be entitled to have computers at residence. It may be pointed out that in the Government of India and above and in the Delhi Administration this has been restricted to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Delhi. In this context, pay scales of the judicial officers have been called for."

"....... It is submitted the computer facility has been made available in the Government of India to Joint Secretary and above officers and in Delhi Government the similar benefits have been provided to the Principal Secretary. Taking into consideration of the said fact, the District and Session Judge, Selection grade Additional Session Judge, Secretary (L & J) and some other incumbent enjoying the scale of Rs. 18000-22400 equivalent to the scale of Joint Secretary, GOI will be eligible for personal computers and such numbers is 27 which may be gone through from their list of Judicial Officers at page 112-124C.

"In view of above if approved we may agree to the proposal of the administration for purchase of 27 personal computer in consultation with the Secretary (IT) and subject to following the coal formalities." "The first and most important question to be tackled is that of eligibility. FM is aware that despite our best efforts, we have not yet been able to provide computers at the residence of even senior officers like CS, Principal Secretaries, etc. Under the circumstances there appears no justification for the Government of NCT of Delhi to be spending more than Rs. 2 crores on purchase of more than 260 sets of computers.

As regards availability of funds, it would be appreciated that the so-called availability is only national as the District Judge himself has admitted ('K') of 98/N that he may be seeking funds at the time of revised estimated. The important point to be remembered in this connection is that right now it is the beginning of the year and almost all departments have significant amount of unutilised funds. The need of the hour is to utilise these funds carefully rather than to rush into purchases and then ask for more funds at the stage of revised estimates when funds may not be available.

Finally, the issue of training, I have checked up from Principal Secretary (IT) who informs that nobody has contacted him for organising training for the judicial officers, It is for consideration if these units should be supplied for residential offices even if the officers are not computer-friendly.

After considering the fund position, the direction of the High Court and the desirability of making out judicial officers Computer-Savvy, it is recommended that for the present we consider providing computer at the residence of only those judicial officers who are in the pay scale of Joint Secretary to Government of India and above. This would also be in line with our policy for other officers. Needless to say, the procuring department would have to follow necessary coal formalities, the financial implication being around Rs. 20 lakhs."

9. From a perusal of the foregoing extracts of notes, it would be seen that the primary factor which weighed with the Government of NCT of Delhi is what has been termed as 'eligibility' based on the pay scale and status of the officer'. The respondents' view is that since in the Government of NCT of Delhi and in the Central Government, officers of the rank of Secretary and Joint Secretaries respectively have only been provided with computers at their residences, the Judicial officers with a lesser pay scale are ineligible. As regards the funds, it is not disputed that the funds are available and their exists a budgetary allocation and approval for the same under the head of 'Office Equipment'. However, this availability has been referred to as 'notional availability' on the plea that this was just the beginning of the year when unutilised funds are available. The apprehension being that the District Judge might seek further funds under revised estimates. The Administrative Sub-Judge, who was present in Court, has stated, on instructions from the District Judge, that they would not be seeking additional funds in revised estimates because of utilisation of the funds for purchase of computers.

10. The question, therefore, which we have to consider is whether the decision of the NCT hi declining the purchase of computers for use at the residential offices of the judicial officers, on the ground that their pay scales were lower than that of a Joint Secretary, to Government of India can be sustained in law?

11. The respondents, as noted above, have fixed an eligibility criteria based on the pay scales of a Joint Secretary and then rejected the proposal for all except the 27 out of 262 judicial officers. Who are in the same pay scale. The respondents have not considered the need and functional requirement of computers by judicial officers in discharge of their function and duties, despite these factors having been enumerated in the order of 15.5.2000. The nature of work of the 27 officers for whom the computers are sanctioned is no different from the remaining judicial officers for whom sanction is declined.

12. For a proper appreciation of the matter, it is necessary to consider the nature and functions of a judicial officer and his duties. The Apex Court in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India and Ors., , while considering the question inter alia of retirement age of judicial officers, revision of pay scales, provision of residential accommodation, library and sharing of pooled vehicles considered the nature of duties of judicial officers. The distinction with the work of executive officers, the difference in their respective career growth etc. were notified. Some of the observations relevant for the present case may be usefully reproduced.

41. "We are alive to the fact that our directions involve a burden on the State Exchequer. Perhaps" some justification as to why these expenses should not be grudged must now be indicated. Professor Pannicky in his book entitled "Judges" has observed:

"Judge do not have an easy job.

They repeatedly do what the rest of us seek to avoid; make decisions".

He further added:

"Judges are mere mortals but they are asked to perform a function that is utterly divine".

Professor Harold Laski once wrote to Justice Oliver Holmes that 'he wished that people could be persuaded to realise that judges are human beings; it would be a real help to jurisprudence'.

42. The trial Judge is the kingpin in the hierarchical system of administration of Justice. He directly comes in contact with the litigant during the proceedings in Court. On him lies the responsibility of building up of the case appropriately and on his understanding of the matter the cause of justice is first answered. The personality, knowledge, judicial restraint, capacity to maintain dignity are the additional aspects which go into making the Court's functioning successful."

13. A Judge before whom a case is filed is required to read and comprehend the respective claims as given in the pleadings of the parties. He is to record their evidence in support of their respective claims and contentions. Once the evidence has been recorded, he is to consider the pleadings and evidence, arguments advanced by the parties, sift the evidence and reach his conclusions on the issues before him by applying the provisions of law. For the purpose of writing his judgment, a judge is required to sift evidence, to study and research law, then write his judgments. The entire work originates from and is done by the Judge himself. This work is entirely different from the functions and duties of an officer in the administration, where, generally, the proposal emanates from the lower echelons, with views being expressed by officers at different levels, for approval of the Competent Authority, be it the Joint Secretary or the Secretary. The bureaucratic functioning is in the nature of a pyramid, where the senior officer, on perusal of the facts and recommendations, as put up before him, is to consider and take a decision. The nature and duties of a judicial officer, as would be seen, are entirely different from those in the administration.

14. A Judge in India is an extremely over-burdened judge. The judge-population ratio in India, as per the statistics available, is 10.5 Judges per million of population, as compared to 50.9 Judges in U.K.; 75.2 Judges in Canada and 107 Judges in U.S.A. The Judge in these countries, apart from being greater in number, have available to them all the infrastructure in terms of computers and access to libraries of different Universities in the world, legal assistance of law graduates as court clerks etc.

15. A judicial officer in District Courts, on account of heavy work load and hectic hearing schedule during the day, barely gets any time to write a judgment or do research in law. It is not possible for a judicial officer to study and research law and write detailed judgments between hectic hearings. It is in this background that the question provision of computers for residential offices of judicial officers had to be considered. The use of computer as word processor would obviate the necessity of retyping manually. Corrections being incorporated in the computer and print out being taken would save considerable time and effort. The efficiency of judicial officers on being provided with computers at their residential offices should definitely increase as they can have access to law journals, which are presently available on CD rams as well as to law libraries of reputed universities of the world through internet. With the Information Technology revolution, there is hardly any justification to deny our judicial officers the benefit and advantages which a computer at residential officer can provide.

16. Large pendency of cases and overflowing dockets have reached a stage of deep concern for all. As a part of effective Court management, it is essential that to enable the Judges to put in their best for reducing arrears of cases that they are provided with necessary equipment such as computers infrastructure in terms of qualified Court staff etc. for legal assistance. It is also to be recoginsed that the edifice of administration of justice rests on the shoulders of the district judiciary. The majority of cases do not reach the higher Courts. Computers are, therefore, necessary for increasing their efficiency and output and quality of work.

17. In the light of the foregoing, the rejection of the proposal for provision of computers for the Judicial Officers of District Courts on the ground that they are not eligible on the basis of their pay-scale is completely ignoring the functional requirement and the necessity on account of their duties. The respondents decision is based on a wholly irrelevant the extraneous criteria. The provision of computers at the residential office is not in the nature of a perquisite or facility such as an air-conditioner or LTC travel by a particular class, where the question of pay scale or status may be relevant. Today, it is essential for meeting the challenges of mounting arrears and for efficient administration of justice. It is high time that we get our judicial officers at young stage of their career familiarized with the working and use of computers. It is not a question of turning them "computer savvy" as perceived by the respondents.

18. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the funds are available. The budgetary allocation is there. The District Judge has stated before the Court that they would not be asking or additional funds or submitting any revised estimates because of expenditure on computers. The District Judge has also assured that necessary training would be imparted to the Judges and there is no additional staff to be provided to any of the Judges on computers being provided at the residential offices. The Judges would be operating the computers themselves for writing their judgments. The decision of the respondents in rejecting the proposal for provision of computers for the 262 judicial officers except 27 is vitiated as based on extraneous and irrelevant consideration, and is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus shall issue, directing the respondents to forthwith issue necessary sanction for the purchase of computers for all the 262 judicial officers, as proposed by the District and Sessions Judge and approved by the Chief Justice of the High Court. The District and Sessions Judge shall ensure that proper training is imparted to the judicial officers for use of computers, under a training programme approved by the High Court.

19. The manner in which the respondents have considered and dealt with the proposal for grant of financial sanction for computers leaves much to be desired. In the previous year, inaction and dithering resulted in lapse of the funds in the financial year. The second year witnessed initial decision to permit, being reversed by the NCT on a wholly irrelevant and extraneous consideration, by applying eligibility criteria of the scale and status, as if it was a perquisite being given. This once again, highlights the desirability of financial and administrative autonomy for the judiciary. It is to be noted that the Chief Justice of High Court is a high constitutional functionary and is best equipped to understand and know the needs of the judiciary and the tasks they are required to accomplish. The judiciary, should not be left in a position of seeking financial and administrative sanctions for either the provision of infrastructure, staff and facilities for the Judges from the Executive and the State, which happens to be one of the largest litigants. It is high time that serious consideration is given to the pressing need of financial and administrative autonomy for the judiciary. The autonomy is required for an independent and vibrant judiciary, to strengthen and improve the justice delivery system, for enforcing the Rule of Law.

Records be returned.